The Sloppy Science of Global Warming

This has been my thoughts exactly for the last couple of years. True science poses a theory, and tries to find a way to show that it is wrong. This ‘new’ science is just the opposite. It is only looking at results that support the theory, even when the results are obviously flawed.
I like the point on causation. Most people can not understand how difficult it is to differentiate cause and effect. Most people will not question the cause and effect suggested by the media outlet reporting it.

It would be so nice if the AGWer’s would at the very least consider some of the point raised by Dr. Spencer. But we already know what the response will be over at Real Climate – his science is all wrong, the science is settled, he’s a denialist, blah, blah, blah…

Who gets credit for the brilliant choice of illustration to go with the post?
REPLY: Thats me, its the only thing that came up with an image search…not sure if you are being facetious or not.

Anthony,
I can think of very few guest posters that would have been better than Dr. Roy Spencer. I have spoken with him and he is a man of great integrity. It disturbs me greatly when I see him derided on other blogs. I have even seen posts asking what reputable association or group would even recognize him. It is a great shame when the science has been degraded to the point that skeptical investigation is denied any value at all. I agree with Dr. Spencer’s view of the science. It is to bad that it has been so politized.
Great post, very informative.
Bill Derryberry
Vigo, Alabama

Fantastic article! The final paragraph sums up what I have thought for some time.

About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming.
Actually, Dr. Spencer, there is one other thing, and, from everything I’ve read, it’s on the verge of exploding — a technological revolution in energy production that will significantly lower mankind’s carbon footprint. I’ve recently read of two new competing methods of hydrogen generation that show great promise within the next year or two. Craig Venter is also part of a venture that is perhaps 18 months away from a breakthrough in a new generation of biofuels that uses surplus CO2 (how cool is that?) as a feedstock. It’s entirely possible that within 2 or 3 decades it will be impossible to blame man if CO2 continues to increase.

Great article!…..but it sounds a little downhearted. I’m sure that sooner or later, as the actual climate data begins to overwhelm the “modelled” predictions of AGW, the media will, in time-honoured fashion, turn on its new found friend. At this stage the “warmists” will no longer be able to hoodwink the general public and the issue will die a natural death.
What will take longer to fix, however, is the damage done to the credibility of the scientific community. Perhaps in the end the AGW debacle will serve to reform the peer review process and herald a return to theose halcyon days when hypotheses were viewed with healthy scepticism until thoroughly and verifiably tested.
We live in hope!

Froggie — “The first, a report about 3000 ocean temp sensors recording a slight cooling trend in the worlds oceans, which is contrary to AGW, got almost no, if any airtime.”
Believe it or not dept… this is already being “debunked.” I’ve read claims elsewhere that there were sensor problems and once these were corrected, the oceans warmed up on cue.
Figures.
I wonder who’s debunking this for us.

It sort of annoyed me when I heard that Vikings had discovered America, who would have guessed that a few Nordic adventurers, leaving behind some trinkets in the 1300’s, would come to be a powerful argument debunking the strongest socialist world government power grab to date.
First a map drawn on parchment showing a complete circumnavagable icefree island of Greenland circa 1400. This map is so damaging to the notion that today’s weather is exceptional that the climate change coalition refuses to acknowledge it’s authenticity to this day.
I’m shuffling through back copies of National Geographic and stumble on Eskimo and Viking Finds in the High Arctic by Peter Schledermann in the May 1981 issue.
From the article, Dr. Peter Schledermann, during an archeologic dig of an ancient Inuit village, finds chainmail, cloth, and metal bits from a Viking ship, on Ellesmere Island – locked in year round icepack today. The Viking artifacts are carbon dated to the 14th century.
Just on a hunch, I googled the doctor’s name. Found this article from the New York Times. (Check the third page)
So not only is the map most likely genuine, it is an undisputed fact that Viking sailors plied ice free waters around the entire Island of Greenland in the 14th century.
Tadocha.

I’m an interested, but untrained, observer in the AGW debate, so if these questions seem out-of-date, or silly, please forgive me; but let me know!
1) If human activity is the major cause of GW, why did the polar caps on Mars start to shrink in the mid 1970’s (the same time ours started)?
2) The greenhouse gas models don’t seem to fit history. The ice core data shows that over a very long period of time, changes in atmospheric CO2 levels lag average surface temperatures by 800 to 1400 years. Why should we believe that CO2 levels cause GW?

Ric Werme (20:23:22) says
“Argo also recorded a 0.5″ rise in ocean levels, that should not be ignored.”
The sea level meaurements are a different source and reported in the IPCC. However, there are a number of different scientific opinions on sea level measurements – some estimate the sea level rise to be no more than a 1/4″ over the same period.
In other words, there is no reason to believe the argos are wrong and the sea level measurements are right. Given what has been happening with global temperatures I would say the argos are most likely right and the IPCC sea level measurements are wrong.

Further to my note on Mother Nature taking a hand I found the last graph of annual global temperatures at HADCRUT ( not a skeptic site) and find it incomprehensible that alarm bells are not ringing everywhere .
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
If this was a business profit graph you’d be sending for the consultant. If the stockmarket had a graph like this it would cause huge amounts of concern around the world. Do you think for one minute an exchange announcement that their computer models show there is nothing to worry about would stop the panic.
However for people worried about AGW it is good news indeed.
WE should now be thinking about planning a world celebration for averted disaster . It is a little early for the champagne yet however but it should be on ice.
Now I am not a climatologist but a retired electronics engineer but simple temperature graphs are easy to read and this is the type of empirical evidence that is hard for anyone to refute.

I have a book on my shelves which I bought 25 years ago. In it a learned man from the UK met office declared that man may be heating the planet through the discharge of CO², I did not believe then and I don’t believe now. 2 physics degres and multiple engineering qualifications later.
Any system that is at all very sensitive, and all systems are naturallly sensitive / unstable, will demonstrate high volatillity without some negative / damping feedback. This planet has remained within + or – 5 – 10 °C (probably) for about 3000,000,000 years. The ice ages appeared with the change in configuration of the land masses when Antactica arrived at the south pole and the north pole was blocked in by the continents. There absolutely has to be some major feedback mechanism(s) which has maintained our climate within these confortable bounds.
We are a miniscule gnat on the backside of a massive beast which we will NEVER control but will surely bites us back every so often.

OzDoc,
Perhaps because the media has been reporting it that way
Even the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers that gets reported on in the media focuses almost exclusively on human induced and ignores most natural causes.
I seem to recall an editor for a major science journal (I can’t remember the name, perhaps Anthony knows) saying that all skeptical research of human caused global warming would not be published.
We see time after time these so-called skeptical scientists running into resistance when trying to publish. A recent article about a NASA scientist that quit when he tried to publish his research that showed that the basic greehouse equations were wrong (A huge discovery, if correct). He had to publish his research in his own countries science publication.
It’s easy to understand Dr Spencer’s frustration.

These are strange times. I’m a sceptic who takes Arrhenius’ original view that increased Co2 and a warmer climate is beneficial to humanity and the planet as a whole, but now find myself counting sunspots and checking ENSO websites in the hope that a signifcant cooling trend will appear that might then derail the AGW train, whilst I have no doubt that the AGW community, who claim to want a colder world, instead of celebrating the recent decline in global temperatures, are desperately hoping in fact that the warming trend will reappear.
As I shiver through a bitterly cold Easter here in the UK, I dread the thought of another LIA, but unfortunately can’t see any other way that the AGW juggernaut can ever be brought to a halt.

randomengineer: I don’t think it was debunked. Didn’t the correction just reduce the cooling? I don’t believe it eliminated it. See link. That correction was made to data that ended in 2005. I believe the report the sonic frog is referring to is more recent.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=eta16q&s=3

Bob — (randomengineer: I don’t think it was debunked. Didn’t the correction just reduce the cooling? )
What I was referring to was a tidbit at CA where there was a flurry of *recent* activity to “debunk” the cooling contention. Note the scare quoting please. 🙂

Thought this might be of interest – it’s an article about the flatline temperature of the oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025&sc=nl&cc=es-20080323

randomengineer and sonicfrog,
Bob Tisdale is right. First, the NPR story was old and outdated (sept 06), they printed a retraction after it was revealed that a portion of the ARGO instruments were giving some faulty readings. However after removing the ARGO data from the study and relying on the older existing XBT instruments (which are faulty themselves), the authors of the study produced an update in which they state that “most” of the cooling indications were a result of the faulty equipment, indicating there was still some cooling, just not as much as was in the original report. Regardless, it does not show the oceans are warming, as the alarmists would have us believe. Over at http://www.climate-skeptic.com there is a bit of an exchange between some of the commenters on this.

The NPR story I read is from March 19th 2008
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Retraction? Was it a real retraction or an “Oh my god, I’ll never get another grant in my life if I say the ocean is cooling” retraction?
If you check out the “Directors Corner” section on the ARGO website, http://argo.ucsd.edu/, you might guess there are no open minds allowed.

Oop. The newer ARGI website has a www in front:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

Raven,
Having read what I wrote, maybe I was a little too hard on him.
Randomengineer,
Again, we only need a few cold years, and the phonies will be bolting for the exits. Science goes in cycles, reason to madness, madness to reason. We’ve seen it with eugenics, lobotomy etc. It’ll be the same here with GW.

I think that those who are saying that the Argo findings are “debunked” are confusing a well-publicized correction that occurred a couple of years ago, when there appeared to be a significant cooling in the ocean heat content from 2003 – 2005. Roger Pielke Sr. highlighted the original data, before it was revealed that a error was found that removed all of the cooling, but still showed no warming in that period.
This is new (2008) data, that incorporates the correction, and is based on what is now 5 years of buoy data (from 2003 to 2008). That is why it is coming out now. And it is showing a slight cooling over that 5 year period.

We shall see.

Aaron, Thanks! That clarification really helped.
OzDoc: I think Dr. Spencer is more right than wrong on the willingness of climate scientists to entertain countervailing views. See page 665 of IPCC’s FAR.
This is a philosophical thread, so I am adding a philosophical observation. It can be a stimulating discussion of how the scaremongering of AGW ends. History gives us a variety of options. One possibility is the Nifong phenomenon where blame is heaped on one person or a few people. Another scenario is the Y2K experience where people soon forget and no one is held accountable. A third parth is the Ruby Ridge precedent where the authorities quietly say “I guess we were wrong, and here is $3.3 million to soothe your pain.” Nevertheless, I believe a fourth option is more likely, and for that I draw upon the field of Economics. Unlike another profession we all know about, economists are quite humble and apologetic about their models. Yet, there is one issue on which economists have genuine consensus: minimum wage is bad policy — it has unintended consequences in lowering employment among the poor, enriching wealthy suburban families, and perpetuating poverty by giving incentives to drop out of school. (Most economists would agree with the goal of minimum wage and point to better ways to do it.) Nevertheless, yet despite these observations, the political realities mean that we continue with minimum wage increases. With academia, the media-entertainment industry, and bureaucracies soliding into AGW, I believe we will live with the fourth option in this information-driven society.

When I first read about the Argo sea temperature results I thought, “Well what’s new? All the other global indicators show a slight cooling over the last five years, so what do NASA expect?” I expected that that alarmist response would be the usual one that “Five years is much too short a time to see a trend.”
However on reflection I realise that I was competely missing the point and this story really does seem to be extremely important. In fact it could be the most important piece of research yet against the AGW theory.
The point of a survey of the sea temperature that has 3,000 robots measuring the temperature as far down 3,000 feet below the surface, is to examine the amount of heat stored in the sea. We know that the majority of the surface of the earth is covered by sea, and because the specific heat of sea water is greater than that of land it is clear that the sea is far and away the only big potential store of incoming heat.
If the average global temperatures of air above land is not rising as expected despite increased factors caused by human activities, then a plausible explanation could be that the extra heat is being stored in the sea – perhaps currents or circulation have somehow pushed it well below the surface, so that while we might have a temporary break from warmer temperatures on land the heat will eventually be released and we shall be warmer than ever in years to come. These findings make that explanation impossible.
If the Argo results are correct then the AGW crowd really do have explaining to do. Their theory tells us that all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere should be warming the planet. The surface weather in the last ten years has not shown any global warming – and if the heat is not being stored in the sea then where has it gone?

Dr. Spencer, your basic argument is that there is more “slop” in the predictions than “consensus” climate scientists are inclined to admit. Okay fine. And in the role of “devil’s advocate” you argue only one side of that slop. That’s fine too — assuming you only wish to fulfill the role of devil’s advocate. But if you wish to fulfill the role of “impartial scientist”, and make the argument you present, shouldn’t you acknowledge the existence of the other side of the slop? If you don’t do that, it seems to me fair to suggest you are being either disingenuous or subject to your own biases. Alternatively, if you do, then at the very least you have to address the possibility that what could happen might actually be worse than predicted by the mainstream “consensus”.
You claim that “there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth.” Depending upon your definition of “solid”, perhaps so. But whatever that definition is, I think it is fair to say that by the same standard (whatever it is) there is also no solid published evidence concluding that natural causes are, either. You talk about “decadal time scales”, and ask us to rely on the possibility that the climate really isn’t as sensitive as most others suggest. Well… what if you’re wrong?
That’s the dilemma most lay people have when trying to make sense of the scientific data. I’m sure the same is true of our elected leaders as well. Either way, superimposed on the climate science are other considerations that intersect with it. We have economic concerns, and national security concerns, both of which require a far-sighted approach of a time horizon which only government policy can provide, and whose solutions dovetail to a large degree. In that respect, unless we suffer a global recession, and/or unless we develop alternative sources post haste, we are very likely facing an increased demand for fossil fuels that almost everyone of any import suggests will outstrip supply. But it’s even more than that: whether the causes for the development are perceived to be real or imagined, the fact is that a gigantic demand has developed for “clean” energy technologies. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. And to the first ones across that finish line will go the spoils. It thus appears to me that the weight of “proof” falls far more heavily in your lap and those of like mind who wish to perpetuate the status quo than it does those who advocate rapid change.

EXACTLY!!

With 70% of the world covered by water, and 97% of this is salt water to me this means there is one hell of a lot of pluses and minuses to consider before you could say that the oceans are heating up, or, cooling down.
With all the weather sensors we have on land and the thousands of people reading weather instruments each day we can,on land not tell what is happening 24 hour away. Now we don’t even know what is happening in the ‘Central African Republic’ hot, cold, rain, drought? ( because the only thermometer was lost up the Presidents backside) but we can tell what the temperatures are doing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean 4 miles down. I would be willing to bet big money that whoever did the calculation on ocean temp. has not even heard of ‘hydrothermal vents’ and the effects they have on keeping our planet temp. in line.
Giving a temp. reading on the worlds oceans is in par of calculating the amount of oxygen particles in a hurricane.

‘Remember y2k anyone?”
I’m still finding it dificult to believe that, even IF there was a real problem there, not ONE single line of coding out of- what, tens of trillions?- was missed, Anywhere.
I did however enjoy it when the very first nation to be reached by the time change, turned out All the lights for couple-a-three seconds, before they started the fireworks.

Pablo: If Joe Bastardi is correct and we have flipped to a predominantly La Nina pattern, if solar activity remains low and the earth continues to cool then it’s game set and match to us realists and the end of the game for the alarmists.
If Joe is wrong, then what? And even if he’s partially right, what about supply vs. demand? What about who we’re getting the supply from? What about the cost of that supply relative to the supply of other sources? If contemplated in a different way, how much of those “other sources” could be supplied domestically and how much not, according to one or another economic model? I have to say that unless one embraces the most optimistic scientific scenario (which is to say, GHGs don’t matter) while rejecting all others, AND unless one embraces the most pessimistic economic scenario (which is to say innovation cannot have any effect) while rejecting all others, AND unless one embraces the most optimistic national security scenario (which is to say the current turmoil in the Middle East, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and elsewhere will all subside really quickly) while rejecting all others, things don’t look good. To repeat… unless you embrace ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS, not just one or two, then what?? Well, in short, it isn’t game, set, match. And if you think it is, you aren’t much of a realist.

However on reflection I realise that I was competely missing the point and this story really does seem to be extremely important. In fact it could be the most important piece of research yet against the AGW theory.
I totally agree.
These findings make that explanation impossible.
It’s actually more than that, in my opinion.
Per Warren Meyer, one can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get an upper bound for climate sensitivity to CO2 simply by looking at the total increases in temperature and CO2 over the last 100 years or so. The resulting upper bound (which assumes that all temperature increase is due to CO2) is quite low.
Alarmists get around this problem by hypothesizing a “thermal inertia,” i.e. that a lot of the extra heat is deposited in the oceans to come back and haunt us 30 or 40 years down the road. If the oceans are not warming, it suggests — at a minimum — that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2. Which means there won’t be a catastrophe.

‘Remember y2k anyone?`
Yeah, that was the last time anything I submitted was posted. Just kidding.
I’m new here. And maybe it’s just me. But there does seem to be a very long lag between what is submitted and what is posted. Wattsupwiththat?

The problem is that those who believe in AGW are so anxious for their belief to be shown to be true that they are willing to distort the historical climate records and the results of their studies/models.
Those of us on the other side of the debate are just as anxious for our side to be proven true. The debate has become an US versus THEM tribal conflict with lots of emotion thrown in.
It seems to be basic human nature in that the US versus THEM instinct and the desire to be proven right is just so innate in our reactions and in this debate that it has overwhelmed whatever facts are actually available and whatever facts are actually proven to be true.
But science and the scientific method was designed to stop our basic human nature from overwhelming the FACTS. The double blind placebo controlled studies with “do not harm above all” in the health sciences has been spectacular successful because it recognizes basic human nature can sometimes lead us down the wrong path. This principle has taken the health sciences from the bleeding of the 16th century to the truly effective health system and truly effective health treatments of today.
Roy Spencer’s article is really a double blind placebo controlled “do not harm above all” statement in regards to climate science. Too bad the AGW crowd cannot hear the message. Too bad the scientific method is not the first principle used in climate science (since basic human nature has overwhelmed it.)
Time for a placebo.

Do you want to bring down the CO2 induce global warming house of cards?
Check out http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com
Stockholders lawsuit against corporations buying and/or selling cabon credits. Is there an Enron or another Bears Stearns waiting to happen?
Lawsuits against government trying to regulate CO2 emissions based on bad data. Check out http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308

Another one may well be cyclic climate change. If we are headed into decades of cooling, millions may starve and freeze. Even a 5% die-off of the human race is 350 million people, and the silly elites pushing carbon capping are deluded to think they can dodge the effects of such a holocaust. If carbon, which could slightly warm, and voluminously feed people, is unnecessarily encumbered, there will be hell to pay.
Already carbon capping schemes are straining relations between developed and undeveloped nations. Why shouldn’t diplomats be the most sensitive to the oncoming understanding that the globe is cooling, and that the role of CO2 in climate has been tragically exaggerated. There are already casualties of this mass delusion, but I am hopeful that the worst effects of unnecessary demonization of carbon will be avoided.
It is ironic to be hoping for a cooler world and a more fragile niche for humans, merely to avoid the insanity of carbon capping. Why couldn’t we figure this out without the need for the world to get cold to convince us. It is dismaying, indeed. What scientists we have turned out to be.
===================

RE: Kim ‘s comment. It is truly sad. Right at the point where the future was on the verge of opening up, in a way that would have accelerated quality of life, as we always do, us fallible humans lost our nerve, and started to worship trees and rocks like primitive societies. We imagined a fragile Earth. We will be stuck on the rock for a very long time, based on the fact that advancement is slowing. Woe unto us, if we are still stuck here, as the interglacial ends. Or worse …

Rico, you seem to be following the questionable McCain logic – “it is good to pursue the AGW (alarmist) agenda because even if they are wrong we benefit from being less dependent of foreign oil.” I really wish that more people could understand what is at stake here. Many AGW critics focus on the monetary cost of the AGW agenda; but issues go beyond GDP. Dependency on foreign oil increases because we will import oil rather than using our coal. Environmental progress is threatened – see the how the HFC 23 scandal in Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism undermines the Montreal Protocol. Also, carbon leakage is part of Kyoto activities and will be part of post-Kyoto agreements. In addition, we have already seen industry “blackmailing” European governments on carbon credits. If it was difficult for the UN to administer the Food for Peace program, wait until you see what happens in world-wide cap and trade programs!

I like the placebo idea. Just build a giant Tesla/Lenzen/Iris tower, to “bleed off” the extra nonexistent heat. (Tesla junk ideas always appeal to liberal cranks – that’s why I affixed his name to it)
Then tell the global warmers we fixed it.
Unwashed libbie says, “Hey man. It’s too hot here, in Brazos County.”
“Oh our bad Brazos. We had the freostat set to neutral dispersion. We’ll tune it to the zeta band frequency, and that should do the trick”, answers Climate Control in Wyoming.
“Brrrr – hey that worked.” says libbie.
It’s not as if they cared about science anyway.

AGW? Natural event? The science of today (probably in times past, off and on) has become an industry. Not a science (pursuit of knowledge). As any industry requires there must be a measurable quantity of “productivity”. This productivity is manipulated – administrated worldwide by politicians. All through monetary handouts – creating academic kingdoms.
Regardless to the outcome of this climate debate, allowing “kingdoms” to flourish within a sanctuary of “pursuit of knowledge” is dark and sinister to any concept of liberty.
Tempering academic kingdoms is thru free-thinking magnets of people and places as Watts Up With That. This does not fix a really large boil.

Dear Rico,
I must admit that I had to read your reply to my post twice to get the point of what you were saying as measured against the context of what I had written.
My comments were merely about the “science” of AGW being put into the Round File should certain things come to pass. Nothing more and nothing less.
Given the downside of a cold climate it shows the paucity of the choices we have to get people to see reason, and to therefore save ourselves from the alarmist agenda, if we are hoping that it gets colder and stays that way for a while. And yet that’s exactly what I am hoping will happen. Be careful what you wish for eh ?
Instead of wasting resources on “solving” mythical problem we’d be better employed drilling for oil and building nuclear and coal fired power plants. We should also immediately suspend the use of food crops being turned into fuel and build up the emegency food stocks.
However we can’t do that, yet.

Its funny how many comments in here contain something similar to “one day the AGW’s are going to wake up and find themselves buried or find that thy were wrong and oohhhh they will be sorry”
I hate to rain on some of your parades but if supporters of global warming, me included, wake up to find that they were wrong some day it will most likely have been long after serious changers were made on the industry side that helped turn us from pollution mongers into, well something far more responsible.
You see the fight for AGW doesn’t just concern the climate. That may well be the main focus but there is a long line of positive effects that will come out of this push for a more responsible and less polluting world. So if you honestly think that people such as myself are going to be sorry if global warming ended up being incorrect then all I can say is some of you may be knowledgeable on science and weather related topics but you know nothing about people. The fight for global warming has already produced very positive effects environmentally all over the world and that will only continue as time goes on.
By the way the fact that many of you are running around acting like recent events have proven global warming to be some kind of farce is nothing short of comical. Ill just end this with one of my favorite quotes.
“Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”

pablo, Bruce, An Inquirer, et al, cut my friend Rico (and yes, he is a friend) a little slack. Having discussed this issue with him via email for nearly 2 years, I know from whence he comes, although I do not share his concern about “what if we skeptics are wrong?” I wouldn’t put him in the Alarmist camp; agnostic would be a better description. The point I believe he was trying to make, and not very well, unfortunately, is that this whole controversy represents a huge financial opportunity, not just for individuals, but for mankind. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, we are on the brink of an explosive alternative energy revolution, which, thanks to an agenda-driven media, is not very well reported.
I read an article recently at MarketWatch that the next bubble in our seemingly bubble-driven economy will be the alternative energy bubble. And I’m not talking about grain-based ethanol and windmills; I’m talking about new, clean, efficient methods of hydrogen generation, thin-film solar panels, enhanced geothermal systems, next generation biofuels and much, much more. Currently fossil fuels represent a necessary bridge to a very bright future, and I’m not suggesting that next week or next month, or next year we’re going to cease to be an oil and coal driven global economy, but the future of clean, abundant, economical energy is coming at us at breakneck speed. There is a huge amount of money to be made, particularly as it spreads to developing countries. Were it not for this stupid argument we’re engaged in, it would be happening even sooner, and, personally, I’d like to see the United States lead the way.
As I read recently in an article about peak oil (a long way off, BTW), like the Stone Age did not end due to the lack of stones, the Petroleum era will not end due to the lack of oil. But anyone who wants to stay on that train until the bitter end does so at their own peril and will, IMHO, end up being the poorer for it.

Sorry Evan but that is the cost when the people of this planet reproduce in irresponsible numbers. Forgive me if my real concern is in the long term for both our species and all of the other species we share this planet with. Just because we are utterly irresponsible in regards to population growth does not suddenly give us the right to rape the planet just so those people may lead better lives. I dont want to see any humans suffering any more than anyone else does but I also understand that raping the planet is only going to ensure much more suffering in future generations.
What I care most about is for mankind to become far more responsible in regards to how we treat this planet and the other life forms we share it with and if the best way to get there if from a energy revolution stemming from the Global Warming debate then I think that is a great thing no matter how right or how wrong it may be. You see your simply confusing the end game alot of supporters have. AGW may be wrong but the worst thing that comes to pass out of being wrong is improved technology and a just far more responsible way of running industry. If AGW is correct and we did nothing about it, well that would have been a far far far uglier outcome.
If you ask me if Global Warming is real then I would say that I think its real but there is definitely a good possibility it isn’t. If you ask me whether or not I think the world will become a better place because of the changes this debate has created then I would say without a single doubt Yes and significantly so. IMO until you have irrefutable proof that AGW is not happening then you continue to proceed as if it is happening. Its the only responsible thing to do and that is speaking in regards to future generations, other organisms we share the planet with and the state of the planet in general. I have seen no such proof, not even close.

Dear Ocrush
The population problem that the planet faces is 180 degrees about from the direction you see. Due to demographics the population will peak in around 2050 and then begin a slow decline. With good management there is enough food and resource for everyone.
And suppose that the above is incorrect and we were to follow your model of limiting population ? Who would police it ? Under what authority ? With what means ?
It’s a can of worms that the Communist Chinese opened already without getting the result they wanted and with a destabilizing effect on their society. And if a totalitarian state couldn’t get it done what kind of a world would it have to be done in to make it an effective policy ?
Like I said a lot earlier, I view the grab for power of the AGW brigade to be the scariest thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Raven (14:29:50): How do you define “adapt”? It’s not a trivial question. And it is fundamentally an economic one. You indicate, “A wealthier society in the future will be better able to adapt to changes than a poorer one.” That suggests we should do what we can to ensure that America remains a wealthy society. It sounds like a good idea to me anyway, regardless of climate eventualities. So… what’s your plan?
See, it seems to me that we are staring a gigantic economic opportunity in the face. Bruce Cobb (15:40:21) says, “The AGW hypothesis is so riddled with holes now that it’s a joke, scientifically. As far as your “status quo” and “rapid change” goes, that’s just politicospeak, and means about as much from you as it does from any politician.” As far as the “riddled with holes” part, that’s Bruce Cobb’s opinion. What I’m saying is that from an economic perspective, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of whether you accept the mainstream scientific view, as things stand now, most politicians throughout much of the world are buying into it. And regardless of what you think about politicians, they are the ones that set policy. There’s no way around it. Thus, by tying the policy to the science you are effectively ceding the upper hand to the “AGW-ers”. And that strikes me as not only counter-productive, but plain stupid.
An Inquirer (21:27:15) opines, “Rico, you seem to be following the questionable McCain logic – “it is good to pursue the AGW (alarmist) agenda because even if they are wrong we benefit from being less dependent of foreign oil.” Maybe so. But face facts: if McCain’s logic is questionable, who’s logic is less questionable? I ask you Inquirer… if not McCain, then who? Obama? Clinton? One of those three will be the next president. On that score you have to face reality. Here’s more reality for you: the GOP has to (so far) defend 30 open seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. What does that tell you? Likewise, look around the rest of the world… where are the policy prerogatives? Do you want to follow Russia? If so, why? Even in China and India there are now big (multi-billion dollar) pushes to develop alternative energy sources. You can’t ignore all that.
I mean come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The time is now — either seize the opportunity or be left behind. Were you following the recent WSJ-hosted Eco:nomics conference? It wasn’t a gathering of flower-smelling, tree-hugging, dirty stinkin’ hippies. It was attended by most of the heavy-weights in the US energy industry, along with several policy big-wigs. And it became clear from it (if it wasn’t before) that a considerable portion of the US energy industry is pleading politicians for better policies to allow them to more efficiently pursue “clean” energy technology. Why? Because they smell money. Buckets of it. I smell it too. I am not a tree-hugger. I am a realist — a fiscal conservative. I am also an investor — small time, to be sure — and I don’t have any big dogs in the fight. But I do sense where the wind is blowing. And it’s picking up speed. It’s gotten to the point that even the fiscal conservatives are turning on the ideological conservatives. From my perspective, from the moment it was issued the Manhattan Declaration (I assume you know what I”m talking about) was dead in the water.
So on to bigger issues — you know, the ones that count: economic issues. Raven (17:20:30) suggests, “You are mixing up issues again. The US environment CO2 regulations are likely to increase dependence on foreign oil because the supplies in tar sands and oil supplies north america are too ‘dirty’. If energy security is the issue then coal and nuclear is the way to go.” Are you absolutely sure about that, Raven? That is to say, have you really looked into those things? While I absolutely agree that decisions on any technology should be dependent on an analysis of the entire life cycle of that technology, I also believe it’s important to consider how any technology fits in with an even broader economic trajectory in the short term, medium term and long term perspectives, and the relative opportunities they provide in those contexts. After all, we’re talking really huge issues here, and many trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Having said that, and also by way of prefacing what I’m also about to say… I don’t pretend to know all the answers. I am not formally schooled in climate science (science yes, climate science no). Neither am I an economist by training. I am at best an interested observer — but a very interested and I think reasonably knowledgeable one. You might describe me as a high-level geek, lol! Anyway, here goes…
Tar sand extraction requires considerable investments in natural gas (which makes the economics of alternative use of that resource an issue) and water resources (which makes groundwater contamination an issue in some places). It also requires a considerable amount of surface mining in some locations (which has potential impacts on the tourist economy and brings up issues as to the best use of transportation fuels). The product is at best a low-level crude (which brings up refinery issues). In the case of nuclear power, the immediate concern is capital costs. Nuclear proponents like to point to the legal and other indirect costs associated with licensing, insuring, de-commissioning, and such. But usually the deal-killer is the cost of construction. Florida is furthest along the way to finalizing the construction of the first two nuclear plants in the US in a couple of decades. They have the capacity to produce 2.2 MW of electricity, and are projected to cost $17 billion. That’s assuming there are no construction delays (which, by the way, is expected to take 9 years to complete). But everywhere else in the world construction delays are more the rule than the exception. One reason is that there is only one plant in the world capable of producing containment vessels in one piece (it’s not the only reason, but it’s an important one). That plant is in Japan. They recently doubled their capacity — from two vessels per year to four. I leave you to do the math. For the moment I also leave you to do the math on all the various alternatives. But I think that if you really look into the economics of building, say, wind farms, or concentrated solar (solar thermal), or geothermal, maybe even solar PV or wave generation, I suspect you may find yourself wondering whether drilling in ANWR, or deep off shore, or building nuclear instead really does make economic sense. And if you were to go a little further and fold into just those numbers the economic impacts of optimizing energy productivity, the impact on the trade imbalance, the impact on supply shocks, the impact on what it would cost to militarily protect domestic sources of energy rather than foreign ones. Without question there are lots of variables involved. I will be the first to acknowledge that I may be still learning, but my initial impression is that none of my critics here have done more due diligence on the subject. But if so, I look forward to the debate. Because if I’m allowed to express myself freely here, this is just the tip of the iceberg (remember those?). And most of it doesn’t have anything to do with the science. It does, however, have a lot to do with green… backs.

OCrush (08:32:21): Sorry, I missed this sentence:
Even a radical and successful Kyoto II will only reduce the CO2 concentration 25 ppm in the end of this century, and the temperature with a few tenth of a degree, according to IPCC and the models they support. So you can’t retreat with the argument that simply the AGW hype did the job if the coming decades wont be warm. That’s jast way too non-scintific! …

A hat tip to Stan. FYO, I did not mention to him (I’m pretty sure about that, though it’s hard to keep track) that I joined the conversation here. I do recall telling him I might, though. I also recall him saying I might be a voice worth adding to the mix. So if you’re pissed off at me, you should be even more pissed off at Stan, lol! I’m kidding about that. I don’t think anyone should be pissed off at anyone. I think both he and I are looking for an objective glimpse at “the truth”. Our paths may differ somewhat, but I would hope the goal is shared by just about everyone. And from the reactions I’ve gotten from my first few comments, it appears that might be true. Anyway, what Stan says in my defense is largely true: I am largely an agnostic, assuming “agnostic” can be defined as driven by the power of “the dollar” (or whatever currency is preferable — but currency in general). In other words, while I do believe “words matter”, I believe they only matter insofar as they affect the economy. I don’t believe any proposed solution can be based on words alone. Words do matter, but they are not the only thing that does (on any issue). Ultimately, any solution has to make sense economically — in the long term anyway. My friend Stan suggested that “politicians who continue to support government subsidies to making fuel out of food crops should all be lined up against a wall and shot.” I wonder where he got that idea, hehe. As I recall, that was almost word-for-word my eighth point on a seven-point plan (lol!) I proposed on another site. You might gather from that that if I’m agnostic, I’m defiantly so. And despite the apparent oxymoron, I suppose it’s true — I am a defiant agnostic. The one thing I absolutely hate is bowing to the law of unintended consequences. But that’s another rant for another time.
To be fair to the politicians who might be lined up though (and arguably, GW Bush is that faction’s biggest ethanol cheerleader), they’re largely betting that ethanol out of food crops will ultimately work out as a bridge technology. Okay, that’s being charitable — they’re also counting on the campaign contributions gleaned from their support. To think otherwise would be, well, idiotic. However idiotic, though, it’s not illegal. It just is as it is. And any attempt to change it is likely to delve deeply into the law of unintended consequences. But that’s another rant for another time — and that rant has a lot to do with the relative responsibility of the electorate: you can only expect to get that which you vote for, in other words. Further, I will also say that my scanning of the political landscape leads me to think that support for any solution on any level is unlikely to follow any sort of traditional left/right ideological divide. But while that’s almost certainly true, that is again another rant for another time.
Personally, I’m very skeptical about any ethanol-based liquid fuel, even if it’s cellulosic-based. But it’s a skepticism that is built up from a multitude of considerations. In short, you really need to look at the entire “life cycle” of ethanol technology — both in terms of where it stands today and where it might stand, say, ten years from now. IMO, you also have to consider what is likely to happen with other technologies in the mean time. And that could very well be considerable. Thus, it seems to me you have to consider not only the cost structure, but the overall economic trajectories, and how each consideration for each technology might fit together into a complete whole. E.g., what about the supply/refining/distribution/point-of-sale infrastructure? The internal and/or external costs associated with each step along the way for each technology, and how they might compare on a similar time scale to other technologies could be very significant. It’s not a simple problem to be sure. But as complex as it is, it is also a very important one. As such it cannot be neglected. But again, I’ll leave the details for another time.
My friend Stan accuses me of not expressing myself well. I think that’s a fair criticism. I fully acknowledge that I don’t express myself well. I further confess that I rarely proof-read what I post as a comment on a blog — because, well, it’s a comment on a blog. Why bother? On the other hand, it should also be noted that my intent is not to make “you” (collectively speaking) agree with me, but to make “you” think — i.e., to challenge the facts and logic underlying “your” own assumptions, and to have “you” do the same to me. I have no interest in writing propaganda pieces (I have no propaganda to peddle). Rather, I try to write thought pieces. As such, all I ask is that “you” don’t label me as something mindless. Attack what I say, not who you think I am. I promise the same in return. Let’s talk about issues first and foremost. How about that?
So, getting back to the science… or not. I mean really, who cares at this point? Through yeoman’s work — the kind of work anyone should be proud of — Tony and Steve, et. al., have uncovered inaccuracies in the measurement of basic data. That’s very cool. But at the same time, those inaccuracies account for… what? I mean seriously… what in the grand scheme of things? Like I said in a previous post, I’m not a climate scientist. But you don’t have to be one to recognize that most of the criticisms of the mainstream viewpoint (the “consensus”, if you will) are either very much off-scale, very speculative, lack any sort of coherency, or some combination therein. I am very much willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, to the extent that I’m wrong. But either way, it is becoming time to put your money up. Literally or figuratively, that’s what it boils down to, doesn’t it? It all becomes a risk management equation, doesn’t it? In that regard, I should mention that the insurance company, Allstate, has recently become something less than all state. The reason has very much to do with the risks they see associated with GW. And that very much sucks on a humanitarian scale. But as Raven (14:29:50) said, “wealth is the difference.” Yup. And allow me to add… Duh.
So anyway, we’re confronted with the situation where some believe the science in and of itself can’t point us anywhere, and no matter where one turns there are huge “IFs” associated. Okay fine. So let’s ignore the science. Just in terms of technology and the economy, it’s really obvious to me which way the wind is blowing. Considering that, I’m not about to stand in the way. And it really is incumbent upon anyone who thinks the way I do to stand up and be counted. I think it’s a good thing — not only a good thing, but a necessary thing — and a money-making thing. That’s the bottom line for me. And frankly, I don’t see much on the down-side. To me, the only down side is the drag those who think there is a down side might have on the up side. After all, money spent on one thing precludes it from being spent on another.
The other thing is that, as Stan indicated, I’ve been working on him for the better part of two years. Actually though, that’s not entirely true. It is true that he’s the one that got me thinking about things the better part of two years ago. Back then the questions were most specifically about climate science. After months of study I came to the conclusion that yeah, maybe we do have something to worry about by way of the science (that’s my conclusion, not Stan’s). At that point my libertarian instincts kicked in (I can pinch a penny till it bleeds), and thus I started asking questions about whether any solutions made economic sense. That, to me, is the bottom line. It always is. Both lefties and righties can wax rhetorical about the best approach until the cows come home. But no matter how perceived, the cows will, ultimately, come home. Period. That’s the bottom line. And so, ultimately, the matter becomes a question of risk assessment. Any of you mathematically inclined “non-AGWers” care to weigh in on that point? I’d say the odds are decidedly stacked against you. Then again, if you’re right, you could make some seriously big bucks. To paraphrase Inspector Callahan (Dirty Harry)… “Do you feel lucky, punk?”

Evan Jones (16:17:23): Pablo is right. Rico is too fatalistic.
Actually, Rico (me) doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the GW science. Not any more anyway. Rico (me) cares about the bottom line. And all of the vectors largely converge on the same numbers down there on the bottom line. That seems to me a rather important point.
It also seems to me that all of the “non-AGRs”s here — including you, Evan — preface their remarks with a big “IF”, as if to avoid the obvious. In your case, the very next sentence after the first big “IF” includes the phrase, “intelligent use” in a way that implies only you knew the most intelligent response before it happened. I think it’s fair to ask… can you document that? If not, then I think it’s fair to ask, where were you beforehand?
Okay, maybe it’s not all that fair. It is still relevant though. Even more relevant is to get you on record, in the here and now, as to what, exactly, conforms to your conception of “intelligent use” of DDT? That’s not a trivial question. Rather, assuming you actually attempt to answer it with the knowledge it deserves, I think you’ll find it to be a highly nuanced question. In fact I’m sure of it. We could go on and on citing study after study, and in the end I’m sure we’d end up where we started — neither one of us could “prove” anyhing.
And that’s the general problem I find with the debate regarding such issues — in order to be solved effectively they require more nuance than most people are inclined to allow. Wouldn’t you say? Yet you say I’m too fatalistic. To that I ask… (a) relative to what metric? And (b) on what time scale? And (c) what are you offering as alternatives? And (d) how specific can you be?
Assuming you are actually interested in solving problems, all of those are very important question, wouldn’t you say? Granted, we’re not going to solve the world’s problems on this or any blog. But whatever we say here is a start. So give me your best shot and I will give you mine. I just hope that my point of view will ultimately be allowed to be seen here. I’m new, but so far it seems that any comment I make has to be bounced off Uranus before it makes it to this blog (no reference to your personal, or any other, gastrointestinal system is intended, by the way). I’m not complaining really. In fact, if the apparent bucolic pace is real, it suits me rather well. Maybe I’ll actually get around to proof-reading stuff I post, lol!. But in the mean time I’m wondering… wattsupwiththat?

I know this is going off on a tangent, but I think that a post dedicated to the recent findings about ocean temperatures would be very interesting.
I did not know until I started looking into the Argo results, that it was established by Gouretski and Koltermann (American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters 2007) that 62% of the claimed warming of the oceans since the 1950s was caused by errors in the XBT measurement systems.
The belief that the oceans are storing vast amounts of extra heat caused by AGHG is fundamental to the climate models. If the increase in stored ocean heat is only 38% what was believed this must have a big effect in the calculations for the climate sensitivity and forcings following an increase in CO2.
Also the amount of heat in Hansen’s pipeline – which is described as the “smoking gun” of climate change – i.e. the extra heat in the ocean which will eventually cause the catastrophe expected by the alarmists, must also be greatly reduced.
The Argo results show a small decline in deep ocean temperatures over the last five years – proving that no extra heat landing on the planet due to rising CO2 has been stored recently. It is up to the alarmists to explain where this heat (if it really existed) has gone.

Stan
I’m in.

Evan: You are also well aware that the real issue is more than mere money; I can read that between your lines. The real issue is wealth, itself.
Yes it is more than mere money (although I fully intend to cash in on that level too). Yes, the real issue IS wealth. And that IS what I’m really talking about.
You therefore must know that wealth equals power (in a positive sense). A huge amount of wealth stands to be destroyed, or never to be created. You also know full well the human tragedy that would entail, that loss of wealth is the equivalent of loss of life.
I can agree with everything you say above as well. However, I suspect we may have very different opinions about how wealth stands to be destroyed or never created. You apparently agree with Pablo, to wit: Instead of wasting resources on “solving” mythical problem we’d be better employed drilling for oil and building nuclear and coal fired power plants. I say that on the basis of this comment of yours: There is no alternative, really. If you want to clean up the earth, the only option is for India and Africa and China to burn coal and oil like mad for the next two or three decades, to be followed by a massive, inevitable cleanbup.
No alternative? Really? Are you sure? First of all, you might want to check with China and India on that. But more generally, the long and the short of it is that if you believe what you say, it’s not me who’s selling the potential of technology short, it’s you. And that’s an important point. Economic assessments offered up by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Milloy, and others either implicitly or explicitly presume that (a) prices of fossil fuels will remain essentially the same as they are now, and (b) prices of alternatives will remain essentially the same as they are now. The important question is, how realistic are those assumptions? My opinion is… not very. The technologies related to extracting fossil fuels cannot benefit much from the innovations that are virtually always associated with bringing technologies up to scale, because they are already at scale. It’s not quite as simple as that, but it nonetheless remains the case that fossil fuels will almost certainly continue to get more expensive. On the other hand, many alternatives are very likely to benefit from such innovations. Hardly a day goes by without a new report about a new technique that could potentially be a breakthrough technology. I keep up on those things pretty heavily. And the ones that I think hold particular promise I pass on to Stan and others. Nonetheless, I fully realize that that sort of stuff is very difficult to assess. One reason for that is most start-up companies operate in deep stealth mode. The only time you get a glimmer of what they’re up to is when (a) they are granted an important patent, or (b) when they partner up with a big player, or (c) when they actually go commmercial and start distributing product. The last is, of course, the biggie. But still, there’s a significant difference between “going commercial” and “going commercial big time”. In other words, it’s an economy of scale question. Most alternative energy technologies are just starting to climb that ramp — i.e., they are on the very nacent end of the economy of scale s-curve. But even so, several alternative technolgies are already pretty close to competing directly with traditional technologies on a sheer cost basis. The only thing holding them back is lack of capital investment — in manufacturing and/or deployment and/or infrastructure and/or worker training. Those are all very solvable problems — especially if the government decides to get involved in a significant, reliable, and effective way. Needless to say, there are going to be bubbles, and mistakes, not to mention a variety of special interests who will try to get their fingers in the pie. That being said though, I vehemently disagree that the “alternative” to the “horrors of development” is the 3 d’s: death, destruction, deforestation. That, to me, is fatalistic. Quintessientially so, in fact. I am much more inclined to agree with Stan when he said, “the stone age didn’t end due to lack of stones.” Interestingly (and I’m sure much to Stan’s horror), the Goracle himself employed the very same phrase a couple of years back. I suppose if Al Gore said it, somehow it must be wrong, right? Then again, Al Gore didn’t invent it either. But the etiology of the phrase is beside the point.
By the way, Stan (09:55:18) posed the question: If you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone, what past climate would you attempt to duplicate, what policies would you implement to achieve that climate, and what empirical evidence can you present to show that those policies would achieve the desired results?
It’s a very good question — one that I think each of us should try to answer, because it goes to the heart of what Evan phrased as “steering power”. He says, You talk about finding an advantage. Man! You could have an EFFECT! Well gee, that’s the whole point behind my being here. But I want to do it by stirring thought, not spreading propaganda. I’m not necessarily saying you trade in the latter, but when you issue edicts such as, “There is no alternative, really” as if they can’t be questioned, then I have to wonder.
Anyway, Stan’s question is a very good one. It is also one he has posed before. See here for how I answered it (comment #78) the first time I encountered it. He didn’t want me to play, but I answered it anyway. After all, how often to you get to pretend you’re King of the World? Lol! Anyway, I continue to stand by every word I said there — except maybe the summary execution of grain-based ethanol advocates. I’m still contemplating that one, lol! I should also note that as of the present, to my knowledge no one except me has attempted an answer — not even Stan. Nonetheless, it is a question I think everyone should seriously consider — including the price-tags for every facet of the entire “life cycle” associated with every potential alternative.
By the way, how would you answer it, Evan? What about Tony? What about Steve? In the end it is all about this: Man! You could have an EFFECT! IMO, truer words were never spoken. Along the same lines people have used the word “wish” abundantly, and sometimes rather loosely, throughout this thread — including me. But I think An Inquirer (21:27:15) said it best when he said, “I really wish that more people could understand what is at stake here.”

I should also note that as of the present, to my knowledge no one except me has attempted an answer — not even Stan.
Rico, the whole purpose of the question was to make people stop and think about how impossible it would be, even with absolute power, to achieve the perfect climate. For starters, I doubt that any two people could agree on what the perfect climate would be, but even more to the point, I don’t believe it’s within Man’s capacity to affect global climate much, let alone custom design it. And, BTW, you never did answer the last part of the question: “provide empirical evidence that the policies you advocate would achieve the desired results.” Besides, I told you you were ineligible to participate and you totally ignored my instructions, LOL.
We have some very smart people who read and comment on this blog, most much smarter than I. Unlike on so many science and climate forums, the majority of Anthony’s smart legions avoid the tendency to get bogged down in minutia, the recent posts involving statistics being the exception to that. I see and read a lot of common sense here with very little of the name-calling and derision so common elsewhere. The future of this debate lies not in the argument, “my algorithm is better than your algorithm”, but in the common sense of common people. (IMHO)

Sounds like a normal May day where I live!

To echo what seems to be a minority position in the above thread: The fundamental issue is truth seeking science rather than social policy driven or “Soviet” science. We may well end up with high fossil fuel taxes as a result of a political debate – what that debate should not be allowed to do is to corrupt the science in favor of one political position over another. If it turns out that the science indicates that AGW is catastrophic then so be it. The great benefit that this site and CA have contributed is to focus on the quality of the data and its analysis.
Dr. Spencer’s point is that the contamination of the scientific process is far reaching and that reasserting the values of “objective” science is going to be a long and arduous battle primarily because those interested in causes have been reinforced so significantly by their recent successes. Tobacco, drug and energy companies who distort and hide data are no better (or worse) than the WWF, Greenpeace, SIerra Club who distort and hide data.

They will be util they aren’t. Then they won’t be. That way energy will remain cheap until it becomes . . . even cheaper.
The problem is, many of the decisions made now will have repercussions for decades. There are certainly risks associated with attempting to plan ahead. But they have to be weighed against the risks associated with not attempting to as well. Different options have different cost structures. Some are far more front-loaded than others, which is to say some alternatives require considerable capital investment to build but are cheap to operate and maintain. With others it’s the reverse. Many “clean” alternatives (including nuclear) fall into the former category while coal and gas-fired alternatives fall into the latter. That makes planning rather difficult even under the best case scenario. But it is made even more difficult because of the business model upon which many utilities operate — a model which is supported by antiquated legislation. Unfortunately, any fair treatise on that point wouldn’t fit on a filecard.
One observation that might, though, is this: you and I appear to be inclined toward fundamentally different approaches to the problem. We might quibble about how to phrase them, but I would say yours relies more on retroactive responses whereas mine relies more on proactive ones. And maybe it’s just me, but I’m inclined to believe that the proactive approach is what has made America great. Technological innovation is what we are known for throughout the world. To the extent that we turn our back on that, we do so at our peril.

Only if we do it wrong (or are prevented by the government from doing it right). If the price rise is related to the actual difficulties of acquiring the energy, then at least it would be a necessary cost. But if it is because government is “drinking up our milkshake”, then kiss the incentive (and the difference in wealth) goodbye.

Absoultely! As it stands now in the US, states and the Fed get more money from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies. We’re paying at least twice as much as we “should” be because of taxation.

Evan, I think it might be time for you to elucidate how you plan to have the poorest countries of the world rich up quick. It seems to me that, among other things, it requires a substantial increase in energy use. So if you rely on traditional sources you have to likewise substantially increase the supplies, and make them available in a cost-effective manner. And I don’t see that happening. I don’t see how it could. A recent comprehensive report on the status of renewable energy indicates that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. The future doesn’t lie in oil, gas, and coal. Even China and India are realizing that. China, for example, is spending big bucks on solar technologies (they aim to become a main supplier of polysilicon in the next few years — and wind, too. And nuclear. As the last article indicates, “Oil prices are over $100 thanks largely to demand, not supply problems. China’s switch to net coal importer has hammered global coal prices. It’s thirst for natural gas is already doing the same. And that will only intensify, as Chinese firms are looking everywhere from Qatar to Iran for new supplies, while Chinese shippers are spending billions to expand their LNG fleets.
I don’t know what you guys are reading, but everything I read is largely consistent with the things expressed above: prices of oil, gas, and coal will continue to go up because demand is out-stripping supply. And it seems to me that China’s response to the situation makes a great deal of sense, which is to say… get out in front and diversify PDQ. If we don’t do the same they really will kick our ass.
You seem to think that any “government sponsored decision” will necessarily be wrong-headed, however well-meaning. But I don’t see it that way. There are multitudes of examples where “government sponsored decisions” were very beneficial to the economy. I mentioned several of them. In the Stanley Steamer vein, the federal government spent huge sums of money developing the interstate highway system. Do you mean to tell me that was wrong-headed? Every single major hydroelectric project required significant government investment. Every single nuclear power plant did, too. If you want to drill in ANWR (which I think it a good idea, by the way), do you really think the entire project will be privately funded? If it is, it would be a first.
Down along the Mexican border we’re building hundreds of miles of walls. Who’s paying for that? It sure isn’t private industry. If anything, private industry wants more immigrants, illegal or otherwise. But is that wrong-headed? The government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military technologies. Is that wrong-headed? Maybe one could argue those things aren’t because they deal with national security issues. That was the argument used to “market” the interstate highway system, too. I’d say energy has significant national security implications as well.

The “rush to wind power” is not a bad deal at this point. Distributed wind can supply base load at 20% of rated capacity. No bad when you consider that wind turbines supply 33% of their rated capacity on average.
Not only that we know the learning curve. Cost of wind declines by 1/3 for every doubling of turbine size. We have at least 2 more doublings to go before we run into technological limits. Right now wind is cheaper than natural gas and the best sites compete with coal even steven.
BTW the USA is the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have enough potential to supply all our electrical needs with wind.
Really. The anti-AAGW folks (I’m one – the first A stands for alarmist) generally do not know enough about wind technology.

Alternative energies are great, Rico. No one has ever said otherwise. But, they must be able to compete with traditional fuels
in a cost/benefit analysis as a supposed benefit, which it most certainly isn’t. In fact, C02, with it’s beneficial effect on plant growth should actually go in the benefits column.

Bruce Cobb (11:10:23): What I meant to say was: but, they must be able to compete with traditional fuels in a cost/benefit analysis without C02 reduction as a supposed benefit, which it most certainly isn’t.
I don’t share your certainty on the last part. Although I said previously that I don’t give a rat’s ass about the climate science, I exaggerated. What I meant was that I don’t think it matters in order to make a compelling case for renewables (and conservation) on a cost-benefit level. So let’s ignore CO2 for the sake of argument. Let’s talk about the health effects of burning fossil fuels. In a previous post I mentioned a recent study by the American Lung Association of California indicating the health (and thus economic) benefits of eliminating fossil fuel-propelled vehicles. Should we ignore that while preparing our balance sheet? That’s one of those “external costs” that rarely ever get figured into even the most thorough life cycle analysis of any fuel source. But according to the Lung Association study it reaches over a hundred billion of dollars over a 20 year span on health costs alone — in California alone. That’s not chump change. Okay, compared to the Iraq war it is, but according to most other metrics it isn’t. And by the way (and somewhat surprisingly), in terms of “traditional” (i.e., non-GHG) emissions per capita, California is second lowest of all the states. Should the oil, gas, and coal industries pay for that? If not, why not? If so, how?
Now let’s ignore the health costs AND CO2 and just concentrate on internals — i.e., how much it costs to build and operate a utility plant. Gas and coal plants are certainly the cheapest to build — right now anyway. In fact, in general, they’re quite a bit cheaper right now (that’s not exactly true, but let’s assume thta for simplicity). But approximately 60% of the cost of operating one (in 2004 anyway) is the cost of the fuel. Thus, as prices fluctuate, so does the cost of operation. According to this article, coal prices went up 73% in 2007, and is expected to double again this year. That’s “at mouth” prices (i.e., the price when it leaves the mine). Then you have to transport it. And those costs are exploding too. Then there’s the cost of burning it. And it is on that last level, and essentially on that level alone I think, where Evan’s, and others, comments about the potential “wrongheaded” effects of government policy come in. I’m sensitive to that. But I can’t figure out a way to fairly explain what I mean on a notecard, so I’ll leave it for another rant.
On the other hand, though wind, solar, or geothermal plants (nuclear too) are more expensive to build, their operating and maintenance costs are low (a little higher for wind maybe, but not that much). So basically once such a plant goes on line you’ve essentially locked in your rate throughout the lifetime of the plant. That’s the benefit, and it’s an important one. But it makes comparisons based on estimations of “levelized costs” very tricky, because the levelized cost estimate of a gas or coal-fired plant is based on the price of the commodity at least a couple of years in the past rather than upon estimates of future fuel prices. Thus, the levelized cost of such a plant is always based on past commodity prices. But really, how realistic is that? Remember, whatever choice you make now has to stand for at least 40 years — unless it becomes apparent in the mean time your choice really sucked and you pull the plug and accept your losses. Again, Inspector Callahan’s question comes to mind: how lucky do you feel?
That difference in cost structure is one factor contributing to what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. But as M. Simon indicated, wind technology in particular (situated on shore in a category 4 or above location) is already competitive with the cost of coal-fired plants, even it is assumed the cost of coal will go no higher for the next 40 years (the expected operational life of most utility plants). How likely is that? Geothermal is too — assuming you know where to drill (and that’s actually not as big a question mark as it may sound). The current levelized cost of a solar thermal plant is more than double that of the current levelized cost of a traditional coal-fired plant, so the (delivered) cost of coal would have to almost quadruple in the next 10-15 years to make it cheaper in the long run. Considering how things are going with “at mouth” coal and gas prices, combined with transportaion prices, that sounds like a pretty good bet. Others may have a different perspective. But it has to be recognized that you’re betting no matter which way you choose. In that regard I’m guessing that many of those communities that decided to scuttle their half-built nuclear plants 20 years or so ago would like to rethink that decision now. Regretfully, that’s not an option anymore. And it’s usually the decisions that don’t work out that leave a taste in your mouth, and the ones that you remember (and perhaps blame on others). Decisions that do work out, on the other hand, tend to be forgotten — regardless of how contentious they were at the time. But that doesn’t make them any less relevant or important. Take the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo project (i.e., the moon project) for example. For those who lived through the late 50s and early 60s, how did it make you feel when the Soviets were launching satellites with and without people in them that spun around the earth while we couldn’t get a vehicle very far off the launch pad without exploding? It took a good long while before we did something the Soviets didn’t do first. Almost a decade after we started trying, in fact. But still, we made it to the moon before they did. How did that make you feel? Exhilarated, I would imagine.
But then, so what? It cost an immense amount of money, all of it at the government till. And for what purpose? We haven’t been back in more than 30 years. So what?
I’ll just let that question hang, because I really think it needs to percolate down into peoples’ psyches to really appreciate. Personally, I can think of all sorts of technologies, even attitudes, that came out of it that were nothing short of transforming. And personally, I think we are on the threshold of another equally contentious, but transforming event. Maybe it doesn’t have the same pizzaz as walking on the moon, but as far as transforming goes, it has a considerable amount of punch. But now, as it was then, it’s impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty. But I get the impression from many of the comments here that because we can’t predict the future with absolute certainty we shouldn’t even try. But I think it’s important to understand that neglecting to make a decision is a decision in itself. And either way, it carries as much import.
So much for soaring through space. Back on earth — and even worse, into policy detail… Unfortunately, most utilities are required to couple their profits with their output. If operating costs go up, they can pass them onto the consumer (and they make a percentage profit on that increase). Capital costs, on the other hand, can’t be passed on to the consumer, becaues the finances are structured completely differently. Under that scenario, what sense does it make to spend a lot on capital costs if your operating costs are almost certainly going to remain low? IMO, one of the smartest things the CA legislature did was allow utility companies to decouple their profits from consumption levels (and by extension fuel costs). That allowed them to profit from conservation efforts and truly levelize their construction costs with operating costs. Regretfully, they didn’t do that until sometime after they privatized the major utility companies, and that allowed the consumers to get preyed upon by energy traders like Enron. That was pretty miserable. But hey, growing pains happen. And it was the kind of mistake that could be revisited and corrected. And to their credit, they eventually they got it right. That, I would say, is a good example of a situation where the “wrongheaded” government response would be to not respond at all, or to continue to respond badly. It is also another example of what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. And because they eventually responded — rightheadedly, I would argue — it’s one of the reasons why CA is now booming with alternative energy activity. It is incorrect to assume that all it takes is for the government to get out of the way. To call for it makes for a powerful talking point, and it fits well on a notecard. But it doesn’t fit with reality. It simply isn’t possible. As Immelt said, there is no such thing as a truly free market. Even Evan has acknowledged that the government has a right to regulate sulphur, particulates, heavy metal emissions, and the like. Apparently Evan also advocates government involvement in assisting the poorest countries to “rich up quick”. I can’t say that for certain, because he hasn’t provided so much as a single detail. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t expect individual companies, or even individual industries to help much without a supporting governmental framework. Or maybe he expects Bono, the Gates foundation, the Clinton foundation, and the WHO to do the heavy lifting.
Related to that, I have a question… where are the conservative-leaning organizations in the equation?
George Bush deserves credit for the initiatives he championed in Africa to combat AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Of course, he didn’t do it out of pocket — he used US government funds. And though he helped to lead the way, other agencies collectively contributed more to the effort than did the US gov’t. And so far the entire effort has amounted to what… $1.5 billion or so ($500 million has been offered by the US gov’t)? Is that the level of initiative required to assist the poorest countries to “rich up quick”? I’m guessing it might require more. And frankly, other than the money pumped into supporting domestic politicians, think tanks, media operatives, or other pundits, I can’t think of a single conservative-leaning organization that’s actually out there on the front lines trying to do good for no other reason than doing what’s right. I can think of a lot of left-leaning organizations that are. And I think that’s sad. Houston, we have a problem.

There is reportedly a Japanese naval record recounting a circumnavigation of the Arctic Ocean around 1400 by a Japanese fleet. This might correlate with an ice-free Greenland at approximately the same time.
Yet the polar bears survived with no polar ice cap at all that particular summer. Could it be that the Polar Bear is a terrestrial animal? Perhaps that’s why so many tourists travel to Churchill, west of the Hudson Bay to view them on the land from large vehicles designed just for that purpose.

I highly recommend the British documentary film “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It convincingly points out the holes in the conventional thinking about climate change, including in Al Gore’s movie “Inconvenient Truth,” and presents what appears to be a plausible alternative hypothesis. You can find it in segments by doing a search on YouTube.com.

I wonder what the “Scientific Community” will look like in 20 years.
With the students in the universities worldwide being taught that such matters as Global Warming and “Renewable Energy” are Paramount as Ends to be sought instead of true science, I wonder if the entire field of science can be corrupted as well.
A lie told long enough and vehemently enough becomes reality in the new age of the left leaning Press and publications geared to halting true scientific progress in favor of Globalism.
In that environment, the Ends always justify the Means.