Liberals Can Be Skeptics, Too

Climate Change Has Been Disappeared

This is starting to look a bit bizarre. As I mentioned (twice) earlier, I go through a slew of liberal weblogs every day--Atrios, DeLong, Kleiman, Yglesias, Tapped, Crooked Timber and Kevin Drum). They always have some kind of post on global climate change. But for the last week, there's nothing. It seems to have disappeared from the liberal agenda.

I'm actually pleased, because my fellow liberals don't normally make sense on the issue. But it's weird. Just to check, I'm following other well-known webloggers right now, Republicans and Democrats--and they don't have anything either. Megan McCardle, nothing for over a week. Andrew Sullivan--nothing. Ross Douthat--nothing. Marc Ambinder--nothing. Ta Nehisi Coates--thought he had one, but it was about eating greens, not Greens... nothing. James Fallows--two posts about pollution in Beijing, but nothing about the climate implications. Just dirty air. Jeffrey Goldberg--nothing. Ezra Klein--nothing.

Okay, let's check some more. Ann Althouse--nothing. Daily Kos--nothing. No, that's it. I'm calling it. Global climate change has dropped off the face of the earth.

Predictions vs. observations

The celebrated weblog Watts Up With That (winner of this year's Science Blog award--I think it came in second place last year, too) today published a simple chart, which I show below. It compares computer model predictions with several sets of observations of the Earth's temperatures. The figures all use 1979 as a base date and show how the computer models predict more warming than we actually see, with divergence beginning in about 1999.

 

This does not mean that all computer models are wrong. It does not mean that global warming does not exist. It definitely does not mean that humans are not putting out greenhouse gases.

But it definitely means we need to get more and better data and think about what we're doing. And above all else, it means that we do have time to get this more and better data. If the sky is falling, it isn't starting today. We have time to do the science right.

Update: As brought to my attention in the comments, Watts Up With That actually got the chart from an equally interesting skeptical site, Lucia's The Blackboard. (Thanks Barry W.)

Take a load off Annie...

Since the 1840s, the industrialised world has increased energy efficiency at an astonishingly regular rate--between 1% and 2% per year, depending on how it's measured. This means that energy efficiency doubles every 70 years.

We've 'squandered' those savings in the past by increasing the work we ask motors and turbines to do. As the donkey grows up we ask it to haul a bigger load. Heavier cars, air conditioning, bigger refrigerators, etc.

Now, if we want to use energy efficiency to reduce fuel consumption, the answer is simple. We limit increases on the load. CAFE standards do it implicitly, by mandating miles per gallon. But for motors that don't move, it might be a lot easier to achieve by limiting the size of the load. A lighter car uses less fuel. (So do lighter passengers, in case you've missed your morning workout...). But smaller refrigerators use less energy. The principle is clear, and as old as your grandmother's admonishment not to boil more water than you need for your morning tea.

I do not want the world to give up on creature comforts and the luxuries that have become necessities in the modern world. I don't think it's necessary. The machinery we use in 2079 will be twice as efficient as it is today. Let's just build into the system that we use improvements to reduce fuel consumption.

The best thing is, as with weatherising your house or office, this makes perfect sense regardless of who is right about greenhouse gases and global warming. We can leave it out of the conversation.

Day 5 of our Climate Held Hostage

It's now been 5 days since I've seen any kind of a post on climate change and related topics on the liberal blogs I normally frequent. It's not as if there's a lot of other news going on--they're blogging about Mexican lobbies (Yglesias), the ongoing financial fever (DeLong), research review boards (Kleiman) and other stuff that seems like it's sat in the closet waiting for a slow news day.

Kevin Drum finally posted a shout out to President Obama for mentioning cap and trade, but it's small beer compared to the hysteria of last month.

Did we win and just not notice it? How come my fellow Democrats have abandoned global warming rhetoric for a week? Believe me, it's not as if they've let a week go by in recent history without a fair share of alarmism.

What's going on here?

The Fools In Town Are On Our Side

By 'our side' I mean the Democrats.

Before we get to this morning's news, a bit of background. Air travel is estimated to produce between 2.5% and 5% of human greenhouse gas emissions. Air travel is also an area where much improvement can be expected in the natural course of events, as airlines immediately save money when efficiency improves. Airlines should be natural allies of those wanting to conserve, and should serve as a well of support for intelligently designed programs. From today's Mail Online:

"Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party, suggested that travellers who regularly jet off to the Costas are threatening the lives of others - and do as much damage as thugs who stab people in the street.

Ms Lucas, who is also a Member of the European Parliament, made the controversial comment during a televised ITV debate about plans for a proposed third runway at Heathrow. She also hit out ‘binge flying’ and people who have second homes abroad.

When asked if flying to Spain was as bad as knifing a person in the street, Ms Lucas said: ‘Yes - because they are dying from climate change.’

This is my inaugural post in the category, The Fools In Town Are On Our Side, where I will put posts from liberals and Greens that make me cringe with their stupidity.

I've seen Caroline Lucas on the BBC interview show Question Time. She is not unintelligent--she's fierce, committed--and absolutely wrong on this. And she's going to get creamed. European Parliament members travel a lot, and I will bet her airmiles will come back to embarrass her.

Was it Easter or did the Skeptics suddenly win?

My day normally starts with a grand tour of liberal blogs (I balance them with a few conservatives, like Tim Worstall). I hit Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Atrios, Crooked Timber, Tapped, Matt Yglesias and Mark Kleiman. That normally gets me through my cup of coffee and out of my fog.

For months now, I could not get through the Tour without seeing two or three posts about climate change that just set my teeth on edge. These guys (why are they all guys?) write intelligently and compellingly on a series of subjects (Hey, I'm a Democrat for a reason, right?), but when it comes to climate change it seems like they all take a stupid pill.

But for the past 4 days, there's been nothing. And I'm wondering why? Did John Holdren's semi-insane announcement about re-polluting the atmosphere to stop global warming put everyone off? Was James Hansen's protest in England too ridiculous to put up with? Was there some other big news item that distracted them? It doesn't seem so. Why is all quiet on the Western Front?

Or maybe they just discovered that Earth has been warmer than it is today for 3 million out of the past 6 million years?

Alternative to alternative energy

(If like me you're a geezer, you'll be seeing the fine hand and inspiration of a certain Jerry Pournelle in all of this--what hat tip could be big enough?)

Five years from now we will be spending prodigious sums of money on alternative ways of generating power. Today, most people think that means building more windmills and installing more solar panels--and that may end up being the case. 

But if that is all it means, it will also mean we have missed the bus. If we don't look seriously at systems that produce serious amounts of energy, then this will have been an exercise in ego-stroking and vanity, the equivalent of using a butterfly fan to cool ourselves as we reach for a cocktail on a summer afternoon. Neither windmills nor solar panels will get us to where we need to be. We are apparently too stubborn to license expansion of nuclear power. So what's left on the table?

There are two robust systems that don't get talked about enough: One is OTEC (which when I heard about it was OTS, but times change). OTEC stands for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, and it exploits the temperature differential between the surface of the ocean and the much colder water x number of feet below. (The bigger x is, the greater the differential and the more power is delivered). You could put thousands of them unobtrusively all over the world. 

They've been in existence since, oh, 1930, and there was a pilot plant near Hawaii that produced 50,000 watts during a trial. 

Someone will have to explain to me why we are not jumping all over this. It also provides free air conditioning, fish love it and it produces desalinated water. Join the org and see what's up.

The second source is solar power satellites that collect energy and beam it to Earth as microwaves at about 85% efficiency. Now it has an acronym, too SBSP or SSP, for Space Solar Power. Japan's looking at it, the Pentagon says they want to use it, and (finally) a company has been formed to provide it commercially. Again, this has been talked about since 1968, and although numerous engineering problems would need to be solved, nothing new would have to be invented to make this work. Where is the government contract for energy that would kick-start this thing?

If we are going to be serious about alternative energy, let's focus on schemes that will provide an adequate bang for our buck and do not require the invention of new ways of converting and storing energy. Just sayin'.

Obama's Energy Plan

Much of the Obama administration's rhetoric about their energy plan has been focused on climate change and cutting back U.S. emissions of CO2. And indeed, one element of their overall strategy, having CO2 declared a pollutant, is something I think ridiculous.

However, as far as the rest of Obama's energy plan goes, if each element of it were presented to us by a Republican administration arguing for energy independence, it's quite likely that the supporters and opposers would cheerfully change their stance. If a President McCain were to appear before Congress and argue in favour of cap and trade, with the aim of reducing American independence on foreign oil, Republicans would find a way to support him and Democrats to oppose. Whoops! McCain did argue in favour of cap and trade. Hmmm.

Similarly, as far as investing in research and development into energy, well the Republicans supported that for years. It was directed at oil and natural gas (and by and large it worked--we are more efficient at extraction than before and we have access to oil that we were previously unable to reach because of this research), but the principle is the same. Redirecting it to alternative energy sources should not be that big a deal.

Weatherising houses to reduce the waste of energy is really non-partisan and non-controversial. Ron Paul could win votes with that.

I support Obama's energy campaign. I think the numbers are right and the direction is good. I even support cap and trade, as it is more likely than a carbon tax to encourage innovation in finding ways to reduce emissions.

But why be so vocal about tying it to climate change? Why not angle for some Republican support? Nancy Pelosi and friends actually got Senator Inhofe, a devout skeptic on climate change, to join with the Democrats on reducing congressional energy expenditure. Nancy did it by not saying one blessed word about climate change.

Skeptic or Denier? Taking back the language

There's a phrase I'm looking for. It describes what happens when your enemies use a denigratory term about you, one that they choose, is not true, insulting and used only to hurt. When done for racial purposes, it is now a crime. When done to superimpose gender values, it is also illegal. 

When it is done for political purposes, it generates 411,000 hits on Google. As a Democrat, I get annoyed when Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. But I understand that's why the Republicans do it--to annoy me.

But just to be clear about this. I am not a denier. I accept that greenhouse gases warm the climate. I don't deny that. I am a skeptic. I am skeptical that human contributions to greenhouse gases will result in an environmental catastrophe. So, why is the name I am called important?

Because 20 years ago some idiots began denying that the Holocaust ever occurred. They knew it wasn't true when they said it and they were a pretty evil group. These bad folk were labelled Holocaust Deniers. Global warming alarmists are trying to associate me with these people when they call me a climate change denialist. 

I'm a big boy. I've been called worse. I spent four years in the Navy and my ears don't burn and my cheeks don't blush. But what's truly evil about these people transferring all of the associations from Holocaust Denial to those who don't agree with them about climate change is the fact that they are trivialising the deaths of six million people by doing so. That is evil, as evil as those who first began denying the Holocaust.

Quick points on global warming

In order to follow the global warming debate, we get to learn about new things. Tree rings, and why they are thick or thin. History, such as the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. This has become important, as the global warming alarmists want us to believe that it has never been hotter than now. So they constructed a chart based on the thickness of tree rings to show just that. (Never mind that the creator of the tree ring dataset said 'Don't use this as a proxy for temperatures.') During the analysis of the data, two very well documented historical periods--the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, were sort of written out of the record books. When this was pointed out to the alarmists, a lot of tap dancing began.

First, they said the MWP never happened. Then they said it was a strictly local phenomenon. I don't know what they're saying now. For a good read on this, check out CO2 Science.

We also learn about people. James Hansen is a scientist who believes that global warming is potentially (well, in his opinion almost certainly) catastrophic. He travels the world (by, er, jet) telling anyone who will listen that CO2 is causing the melting of Arctic ice, the breaking of Antarctic ice shelves, and a lot more. 

He has been so jazzed up about global warming that he wrote in a scientific paper in 2003 that, “Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue.” (James Hansen, Nature, 2003). Which reminds me of what another global warming alarmist, Stephen Schneider, once said in this regard. "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." (Discover magazine, October 1989).

Back to James Hansen. He testified in 1988 before Congress that global warming is a huge threat to us all. He brought along some charts that showed what he predicted would happen to temperatures. A weblog named Climate Skeptic overlaid his most pessimistic prediction with what has actually happened to temperatures. I'll leave you for now with this chart. These examples are what started me thinking skeptically.