Climate Change

In my commentary from September 6, 2016 “Climate Deniers”, I discussed some of the numerous efforts currently underway to silence and punish “Climate Change Deniers” (catastrophic anthropogenic climate change skeptics) and those who fund “Climate Change Denial” (big energy). Interestingly, some of the targets of these efforts have begun to fight back against what they see as efforts to deny them their First Amendment rights under the US Constitution; and, as harassment, intended to impede their research and/or impose substantial legal costs to defend themselves. Others, regrettably, have chosen to abandon the field to the harassers.

The first target to throw down the gauntlet was Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, followed closely by Canadian-born author and comedian Mark Steyn, who were sued for defamation by Pennsylvania State University Professor Michael Mann after commenting that Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was “fraudulent”. Both Ball and Steyn have each since countersued Mann for $10 million. Mann continues to resist discovery in his suit against Steyn, as he did in his suit against Ball and in the suit filed by then Commonwealth of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli. Steyn has been far more aggressive in his response to Mann than either National Review or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, both of which were co-defendants in the Mann suit against Steyn.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been more aggressive in response both to the letter from the “RICO 20” to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren requesting prosecution of “Climate Change Deniers” under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations law; and, to US Virgin Island Attorney General Walker’s subpoena for 10 years of documents related to CEI’s climate change policy. CEI recently succeeded in an FOIA request for internal e-mails among the “RICO 20”, which reveal discussions among the “RICO 20”, several environmental groups which receive federal funding and the “Green 20” group of Democrat state Attorneys General. Walker has since abandoned his subpoena, though he has threatened the possibility of future action. CEI has asked the DC Superior Court to fine US Virgin Islands AG Walker for his attempt to undermine CEI’s First Amendment rights.

CEI also sponsored a full page ad in the New York Times on May 18^th to call attention to the efforts by New York Attorney General Schneiderman, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Walker and the other “AGs United for Clean Power” (“Green 20”) to stifle skeptical research and commentary.

The Republican members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology have sent a letter to the 17 Democrat Attorneys General and 8 environmental activist organizations requesting documents related to their coordinated efforts to deprive corporations and individuals of their First Amendment rights and interfere in their ability to fund and conduct climate research and comment on the climate research of others.

Jagadish Skukla. A professor at George Mason University and President of the government co-funded Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), the principal author of the “RICO 20” letter, is currently being investigated by both George Mason University and the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology for “double dipping”, for working “full time” for both the university and IGES.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is calling for an end to the US Virgin Island probe of ExxonMobil regarding the alleged suppression of internal research regarding climate change.

Professor Wei Hok (Willie) Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has been cleared of conflict of interest charges regarding his research on the influence of the sun on climate. Soon had been supported by a petition signed by 500 scientists, colleagues and friends submitted to the Smithsonian.

Regrettably, the efforts by Representative Raul Grijalva (D, TX) to harass skeptical climate researchers, Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado has decided to redirect his efforts to research in areas other than climate change.

All of these efforts have been far more public than the efforts revealed by the Climategate e-mails to destroy the careers of Patrick Michaels, Chris Landsea and Chris DeFrietas; and, the subsequent effort to remove Delaware State Climatologist David Legates.

“Enquiring minds want to know.”

Why, if “the science is settled”, is it still necessary to fund ongoing climate science research at the same funding levels which prevailed before the science was settled?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are there multiple groups producing global near-surface temperature anomalies, using different subsets of the available data, differing data “adjustment” approaches, differing approaches to missing data and producing differing results?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are there multiple groups producing global sea surface temperature anomaly products, using differing subsets of the available data, differing “adjustment” approaches, differing approaches to missing data and producing differing results?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are there multiple climate models producing differing potential future scenarios using the same input from “settled science”?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are the individual climate models being run with differing climate sensitivity, climate feedback and climate forcing assumptions producing differing potential future scenarios?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are virtually all of the climate models, fed with the full range of differing climate sensitivity, climate feedback and climate forcing assumptions producing scenarios which exceed the “adjusted” temperature anomalies produced by the several producers of near-surface temperature anomaly products?

Why, if “the science is settled” and the warming effects of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases such as CO2 and CH4 appear first in the atmosphere, specifically in the tropical tropospheric “hot spot”, are the satellites measuring tropospheric temperature anomalies unable to find the tropical tropospheric “hot spot”?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are there multiple groups analyzing the satellite temperature data and producing differing results?

Why, if “the science is settled” and satellite sea surface temperature data are comprehensive for the liquid oceans and the satellite sea surface temperature measurements are regularly calibrated against readings from purpose-built floating buoys, are climate scientists still “adjusting” sea surface temperature measurements relative to readings taken by “ships passing in the night”, which are known to be fraught with error?

Why, if “the science is settled”, are the rates of sea level rise reported based on the satellite measurements approximately twice the rates measured by ground-mounted instruments?

Why, if “the science is settled” and global warming is believed to be causing increased rates of sea level rise, is the rate of sea level rise not increasing?

Why, if “the science is settled” and global warming is believed to be causing droughts and crop failures, does the satellite data show that the globe is greening, largely as the result of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Why, if “the science is settled” and global warming is believed to be causing increased extreme weather frequency and intensity, does the observational record not show these effects?

Why, if “the science is settled”, do I find all of these inconsistencies so unsettling?

The near-surface instrumental temperature record began with the Central England Temperature (CET) record in 1659, which roughly coincided with the trough of the Little Ice Age. The application of temperature measuring instruments spread over the following 200 years, leading to the collection of a “global” temperature record. However, even today, this “global” temperature record involves sparse and uneven coverage in much of the southern hemisphere and over the global oceans. The satellite era has offered the opportunity to greatly expand the scope and coverage of climate observation.

Satellites were first used to measure the temperature of the earth’s troposphere beginning in 1979. The satellites are equipped with carefully calibrated platinum resistance temperature devices (RTDs). Their calibration is confirmed regularly by comparing the sensor readings with readings taken from balloon-borne radiosondes. The original Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) have been replaced by more advanced units as newer satellites have been developed and launched. While these satellite-borne instruments do not measure near-surface temperatures, they do measure the atmosphere in which infrared absorption by atmospheric gases and vapors occurs. The atmospheric response to absorption and reflection of incoming and outgoing infrared radiation are the primary influences on the near-surface temperature of the earth.

Satellites were first used to measure sea surface temperatures beginning in the 1980s. Prior to the satellite era, sea surface temperatures were measured by near-shore sensors, ship-borne sensors and floating buoys. While these earlier measurement approaches are still in use, the satellites provide far greater and more consistent coverage. The satellites use both infrared and microwave radiometers to measure sea surface temperatures. The satellites sensor readings are regularly compared to readings taken by selected buoy-borne sensors. More recently, the ARGO buoys have made it possible to measure ocean temperatures at depth, providing additional information unavailable from any of the previous ocean temperature measurement approaches.

Satellites are now also being used to measure sea level rise over the entire surface of the global oceans, beginning in the 1990s. Until the satellite era, sea level measurement was limited to shore-based measuring stations (tide gauges), some of which have been measuring sea level since the late 1800s. The satellite measurements of sea level rise are approximately twice the measurements reported by tide gauges. There is currently no explanation for this discrepancy.

More recently, satellites are being used to measure the greening of the earth. A recent report by NASA states that the earth has been “greening” over the last 35 years, largely as the result of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. The increased CO2 not only increases plant growth, but also increases plant water use efficiency.  This result confirms the results of previous studies of more limited regions.

Finally, satellites are now being used to track the emissions and dispersion of CO2 in the atmosphere. These CO2 visualizations clearly demonstrate that, while CO2 might eventually become a “well mixed trace gas”, it is initially concentrated downwind of its emissions sources, primarily in the northern hemisphere.

The enthusiasm of the climate science community for the far more comprehensive data available from the satellites has been predictably uneven. The climate science community has remained focused on the gap-laden, error-prone, multiply-“adjusted”, UHI-corrupted near surface temperature anomaly records while virtually ignoring the satellite temperature anomaly records, which have recorded more limited anomalies. The climate science community has also focused on the buoy and ship-collected sea surface temperature anomalies, to the virtual exclusion of the satellite SST anomaly records.

On the other hand, the climate science community appears to prefer the satellite sea level rise data, which shows rates of sea level rise approximately double the rates measured by traditional tidal gauges. These satellite sea level rise data are more consistent with the sea level rise concerns put forward by the UNFCCC with support from the climate science community. However, even the satellite sea level rise records do not support the “increasing rate of sea level rise” meme put forward by the IPCC.

The climate science community has yet to provide any strong indication of its acceptance of the satellite-measured greening of the planet. Certainly, all other things being equal, a general “greening” of the planet would be expected as the result of increased atmospheric CO2. However, the climate catastrophe meme would suggest that the CO2 benefits would be offset by drought or flooding.

Similarly, the climate science community has yet to provide any strong indication of its reaction to the CO2 concentration visualizations provided by the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory.

The satellite era has provided multiple tools for collecting comprehensive global data with potential application to the analysis of climate and climate change. It is crucial that this data be collected diligently, analyzed objectively and reported openly, to maximize the advancement of climate science.

Science must inform policy, rather than policy leading science.

On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “

&

The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

Abridged Research Report

Dr. James P. Wallace III

Dr. John R. Christy

Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo

August 2016

The graph below displays the entire history of the satellite temperature record, as analyzed by Drs. John Christy and Roy Spenser at the University of Alabama-Huntsville on behalf of NASA.

The graph clearly shows the very strong El Nino events in 1997-1998 and 2015-2016, as well as the somewhat weaker El Nino event in 2009-2010. The graph suggests that the current El Nino has peaked; and, that temperatures will likely fall over the next several months. There is no reliable way to predict how far temperatures will fall. However, the transition toward La Nina conditions appears to have begun, with NOAA forecasting a moderate to strong La Nina, beginning in the late Spring to early Summer of 2016.

The current El Nino has, at least temporarily, halted the temperature “hiatus” or “pause” experienced over the past ~18 years. Discussion of the global average near-surface temperature increases provided by NCEI, NASA GISS and The Hadley Center have focused almost exclusively on the “warmest year ever” narrative, largely to the exclusion of discussion of the impact of the major El Nino event on those temperatures. However, as can be seen in the above graph, the temperature increases associated with the 1997-1998 and 2009-2010 El Ninos were essentially sharp spikes of relatively short duration, after which temperatures returned to very nearly the levels reported before the onset of the El Ninos. The anomaly increase in response to the current El Nino has followed the same characteristic sharp spike pattern; and, the fall toward the transition appears to be following the same pattern as well.

The graph below displays the El Nino to La Nina transitions as reflected in sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern Pacific. Note that SSTs for both the 1997-1998 and the 2015-2016 El Nino events appear to have peaked in November of the year in which they developed. The 1997-1998 El Nino transitioned to La Nina conditions in June; and, the La Nina reached its negative peak in December of 1998. The current El Nino has, so far, followed a very similar pattern. The pace and extent of the decline in the SST anomaly will determine whether 2016 will replace 2015 as “the warmest year ever”.

One of the principal foundations of science is measurement – the ability to determine what has happened or what is happening. The accuracy required of the measurement is frequently determined by the technical or economic significance of the phenomenon being measured. The precision required of the measurement is frequently determined by the magnitude or volatility of the phenomenon being measured. The reliability of the measuring system becomes a critical factor when the phenomenon being measured cannot be reproduced; or, can be reproduced only at great expense or over a long period of time.

Climate science involves the study of a number of phenomena which are of potentially great technical and economic significance, occur over relatively long periods of time, are of relatively limited magnitude and cannot be reproduced. Therefore, climate science would appear to be a field in which measurement accuracy, precision and reliability are all critical to an accurate understanding of the phenomena being studied. It is difficult not to be skeptical of a field of science in which measurement accuracy, precision and reliability are not taken seriously, despite the potential impacts of the phenomena being studied.

Global governments are spending billions of dollars each year on climate research, yet there is still no global network of accurate and reliable near-surface temperature measuring stations or sea surface temperature measuring stations capable of providing accurate and reliable measurement of the temperature change referred to as global warming. The US government has been operating a network of more than 100 highly accurate and reliable near-surface temperature measuring stations (the US Climate Reference Network) for more than 10 years. However, this network has yet to be replicated globally. The state-of-the-art floats and buoys used for sea surface and sub-surface temperature measurement are very limited in number; and, are not uniformly distributed to assure proper global coverage. Continued reliance on ship engine cooling water inlet temperature measurements and temperatures measured in buckets of sea water lifted to the ships’ decks is hardly consistent with the rigorous pursuit of important science.

The satellite era has brought new measurement technologies for temperature measurement, sea level measurement, land and sea ice measurement and other factors of interest to climate science. These satellite-based measurements offer nearly global coverage. However, the focus of the climate science community remains on the surface and near-surface measurements, despite their documented inaccuracies and non-uniform coverage. The exception is the measurement of sea level change, for which the satellite-based measurements are the primary focus, despite the very large and unexplained differences in the rate of sea level rise measured by the satellite-based systems compared to the ongoing measurements provided by coastal measuring stations, some of which have been providing measurements for more than 100 years.

The conscience of this skeptical engineer cannot condone basing a vast scientific “consensus”, with worldwide implications for the lives and livelihoods of billions of people, on half-vast measurements.

Punishing “Climate Change Deniers” – Legality Be Damned

There is a growing clamor in some circles to do something about “Climate Deniers”. The clamor arguably began more than 10 years ago, as documented here. However, it has reached a “fever pitch” in the United States over the past year. Repeated searches have not uncovered any demands for “stoning”, or “burning at the stake”, or “drawing and quartering”, or “crucifixion”. However, it is still early times.

The focus of those experiencing this “fever” is not actually “climate denial”, or “climate change denial”, or “anthropogenic climate change denial”, or even “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change denial”. Rather, their focus is simple catastrophic anthropogenic climate change skepticism; that is, merely questioning whether climate change, especially the anthropogenic contribution to climate change, is likely to result in a catastrophic change in the climate of the earth.

Pursuing the Evil Sources Funding “Climate Change Deniers”

On November 5^th, 2015, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed 40 years of records regarding climate change from Exxon Mobil. This is a “What did they know?”, “When did they know it?”, “What did they tell the SEC?”, “What did they tell shareholders?” and “What did they tell the public?” fishing expedition. The period of interest extends back to before the mid-70s “global cooling” scare.

On April 4^th, 2016 the Attorney General of the US Virgin Islands subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Instutute in connection with the Exxon Mobil investigation being conducted by the Attorney General of New York State. This subpoena covers only the period from 1997 to 2007.

Cooler(?) Heads Prevail – Potential Legal Approach – RICO

There has been much recent discussion, from a number of sources, regarding potential prosecution of “Climate Change Deniers” under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) law. The most vocal of the advocates of RICO prosecution is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, VT). He has been joined by Senators Diane Feinstein (D, CA) and Edward Markey (D, MA).The most recent occurred during congressional testimony by US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who stated that she had referred the issue to the FBI to determine whether adequate basis existed for action.

The RICO Statute

The RICO statute was passed into law in 1961, primarily as a vehicle to deal with the activities of organized crime syndicates involved in the commission of a variety of actions which were already in violation of existing law. The statute was clearly not intended to apply to individuals and organizations which questioned the validity of scientific studies or the positions taken by government based on those studies; or, to individuals or groups which conducted scientific research which reached conclusions different from the conclusions of previous studies, or questioned the validity of positions taken by government based on previous scientific studies. Stated differently, the RICO statute did not and does not render the practice of science and the pursuit of the scientific method illegal.

When RICO Applies – What Must Be Proven

Applying RICO in cases of scientific disagreement would appear to require that the individuals or organizations funding the scientific studies and/or the individuals or groups conducting the scientific studies, funded or conducted those studies with the intent of producing fraudulent results. It would not be sufficient merely to demonstrate that these studies produced results which differed from the results of studies conducted by other scientists, since falsifiability of results is one of the principal foundations of science.

Applying RICO against companies which failed to alert their stockholders to the potential adverse impacts of the companies’ activities, or the potential adverse impact of government actions based on the government’s assessment of the impacts of the companies’ activities would appear to require that the companies KNEW the nature and extent of the adverse impacts or KNEW the nature and extent of the potential government actions. However, it is clearly not possible to KNOW the future, though it is possible to hypothesize about the future.

Applying RICO against companies or organizations which funded research studies which reached conclusions differing from the conclusions of previous research would appear to require that these studies were funded and performed with the intention to defraud the public regarding the implications of their activities. In this case, it would appear to be necessary to prove fraudulent intent, rather than merely demonstrating that the companies’ or organizations’ interests would be supported or advanced by the results of the studies.

So Who’s on the “Hit List”

Climate Change Deniers Hit List:

• Companies involved in exploration, production and distribution of fossil energy
• Organizations involved in climate change which have received fossil energy industry funding
• Researchers in climate change who have received fossil energy industry funding
• Researchers who have performed studies with results inconsistent with the “consensus”
• Researchers and statisticians who have questioned studies consistent with the “consensus”
• Scientific journals which have published studies with results inconsistent with the “consensus”
• Web bloggers critical of the “consensus”
• Journalists critical of the “consensus”

Why Limit RICO to “Deniers? – Potential “Climate Affirmer” Targets

Interestingly, though not surprisingly, there has been no such discussion regarding individuals and organizations which might be referred to as “Climate Change Affirmers” for purposes of symmetry; or, more accurately, as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change promoters. These include US EPA, NOAA, NASA, NCAR, NCEI and a host of other federal bureaucracies; and, individuals such as James Hansen, Thomas Karl, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Al Gore, etc.

The RICO statute apparently does not conceive of the possibility that the federal government, or an agency of the federal government, could participate in racketeering or be a corrupt organization; or, that an individual or organization conducting scientific research funded by the federal government could be corrupt, or acting under the influence of racketeers. Federal government funding of climate change research is apparently assumed to be “as pure as new fallen snow”, while private funding of similar research is apparently viewed as day old slush.

Former US Vice President Al Gore is a consistent “climate change affirmer”. He has fronted a movie entitled “An Inconvenient Truth” regarding climate change. The movie, which has been used to propagandize school children in the US and other countries, was determined to contain scientific errors by a British High Court. The film has not been revised to correct those errors; and, therefore, showings of the film in British schools must be accompanied by a review of the noted errors.. Gore’s efforts regarding climate change have enriched him significantly, while propagating inaccurate science.

Professor Michael Mann is the creator of the “Hockey Stick” representation of potential future temperature change. While Mann still defends the “Hockey Stick”, it has been broadly criticized regarding the source of some of the data and the statistical techniques used to create the “Hockey stick”. The “Hockey Stick” was prominently featured in the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports, but was reduced in prominence in AR5 report. Mann is currently suing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review and author Mark Steyn regarding Steyn’s description of the “hockey Stick” as a fraud. Mann is currently “slow walking” the legal process, apparently in an effort to delay discovery, increase defendants’ legal costs and force a settlement. Steyn has since countersued Mann for $10 million, just to make it interesting.

Climategate illustrates one potential situation in which government agencies conspired to exclude certain researchers and research studies from inclusion in the reports produced under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While the UN representatives and their staffs appear to be protected by diplomatic immunity, scientists employed by government agencies and scientists working on government-funded research do not appear to have such immunity.

The reports produced by the IPCC were then relied upon by US EPA in developing the CO₂ Endangerment Finding, despite the requirement in the Clean Air Act that EPA fund and conduct its own research. Arguably, this reliance constitutes influence by a corrupt organization.

Government also funds numerous environmental NGOs, many of which then lobby EPA for more restrictive environmental regulations. In some cases, EPA assists the NGOs in their lobbying efforts. In other cases, the NGOs sue EPA to achieve their desired results; and, EPA settles the suits by developing and implementing the desired regulations. Certainly no hint of corruption in these activities.

The Essential Difference between Denying FACTS and Questioning Hypotheses

The primary, potentially catastrophic, manifestations of climate change of concern to those experiencing this “fever” are increasing near-surface temperatures, rising sea levels and an increase in “extreme weather events”. The singular focus regarding causation is on emissions of “greenhouse gases”, primarily carbon dioxide and, to a lesser extent, methane. The primary focus regarding emissions sources is on the fossil fuel industry, with secondary focus on agriculture and animal husbandry.

The factual evidence for global warming is limited to the record of temperature change over time, which consists of early proxy records and the instrumental temperature record. There is also factual evidence of changes in atmospheric chemistry and sea level, which are correlated with temperature change, though no causative relationship has been proven.

The primary focus of the climate science community regarding temperature change is on the near-surface temperature records and the sea surface temperature records, largely to the exclusion of the high altitude balloon/radiosonde and satellite temperature records. This primary focus is quite strange, since the effects of increased infrared absorption resulting from increased concentrations of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere would appear first in the atmosphere, which the balloon/radiosondes and satellites measure directly.

The data provided by the near-surface and sea surface temperature records is tainted by a number of factors, including non-uniformity of distribution, lack of comprehensiveness of coverage, instrument selection, instrument degradation and siting issues. The siting issues with the near-surface temperature evidence include installation of the measuring stations in non-ideal locations and encroachment of urban environments on measuring stations installed in previously ideal or near-ideal locations.

The data provided by the near-surface temperature records has been “adjusted” for the stated purpose of correcting for the issues which taint the data, as listed above. This action constitutes data tampering. The data has been adjusted by multiple producers of global near-surface temperature anomaly records, using differing “adjustment” methods and producing differing results. The same is true of the sea surface temperature records. As the result of these “adjustments”, we are no longer dealing with data, but rather with estimates of what the data might have been, had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained instruments.

Further, NASA GISS “infills” temperature estimates for areas for which data does not exist, making coverage appear more comprehensive. This action constitutes fabrication of “data”.

The questionable quality of the tainted climate change data and the questionable treatment of the data of climate change by the organizations collecting, tampering with, fabricating and analyzing the data would appear to justify skepticism on the part of climate scientists and others frequently referred to as “Climate Change Deniers”. It might also justify investigation of the actions of the organizations and individuals collecting the tainted data, tampering with that data, fabricating missing data; and, using that data to support scenarios of catastrophic climate change which appear to demand national and international action.

The concerns regarding climate catastrophe are based on the scenarios output by the various climate models, which vary by model and by the assumptions input to drive the modeled scenarios. These models have clearly demonstrated that they are not accurately modeling the real environment. Rather, they are used to create numerous hypothetical future outcome scenarios. None of the models have been verified, so their various output scenarios cannot be construed as FACTS, nor can the future(s) they output be considered as KNOWN. Therefore, those who question the modeled scenarios cannot be fairly accused of denying FACTS or KNOWN outcomes, but merely of being skeptical of the hypothetical scenarios output by the models.

Today, rather than being falsified by research studies conducted by skeptical scientists funded by skeptical funding sources, the climate models are being falsified by the passage of time and their failure to model even the “adjusted” temperature data collected by the government-funded climate science community. Meanwhile, the IPCC continues to profess increasing certainty regarding their conclusions, in the face of increasing divergence of even the “adjusted” data and the modeled scenarios. Therefore, despite the feverish efforts to discredit and potentially punish the skeptics and those who fund their research, the skeptics and their funders are merely guilty of pointing out that “the emperor has no clothes”. That is hardly justification for RICO prosecution of the observing skeptics, though it might be grounds for such prosecutions of those who “fabricated” the emperor’s new clothes.

Climate change is the most politically charged scientific issue of our time. The positions of the parties are summarized from their platforms below in the direct quotations below.

Republican Party Platform 2016

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

Democratic Party Platform 2016

Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.

Democrats share a deep commitment to tackling the climate challenge; creating millions of good paying middle class jobs; reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; and meeting the pledge President Obama put forward in the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature increases to “well below” two degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.

Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals. Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science, and support using every tool available to reduce emissions now.

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

Libertarian Party Platform 2016

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

The Republican Party Platform focuses on hard data, Executive restraint and Congressional re-involvement.

The Democratic Party Platform calls for an increasingly aggressive shift from fossil fuels, assisted by a tax on GHG emissions, continued Executive actions to bypass Congress, as well as continuation and expansion of the legal (?) attack on those who do not accept “the scientific reality of climate change”.

The Libertarian Party Platform restates broad Libertarian principles, but avoids specifics with regard to climate.

The differences between the major party platforms are clear. However, it is unclear how significant a role climate will play in the upcoming campaigns. Interestingly, that might well be determined by ISIS, should it clearly assert itself as a challenge greater than climate change in the eyes of the American voting public.

I had seen this article, by John Brignell, years ago, and it was brought to my attention again this morning by someone who had not seen it before. So I thought it is worth sharing with anyone else who has never seen it.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

“We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.”

The term “clean energy” is not defined in the platform, so it is not clear whether natural gas and propane are included, which leaves significant political flexibility and significant energy user uncertainty. If “clean” refers to “carbon pollution”, a term used elsewhere in the platform, then we are left with nuclear, solar, wind, biomass and possibly Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Wave Energy, which would make achieving this goal both more expensive and less likely.

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals.”

The “carbon tax” rears its ugly head again. Note that there is no recognition of any positive externalities of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, such as the greening of the planet documented by NASA. Also, note that a “carbon tax” is a “sin tax”, purportedly intended to drive the “sin” out of existence, though focused more on revenue generation. However, as the “sin” begins to decline, the tax must be increased to sustain revenue production.

“The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska Native villages—all of which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply put, this is environmental racism.”

The Democrats just can’t help themselves. The “race card” must be dealt, early and often. At least they avoided the tried and true “women and children most affected”. However, they did highlight “environmental and climate justice”.

“All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.”

The effort to criminalize dissent would continue. However, no fossil fuel company denies “the scientific reality of climate change”, though they do question the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change and the likelihood of that anthropogenic contribution leading to climate catastrophe. Future climate catastrophe is not now “scientific reality”. The bigger danger to fossil fuel industry shareholders is the financial risk to their investments from precipitous and unnecessary government regulations.

“Democrats oppose efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species.”

However, Democrats continue to advocate for wind energy expansion and incentives, despite the increasingly well documented impacts of wind farms on a number of endangered species of birds and bats. Democrats also continue to advocate for concentrating solar power, despite the documented effects on birds flying through the concentrated beams of solar energy.

Republican Party Platform 2016 – Climate Change

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

The Republican Platform 2016 is far less detailed and specific than the Democrat Platform with regard to climate change, but it offers the prospect of a more rigorous and more transparent process for the development of environmental law and regulation, with more direct congressional involvement. The specific reference to eliminating the cozy “sue and settle” approach taken by US EPA in dealing with environmental regulation signals a potential major step in the right direction. The Clean Air Act, as amended, is “black letter law”, which should not be open to broad reinterpretation by unelected bureaucrats.

The insistence on “dispassionate analysis of hard data” might well temper the wholesale “adjustment” and “re-adjustment” of data, which has been the hallmark of the NOAA / NCDC / NCEI and NASA GISS temperature anomaly products. It might also lead to insistence that  near-surface temperature measuring stations globally be brought up to the standards set for the US Climate Reference Network, since the measurements taken at these stations do not need to be subjected to myriad “adjustments”.

The insistence on “dispassionate analysis of hard data” might also lead to a more dispassionate (skeptical) analysis of the scenarios produce by the multiple climate models, which appear to be diverging from even the “adjusted” data. The models which have been in existence long enough to allow the scenarios they generated two to three decades ago to be compared against “adjusted” temperature anomalies have demonstrated little or no predictive skill.

The reference to the IPCC’s “intolerance towards scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy” might suggest a willingness on the part of a new Administration to fund research without regard to the likelihood that its results would support the UN / UNFCCC / IPCC narrative; or even specifically to fund research intended to aggressively test the validity of the narrative and perhaps falsify aspects of the narrative.

The identification of the IPCC as a political mechanism suggests that US EPA would be required to support new or expanded regulations based on the results of its own research, rather than on the work of the IPCC, as was the case for the CO2 Endangerment Finding.

The apparent willingness to reassert the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties is also encouraging.

Who could blame you if you were confused by all the conflicting claims about climate change?  The problem is almost everything you hear has some truth to it but much of it is exaggerated.  But frankly, both sides have extremists in the debate that are guilty of some fudging if not outright prevarication. As with so many things, the devil is in the details and who has time to ferret out all those details? (I have spent the last 5 years focusing on the impact of climate change on energy markets.)

But Climate Change Alarmism is now one of the main drivers of energy policy.  I call it the Golden Thread.  One’s views on energy policy are nearly completely a function of what you believe about climate change.  If the alarmists are wrong and you pull out this Golden Thread, then nearly all of current energy policy unravels or at least must be radically altered.

While I have opinions on many of the issues below, I have made a studious attempt to refrain from any pontificating and intend to simply follow Joe Friday’s advice in Dragnet “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”  My main goal is to put claims that there is a “consensus” on climate change into some perspective so the debate over energy policy can be better understood. I have tried to present a range of opinions faithfully.

There does indeed seem to be a broad consensus on at least nine points:

• First, since the dawn of time, the earth’s climate has changed, is changing, and will change in the future due to natural variability. The earth has historically been both colder and hotter than it is today. Carbon concentrations in the atmosphere have historically been both higher and lower than it is today.
• Second, the science on the impact of releasing ever increasing carbon emissions is theoretically sound.  All other things being equal, there is a strong scientific consensus that more carbon in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect. 
• Third, man’s use of fossil fuels has increased the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere over the last century and will continue to increase it in the future under the status quo.
• Fourth, increasing the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere has had and will “very likely” have some impact on increasing earth’s average temperature (temp).
• Fifth, even scientists labeled as Skeptics (or more derogatorily “Deniers”) acknowledge that average temp has increased about 1 degree Centigrade between 1880 and the present.
• Sixth, even scientists labeled Warmists (or more derogatorily “Alarmists”) acknowledge that average temp has been fairly stable (The Pause) over the last 18 or so years, i.e., it has not increased as predicted by the models despite dramatic increases in global carbon emissions.
• Seventh, the United States acting alone cannot solve the problem, whatever that turns out to be. 
• Eighth, US action to radically reduce carbon will have a profound effect on our economy.
• Ninth, we don’t know what the “right” or optimal temperature for the earth should be.

So when you see a statement like “97%” of scientists agree on climate change, these facts are the strongest basis for that claim.  In fact, these claims about consensus would be largely correct if they are limited to these nine conclusions.  

So end of article, right?  Actually, this is just the beginning and the easy part.  Unfortunately, some have tortured this “consensus” into confessing more than is actually supported by the science.  

Did you happen to notice that the statement about the rise in temp followed the statements about how carbon emissions created a greenhouse effect, that using fossil fuels had increased carbon emissions, and that there was a recent increase in temp?  You probably reasonably assumed that the temp increase was caused by man’s use of fossil fuels. Therein lies the rub.

Did you notice the phrase “all other things being equal”?  Well guess what? All other things are not equal.  The earth’s climate is an exceedingly complex phenomenon.

Let’s first start with how we measure the temp of the earth.  Think of what that means the temp of the earth.  You probably call to mind how we measure our own temp.  Put a thermometer in our mouth for a minute and read the temp.  It should be obvious there is no single place or device to measure the earth’s temp.  The earth is a pretty big place.  If it is hot in the northern hemisphere it is cold in the southern hemisphere.  So measuring the earth’s temp is tricky business. 

Today, there is a consensus that the most accurate temp readings are from satellite data.  Guess what?  There were no satellites a century ago much less a millennia ago.  In addition to satellites, we use historical data from thermometers on the ground.  Not surprisingly, this yields some questionable results.  Some thermometers are affected by how the land they are located on has changed over time.  The “urban heat island effect” is one such development.  If a thermometer was located 50 years ago around vegetation and now is surrounded by parking lots and buildings, then its ability to compare today’s temp to historical data is tainted.

In some cases, we actually have consistent thermometer readings going back hundreds of years, but not enough to have a high degree of confidence in their ability to accurately measure the temp of the globe.  We thus use other surrogates for estimating the past correlation between carbon concentration and temp.  Popular methods includes tree ring data, ice core data and ocean floor seashell deposits.  To make a long story short, there is actually a vigorous debate about how to accurately measure the past temp of the earth and how it correlates with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While it is fair to say that there is a consensus on increases in the last century, it is also fair to say that nothing approaching 97% of scientists agree on the accuracy of different methods of measuring historic temp before satellite data and how the recent temp compares to historic temps.

Another important fact of climate history is that there are periods where warming occurred in a stable CO2 atmospheric condition and in which CO2 thereafter increased.  Did the warming increase the growth of vegetation which then emits more CO2, thus increasing CO2?

One of the biggest controversies is the attempt to explain warmer temps in the medieval period (900 to 1200 AD) and colder temps that followed (1400 to 1600).  There had been historically strong support that higher and lower temps existed during this medieval period, i.e., grapes grew where they can no longer grow; rivers froze that do not freeze today, ships could pass areas now frozen and couldn’t in areas that are now passable.  But since this was obviously before man started burning fossil fuels, it created a dilemma for the theory that fossil fuels alone were causing higher temps in recent times. 

So several scientists reassessed the temp data of the medieval period and concluded the temps were actually colder during this period, thus adding support to the role of fossil fuels in the current period as the likely cause of the temp increase.  This set off a firestorm of controversy and has largely been discredited.  As part of this controversy over some scientific conclusions, someone hacked a prominent university’s email system and released the emails to the public.  Sadly, even a generous reading of the emails indicated that there was manipulation of data and political considerations in how to interpret, treat, and release important data and conclusions. 

Given the magnitude of some of the actions that would need to be taken if the alarmist theory is right, trust in the scientific community is essential.  This email episode and many of the actions of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change have undermined that trust and conflated science and politics.

So what caused the higher temps in the medieval period?  There is certainly no significant consensus on the temps of the medieval period and thus this period remains a difficult anomaly for those who believe that fossil fuel is a very significant cause of any recent warming.

Second, there is the question of how much man’s burning of fossil fuels has contributed to any temp increase and will contribute to any future increase.  Even the UN IPCC (the main organization that tries to develop scientific consensus) acknowledges that climate change is “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” (emphasis added)

As the UN IPCC recognizes, many natural factors affect the earth’s temp.  Let’s start with the most obvious, the sun.  The sun’s rays are not static over time but ebb and flow. Sunspots can go “silent” for periods of time and be very active in other periods.  The earth has clouds that block the radiative force of the sun.  Another little understood factor is extra-galactic cosmic ray bursts which can significantly affect the earth’s cloud formation.  Then there are the oceans that absorb and release carbon.  Volcanos and aerosols affect temp by blocking the sun. The axis of the earth has an effect, and this axis is constantly changing.  Additionally, there are periodic weather patterns called El Nino and La Nina that can have a profound effect on temperature and rainfall.  Like sunspot activity, the strength and thus impact of these weather patterns are not fully predictable.  

No scientist denies that “natural variation” plays some role in the temp of the earth.  But it is a knotty problem to ferret out how much is attributable to man and how much is due to natural variation.  There is a vigorous debate about how much each of these factors, and many others, contribute to the temp of the earth.  For example, if the sun is responsible for 99% of the earth’s temp and carbon from fossil fuels for 1%, then you can see that there is probably not much advantage to reducing fossil fuel emissions since it will not have much effect.  The fact is that there is a lot we don’t know about how clouds, oceans, aerosols, and many other factors affecting temp. So while there is little debate that man has some impact, there is a vigorous debate about how significant man’s impact is to any potential future warming.

So how much carbon does man emit compared to these other factors. One scientist developed the following table to put man’s contribution into perspective with other natural factors:

Table 4a. Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

While it may look like man’s contribution is miniscule (about a quarter of 1%), some scientists argue that this small amount is the tipping point that will cause the dramatic rise in temp.  Other scientists disagree and believe that man’s contribution is not and will not be a major factor in climate change.  But there is nowhere near a 97% consensus here on how much warming can be attributed to man versus natural variability.

Much of the discussion of “man’s” contribution centers around burning fossil fuels.  Yet there is a vigorous debate about how much carbon is emitted by agribusiness and the consumption of meat.  Cite Cowspiracy

Related to man’s use of fossil fuel is the question of how quickly carbon dissipates once it is emitted. Some scientists believe (and historically the conventional wisdom is) that it dissipates within 5 years.  But more recently, some scientists have come to understand that the answer is much more complex since there is a constant interchange of carbon between the earth (plants and oceans) and the atmosphere.  Some now believe that carbon emissions hang around for a much longer period that previously believed. Again, there is nowhere near a 97% consensus on this issue.

One of my favorite questions is given the variability of the historical record what is the right temp for the earth?  Why do we assume that the current temperature is scientifically proven to be optimal?  We certainly have a scientific basis for knowing that 98.6 degrees is the “normal” temp of the human body.  No such scientific consensus exists on the right temp for the earth.

To sum up, there is indeed a strong consensus on some issues, but there is also strong debate on other issues.

So given that many uncertainties still exist, how do we know what the temp will be a century from now?  We develop models.

Let’s try a thought experiment.  Think of the issue of how much money you will spend in April 2019.  Suppose I gave you and several other financial experts a million dollars to each come up with the best possible calculation.  You would take a spreadsheet and start listing all the categories of expenditure (and likely sources of income since that would operate as a boundary).  You would then try to estimate how much you would spend for each category.  You would try to anticipate all the life events that would happen in just 3 years.  You might get married or divorced.  You might have a child.  An elderly parent might come to live with you.  You might get sick.  You might get fired or get a promotion.  The economy might crash.  Inflation might accelerate.  Taxes might increase.  You might have a car accident and buy a new car.

You do your best to make educated guesses about your life.  After all who knows you better than you?  You then hit the sum button and you get a number.  Is that number a “fact?”  Or is it an educated guess, indeed the best educated guess you could make after lots of effort.  But at the end of you day, you would surely realize that there are a hundred things that could happen to throw off your calculation.  Additionally, how do you think your calculations would compare to the financial experts?  How would the financial experts compare to each other?   You would not be surprised if everyone had a different estimate.  Only time will tell whose educated guesses will come closest to reality.

This is what scientists have done.  They have created incredibly sophisticated models to predict how much the earth’s temp will increase over the next century.  We don’t have just one model.  We have a lot of models.  And the scientists building the models are incredibly credentialed, hardworking, and well-funded.  And different models make hundreds of different assumptions and not surprisingly reach different conclusions.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment on change over time.  Modelers want to make an educated guess about the earth’s climate about 100 years from now.  Take half that time period (50 years) and answer this question.  If you were to predict in 1965 what life would be like in 2015 (50 years), how close to reality do you think you would be?  A century ago the most challenging environmental problem was horse poop in burgeoning urban centers.  Indeed, this calls for some humility.  It seems simply preposterous to anticipate all the technological changes that will happen over a 50-year period much less a century.  You may call it naïve but isn’t it likely that we will find an innovative technological solution to climate change if indeed carbon concentration turns out to be as serious a problem as the Alarmists believe?

Nonetheless, the models seem to generally support a projection that temp will increase with some correlation to our burning of fossil fuels, but with a significant variation as to how much temp will increase and the degree of the increase attributable to burning fossil fuels. To be fair, there are some credentialed critics (MIT, Princeton, and Harvard) that are concerned that there is a bias in the models, reflecting the need for ever increasing funding for the modelers scientific efforts.  The concern is that there is more academic success by winning large grants of funds and that demonstrating a serious problem leads to large funding.  If there is no serious climate change problem, funds will likely dry up for research.  There are also claims that scientists who are skeptical about the seriousness of climate change do not get funded on an equal basis if at all.  But this may be an unfair criticism.  Some of the scientists no doubt care about doing sound scientific research.

So how well have the models done so far?  Well, not a single model predicted that temp would remain relatively stable for almost the last two decades.  It is fair to ask if the models cannot accurately predict the easy stuff (how much will you spend next month versus 3 years from now?), how much confidence should we have in predicting the hard stuff a century from now?  This is especially true given that many of the conditions embedded in the model are the subject of substantial debate and uncertainty.  Indeed, there are some instances where scientists use “plug” numbers to make sure that the models can be reconciled with historic climate patterns.  It is not unusual for modelers even in modeling outside the arena of climate models to use a variety of techniques to accommodate uncertainties.  So track records have to matter in whether our confidence in the results of models should be increased or decreased.  And indeed it seems somewhat surprising that when “adjustments” to the data or models are made they all too often seem to be in the direction of increasing projections of warming.

The climate change literature is now replete with explanations of why the models failed to anticipate the “pause.”  One wag has actually counted 66 different explanations.  There is certainly no 97% consensus here.

In 2015, there was a good example of the difference between engineering models and their ability to accurately predict future reality.  There is an engineering model that is nearly universally used to predict the cost and benefits of making various energy efficiency investments in a given residential home.  For example, if you invest in insulation, more efficient windows, and weather stripping and it cost you $5000, the model will show how quickly that investment will save you enough in lower energy bills to pay back the investment.  The key calculation is projecting the anticipated energy savings.  A study by professors at the University of Chicago and Berkley did a very detailed analysis of the projected energy savings and compared them to the actual energy savings in 30,000 homes that were part of a federal program for funding such investments.  The study found that the model systematically overestimated savings by more than half.  Thus investments that the model predicted would be cost effective were in fact bad investments. 

Another example of the difficulty of making even much more focused computer projections is the famous bets between Ehrlich-Simon and the Simmons-Tierney (put your money where your mouth is).  In both instances, a bet was made between experts who were alarmists about the future of scarcity of natural resources and those who thought they were, well, being alarmists.  The bets consisted of predicting natural resource prices over relatively short periods (10 and 5 years respectively).  In both instances the alarmists were, indeed, alarmists, wrong in their predictions, losers in the bet (both paid off).  Yet, alarmists are much more likely to get media coverage than those who claim that the alarmists claims are overblown.

The point of discussing the personal finance thought experiment, the nearly two decade pause, the energy efficiency study, and the natural resource bets is to raise a cautionary concern about relying on computer models for making projections far into the future.  Computer models are no doubt helpful to our understanding of what may happen in the future but the results of these models are NOT FACTS.  They are best-guess estimates that are subject to a variety of flaws and biases.      

OK so there is a high degree of consensus on some issues and a lot of debate among scientists on other issues.  Where does that leave us?

Let’s assume that we magically develop a high degree of confidence that the earth’s temp will increase in the future by something like 5 degrees Fahrenheit and that man’s use of fossil fuels is a very significant reason for the increase. (Alert: There certainly is no such consensus today but for the sake of argument let’s assume there is.)

The question then is what will happen.  Surprisingly, there is no clear consensus on what the earth looks like in 2100 if temp increases by 5 degrees.  Botanists pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses to help plants and flowers grow better.  Carbon dioxide is essential to life.  We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.  Plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.  The earth has been hotter and colder than our predicted conclusion of a 5 degree increase and it has had higher and lower concentrations of carbon dioxide.  So will a temp increase be beneficial or catastrophic for humankind? 

On the plus side is the fact that the global area producing food crops will substantially increase.  With higher CO2 concentrations, crop production in tropical and temperate areas can be expected to increase.  Fishing catches in the oceans of the world may increase.  Based on the current models of temperature increases, Arctic and Antarctic ice and glaciers may not melt enough to inundate coastal urban areas or islands.  There will be fewer deaths from frigid temperatures, which by far outnumber deaths from high temperatures. 

But some scientists predict the end of the world as we know it.  Storms will increase.  Floods will cover Manhattan. People will suffer from pestilence and starvation. Al Gore won an Oscar for shocking us in “An Inconvenient Truth.”  The UN’s IPCC has won a Nobel Peace prize for raising concerns about the potential devastating impacts of climate change. There are clearly a lot of loud voices from both scientists and non-scientists claiming that the results will be catastrophic and that radical efforts must be undertaken to avert this outcome.

Some scientists believe just the opposite.  “The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.”  Even some of those scientists that recognize that there will be some negative impacts from climate change believe the harms are exaggerated and that radical solutions are premature. Some Skeptics believe that changing the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” was a deliberate attempt to claim that any weather anomaly could be attributable to man’s burning of fossil fuels.

Some Warmists seem to argue that any harm caused by weather is attributable to carbon. Indeed, many even argue that many harms that are not directly attributable to weather are caused by climate change.  One blogger has even compiled a web page of hundreds of horrific things that have been claimed as a result of climate change.  (My favorite is an increase in major league baseball home runs.) 

Additionally, there is the problem of how one would disprove climate change by looking at weather anomalies.  If everything proves climate change, nothing can disprove climate change.  It seems that every weather event is blamed on climate change.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

If the scientific method is the ability to test the truth or falsity of a hypothesis, what evidence would you want to see that proved that carbon emissions had at best a de minimus effect on temp or weather conditions? If drought or rain, storms or lack of storms, snow or no snow, cold or hot, temp increase or no such increase, all prove the existence of climate change, then what would disprove it? Suppose that we would still have storms in 2100 but they would be only 2% more severe?  Not even the most ardent Warmist claims there will never again be weather events even if we completely weaned ourselves off carbon.

Additionally, it harms the credibility of those genuinely concerned with the scientific analysis of climate change that many of the most ardent advocates of radical carbon reduction are also harsh critics of capitalism. Is it at least possible that some are overstating the problem to further a more nefarious/hidden agenda?  Similarly, some of the most ardent Warmists have made predictions before that have turned out to be abysmally incorrect:

In 1971, John Holdren edited and contributed an essay to a book entitled Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man. He wrote …the book’s sixth chapter, called “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide.”  … In their chapter, Holdren and Ehrlich speculate about various environmental catastrophes, and on pages 76 and 77 Holdren the climate scientist speaks about the probable likelihood of a “new ice age” caused by human activity (air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhaust, desertification, etc).

John Holdren is now not only the “Science Czar” for the United States, but he’s also one of the original leaders of the “alarmist” wing of the Global Warming debate and he now promotes the notion that the current climate data points to a looming planetary overheating catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions (he helped make the charts and graphs for Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, for example).

As of July 2016, “Dr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).”  Dr. Holdren was one of the alarmist participants in the Ehrlich-Simon bet.  Apparently, being consistently wrong in making alarming projections does not harm one’s career.

Ok, but let’s assume that we become convinced that more bad things than good things will result from a significant increase in temp over the next century.  Then the big question is what is the right policy to address that situation?  Now the question is one of policy, not science. Broadly, there are three strategies: radically reduce carbon emissions, develop new technologies that will mitigate carbon concentration in the atmosphere, or adapt to a new reality, and there are lots of combinations in between.

What should we do?  What actions should we take?

Let me draw on an analogy from the past.  In 1949, polio was an epidemic in the US.  The consensus treatment for some polio victims was called an iron lung, which is a bulky contraption that helped polio victims breathe. (Illustration on the left.)  Scientists projected a lot more cases of polio.  The consensus policy solution might have been that we should order millions of iron lung machines for all the potential victims that would develop polio.  But then Drs. Salk and Sabin in the next several years developed a vaccine for polio.  Today, polio is nearly extinct around the globe, with less than 300 cases reported globally in 2012.  All in about 60 years...  So, what are we going to do with all those iron lungs we ordered?

Another example of how quickly things can change.  The Wright Brothers first flew about 200 feet in 1903.  Air power dominated World War II in the 1940s.  And we put a man on the moon in 1969.  All in 66 years!  Keeping in mind the pace of change in computer technology and communication, how wise is it to make policy now on uncertain predictions of what will happen a century from now?

Still, some people believe that climate change is the single most important issue facing the world and must be addressed by dramatically reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and transitioning to renewables and more efficient use of energy as soon as possible, irrespective of costs or quality of life.   

Such Warmists have not been successful in convincing the Congress of their position.  Even when President Obama had a filibuster proof Democratic Senate and a majority Democratic House, they did not agree on legislation on climate change.  Needless to say, legislation that will satisfy Warmists is not likely to pass a Republican House and Senate. 

Even the American people seem skeptical.  Poll after poll ranks climate change or global warming near the bottom of the priorities that should be addressed.  Even a United Nations poll of seven million people worldwide ranked “action taken on climate change” dead last in a list of proposed priorities.

Warmists have been more successful in Departments of the Executive Branch, some States, and courts, including the Supreme Court.  Most Warmists’ preferred solution to the “problem” of climate change is radical reduction of carbon emissions.  They have been successful in convincing President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency to issue two rules that would have a dramatic effect on reducing the use of coal for electric generation.  To say these rules are controversial is an understatement.  You will see these rules referred to as the Clean Power Plan.  (The Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the Clean Power Plan pending a full review.)

Skeptics obviously oppose the Warmists’ agenda.  There are lots of criticisms made but they boil down to the belief that there is not enough evidence to support policies that would have a profoundly negative impact on our economy and quality of life for very little real impact on future temperatures.  Additionally, some are concerned that the developing countries will never achieve a higher standard of living without using fossil fuels for electricity and growth.

The Copenhagen Consensus Center has run a very interesting experiment several times over the last decade.  Every couple of years, they bring together experts, some with Nobel Prizes to their credit, who are asked to allocate $75 billion to the projects that would result in the greatest benefit to mankind (most benefits for least costs).  As the Center states:

The Expert Panel was presented with nearly 40 investment proposals designed by experts to reduce the challenges of Armed Conflict, Biodiversity Destruction, Chronic Disease, Climate Change, Education Shortages, Hunger and Malnutrition, Infectious Disease, Natural Disasters, Population Growth, and Water and Sanitation Shortages. They found that fighting malnourishment should be the top priority for policy-makers and philanthropists.

Given the budget constraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):

1. Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
2. Expanding the Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment
3. Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage
4. Deworming of Schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
5. Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment
6. R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change
7. Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems to protect populations against natural disaster
8. Strengthening Surgical Capacity
9. Hepatitis B Immunization
10. Using Low Cost Drugs in the case of Acute Heart Attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries)
11. Salt Reduction Campaign to reduce chronic disease
12. Geo Engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management
13. Conditional Cash Transfers for School Attendance
14. Accelerated HIV Vaccine R&D
15. Extended Field Trial of Information Campaigns on the Benefits From Schooling
16. Borehole and Public Hand Pump Intervention

(emphasis added).

It turns out that the panel of experts believed the costs of trying to reduce fossil fuel use does not result in enough benefits to merit immediate attention.  (One estimate is that there is only 10 cents of benefit for each dollar spent reducing a ton of carbon.  But others have found much higher benefit to cost ratios.)  Like the polio example, if we continue to study the problem and improve our understanding of climate, fossil fuel use, mitigation, and adaptation, it is likely that we will find a solution that is far more cost effective in the future and aimed at the real magnitude of the problem.  As noted in the quote at the beginning of the Commentary, even one of the founders of Greenpeace is skeptical that radical reductions in carbon emissions will be beneficial to the earth and the economy. The concept of Geoengineering (bolded in the list above) posits that we will discover a mechanism for neutralizing carbon in the atmosphere if indeed it turns out to be as serious a problem as some believe, a “vaccine” if you will.

The solution advocated most aggressively by Warmists is to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from using fossil fuels for our energy needs.  They advocate replacing fossil fuels with renewables and more efficient use of energy (light bulbs, more miles per gallon, better windows etc.) and some (but not many) advocate greater use of nuclear energy.  Many energy experts believe this strategy is not only costly (the US average for electricity is about 11 cents per kWh and Germany’s is 33 cents), but dangerous.  Renewable energy is simply not as reliable as fossil energy.  The challenge is something called intermittency.  Sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.  Regrettably, there is not yet a cost effective means for storing electricity for this intermittency problem.  Additionally, major changes to the electric grid would be necessary to accommodate renewable energy on the scale that would be required to substitute it for fossil fuels.  There is no doubt room for debate about what the right mix of renewable and fossil energy should be but the main point is that there is nothing close to a consensus on this point.

Regarding the impacts of radical carbon emission reduction, some economists make the point that a prosperous economy is the best defense against the potential challenge of climate change.  It is simply a fact that richer countries are more environmentally sensitive than poorer countries.  Given that there will always be natural disasters even if carbon is reduced, some advocate that scarce resources are better spent more broadly on contingency planning and adaptation.  Venice and Amsterdam built canals to adapt to water levels in order to improve the quality of life in those cities.  Warmists often point out that recent hurricanes have caused much more property damage than previous storms.  But this is true because more people now live and build near water than in the past.  Adaptation would ensure that buildings would be constructed to withstand the inevitable tests of natural disasters.

Lastly, we have the problem of efficacy.  If nothing I do solves the problem, then I am wasting my time and money by focusing on my response to that problem.  Flushing money down the toilet as the saying goes.  Even assuming all the worst case uncertainties, the United States would not even make a dent in the problem by zeroing out its carbon emissions.  To be efficacious, the entire world would have to cooperate by reducing carbon emissions.  To be sure, the US could “lead the way.”  But at what cost?  Surely China and Russia would be giddy to strike such a blow to the US economy, while China builds a coal plant a week to fuel competition with the US.   

Finally, let’s deal with another aspect of the issue of climate change: public discourse. There are issues on which scientists have reached a “consensus.”  But as you can see above there are many important issues on which they disagree. 

At one time there was a consensus that the earth was the center of the universe.  If your best response is that I don’t need to look and discuss new evidence because there is a consensus on the current view, then I think that undermines the essence of not only the scientific method, but critical thinking capacity.  Many consensuses have turned out to be mistaken.  (We no longer have a consensus on whether eggs and the FDA’s Food Pyramid are healthy!)  And the nub of it is that there is NOT a consensus on many of the critically important issues on climate change.  In 1949, there was a consensus that polio was caused by a virus and that it was likely to infect millions in the future.  But that consensus did not and should not dictate what the public policy response should be.

As described above, a lot of issues remain uncertain relating to climate change.  One would think that so consequential a matter should result in a vigorous, civil discussion of how to reconcile climate change actions with other priorities in society.  For example, is it a better use of funds to lower our standard of living to try and ameliorate climate change or better educate the next generation of scientists that will find a “vaccine” for carbon, if it turns out that the carbon problem is serious?  I don’t know the answer to all these questions but I certainly think we need to discuss them in a serious and civil manner.

Rather than debate the issues on which there is disagreement, some Warmists shout down debate by stating that the “argument is over,” “the science is in,” and there is a “consensus of 97% of scientists.”   Unfortunately, one side stands ready willing and able to debate the climate change issue in all its dimensions.  But many on the other side have adopted a most unscientific position, indeed an antediluvian and Luddite position, of refusing to discuss the issue, indeed trying to shut down debate.  “The debate is over.”  “All responsible scientists agree so there is nothing left to debate.”  Indeed, climate Skeptics have been begging for an open debate for years now.  But the Warmists seem to have adopted a strategy of refusing to debate. 

The “public debate” issue has recently taken an even more odious turn.  On March 13, 2015, Al Gore publically called for skeptics to be “punished.”  There has been a growing drumbeat that anyone who disagrees with the Warmists’ position should suffer dire consequences for such heresy (a very small minority have even called for the death penalty, but one would hope this is merely hyperbolic rhetoric).  Recently, there has been a particularly nasty and vindictive campaign against Dr. Willie Soon, a Harvard University solar physicist, for a study which he co-authored.  Lastly, in 2016, the US Department of Justice indicated that it was looking at the issue of whether climate change denial violated the law, as were various state attorneys general. 

Why is that?  

So there it is.  I don’t have all the answers.  I hope that this provides a reasonable explanation for why the climate debate is so contentious and confusing.  The areas of a lack of consensus do not necessarily suggest that climate change is not an important issue that merits ongoing attention and additional scientific research.  One hopes that we can return to a day and time when we can openly debate the scientific basis for projections of what climate will likely be a century from now and fashion public policies appropriate to the scientific facts.

One of the greatest climate change concerns expressed by low lying coastal and island nations is the threat which would result from rising sea levels, caused by a combination of thermal expansion and the melting of glacial and land ice. Sea level, like near-surface temperatures, has been generally increasing over the ~200 year instrumental record, as would be expected during the warming after a major ice age as well as the recovery from the Little Ice Age just prior to the beginning of the instrumental record.

The surfaces of the global oceans are never truly at rest, but rather constantly in motion, which makes the accurate measurement of sea level challenging. The equipment used to measure sea levels has changed progressively over the period of the instrumental record, as has the extent of the ocean surfaces measured. Until 1993, the beginning of the satellite measurement era, almost all sea level measurements were taken at coastal stations, usually by instruments which were actually in contact with the ocean surface. NOAA currently uses satellites to measure sea level at 10 day intervals, with a claimed uncertainty of 3-4 millimeters, or more than twice the reported long term trend in annual sea level rise and approximately equal to the reported annual rate of sea level rise since 1993.

The satellite measurements are made from satellites in orbits 1336 kilometers above the oceans’ surfaces. The measurements are used to report annual changes in sea level to a precision of 0.1 millimeters, or one part in 13.36 billion. Arguably, since the measurements are based on the time for microwave signals to travel from the satellite to the ocean surface and return, 0.1 millimeter precision might actually represent one part in 26.72 billion, since the microwaves travel 26.72 billion millimeters from the satellite to the ocean surface and back to the satellite.

There is no single, generally accepted explanation for the apparent doubling of the annual rate of sea level rise beginning in 1993, essentially the beginning of the satellite measurement era, nor is this apparent doubling reflected in the measurements in geologically stable coastal areas. One has to wonder whether the explanation is as simple as the failure to recognize that a 1 millimeter rise in sea level results in a 2 millimeter reduction in the round trip distance between the ocean surface and the satellite.

Bill Gates has propounded what he asserts is the math formula which will solve climate change.

P _* S _* E _* C = CO2

Where: P is the population of the globe;

                                    S is the services demanded by the population;

                                    E is the energy required to provide those services; and,

                                    C is the carbon released in producing that energy.

Gates point is that global population and the population’s demand for services is growing faster than can be offset by increases in energy efficiency and transitions to lower carbon fuels. He is certainly correct in that assessment.

His message is that, if global annual CO2 emissions are to be reduced by 80% by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century, reliance on increased energy efficiency and a transition to lower carbon fuels will not be sufficient to achieve the desired result. Rather, there is the need for a massive increase in R&D funding in search of breakthrough technologies which could achieve the desired result. One such breakthrough would be a source which is always available. Advanced, modular nuclear generators could be one example. Another breakthrough might be low cost, high capacity, high charge rate and discharge rate energy storage systems. Such storage systems, combined with lower cost, higher efficiency solar and wind systems could broaden the potential of intermittent energy generators to provide reliable grid power.

Unstated in the Gates message is the realization that it is far more beneficial to invest limited capital in R&D on technologies which could be effective, rather than spending that capital attempting to commercialize technologies which are incapable of being effective. This is clearly not the approach currently being pursued by the globe’s governments.

Obviously, Gates position is based on the premises that: climate change is caused by human activities; climate change is undesirable; climate change can be eliminated; and, it is urgent that climate change be eliminated. Given these premises, Gates position makes eminent good sense; far more sense than the programs being pursued and proposed by the globe’s governments.

However, the first premise ignores the historical fact that the climate of the globe has been changing over the entire period of the earth’s history we have been able to study. The second premise ignores the benefits currently resulting from the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as documented by the greening of the planet observed by satellites and the expansion of global growing seasons and of tillable land to higher latitudes. The third premise relies on the belief that halting the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would halt the recently observed warming, though that belief relies on models which have not been validated. Finally, the fourth premise relies on the sensitivities and feedbacks input to the climate models, which are unmeasured and currently unmeasurable.

Gates asserts that what he perceives as vast problems will require solutions based on vast ideas. Governments today are attempting to solve what they assert to be vast problems with half-vast ideas.

2015 – The Warmest Year in the Near-surface Instrumental Temperature Record

The US National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI), the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA GISS) and the UK Hadley Center / University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT) have proclaimed 2015 to be the warmest year in the instrumental record of global near-surface temperatures. They reported that 2015 was 0.16 +/- 0.09°C (NCEI), 0.13 +/- 0.10°C (NASA GISS) and 0.18 +/- 0.10°C (HadCRUT) warmer than 2014.

Obviously, the increase in global average near-surface temperature from 2014 to 2015 could not be precisely 0.16°C and precisely 0.13°C and precisely 0.18°C, though it might fall within the range of those calculated figures (0.13 – 0.18°C). However, based on the confidence limits expressed by the producers of each of these global temperature anomaly products, the estimated global near-surface temperature difference between 2014 and 2015 would more likely fall within the range of 0.03°C (0.13°C – 0.10°C) – 0.28°C (0.18°C + 0.10°C), or 5 times the range of the calculated figures (0.05°C vs. 0.25°C).

Assuming that the confidence limits on the temperature increases reported by the producers of these near-surface temperature anomaly products for 2014 were the same as the confidence limits reported for 2015, it is statistically possible that 2014 was actually warmer than 2015. However, the linked paper suggests that the global near-surface temperature anomaly calculations are based on temperature readings with an estimated +/- 0.2°C station error, which has been incorrectly assessed as random error; and, that there is also systematic error from uncontrolled variables. The author calculates a representative lower limit of uncertainty in the calculated temperature anomalies of +/- 0.46°C; and, based on this lower limit of uncertainty, the global near-surface anomaly trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The Law of Large Numbers, relied upon by the global near-surface temperature anomaly producers to report global anomalies to greater precision than the underlying “adjusted” temperatures, requires that the errors in the underlying temperatures be random. Assessments of the errors introduced by the temperature measuring instruments, their enclosures, their siting and changes in the characteristics of their surroundings suggest strongly that the measurement errors are not random; and, that the “adjustments” made to the temperature readings are not random and do not make the errors in the resulting “adjusted” readings random either.