by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.
This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes.
There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.
Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.
Manmade Global Warming as the Justification
Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.
But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.
Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.
Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.
I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”
No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.
The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publicly on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr.
These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?
Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.
Or will they?
The Times They Are A-Changin’
How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the man-made global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?
The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.
Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.
And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.
The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom
Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.
Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable.
I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book –Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.
One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
In fact, it already has.
The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.
Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.
If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.
Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.
Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?
Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.
But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.
Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.
What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.
Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.
But What About Equality?
Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves.
A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.
If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.
And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.
Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.
Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.
A New Fight Begins Tomorrow
The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.
Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.
There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change.
And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.
But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.
So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.
People mix up different elites. The folks who run the oil companies are an elite. Famous actors and actresses are another elite. Top tier scientists are yet another elite. The latter two may be annoying or amusing, but their fundamental self interests are not in conflict with needs of society and the extent of their power is minimal.
Spenser fails to address why the few scientists sceptical of the extent of AGW seem to keep their jobs and even continue to receive government grants. And he utterly fails to explain why NSF funded research continued to support AGW under Bush. Since Spenser’s own idealogical motivations are now clear perhaps they explain why he is so out of sink with his colleagues whose political views are diverse.
How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?
Michael Crichton on the hypocrisy of elitists,
1:12 video:
You can’t do it with stimulus. Keynes and his “aggregate demand” theory is out to lunch. If you simply hand out money you have produced nothing. You eat for a day, then starve. The people you buy from get a one-time profit and then nothing. Wealth is “multiplied” by one or even less than one, since it is costly and inefficient to redistribute.
With supply-side, you free up capital that is used to hire people (invest, etc.) and pay them wages as those people produce valuable goods/services. That is self-sustaining and then some. Wealth is genuinely multiplied.
Maybe this speaks poorly for human nature. But that is the way it works. Socialism works about as well for humans as free-market capitalism works for termites. It’s not a liberal-conservative thing. It’s a human-nature thing.
As for longevity, in the US if you make it past youth to any decent maturity you will live longer , an indication that the US health care, as burdened and flawed as it was, was better for the elderly.
Yes, plus the fact we desperately try to save every premature birth adds considerably to US death rate. In Europe (and most of the rest of the world), they simply write many of them off and they never even make it into the death stats. “Life expectancy” is a very apples/oranges type statistical phenomenon.
Owen says:
“My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education. All of these countries tax gasoline and energy heavily and drive energy efficient cars (not American guzzlers). Denmark is on its way to being oil independent. Germany has beat America every year in this decade in the amount of exports to the rest of the world. European socialism simply means providing for your people, insuring health, education, and a decent life. The ultrasocialist Scandanavian countries annually are ranked as the top countries in the world for quality of life.
“Mr. racookpe1978 seems to be obsessed with his pathological fear of socialism. I would suggest he spend some time in Norway and talk perhaps to my relatives: teacher, engineer, physician, and a farmer’s wife – all robust, healthy, and happy. Travel is a great cure for bucholic parochialism and festering ideology.”
_______
Those are all teeny-tiny countries compared to the U.S.A., and not one of them is racially or ethnically diverse. They are homogenized, conformist, white-bread, and very boring. Germany has a growing Muslim population, but it has not assimilated. And not one of these countries has 20-40 million illegal immigrants using their public services, committing huge numbers of crimes, or interfering with their elections.
Our country is thousands of miles across; little cars with little engines cannot move tens of millions of people and billions of tons of goods from one end to the other.
Living in a Scandinavian country may be easier for many, but at whose expense? The United States had spent tens of billions of dollars protecting other countries from hostile governments, because they don’t invest heavily in their own defense. Without that expenditure, they have more to spend on other things.
Who does the quality of life rankings? The U.N.? Do you see millions of people around the world trying to immigrate to Scandinavia?
Health care is not free in any of the countries you list. Citizens pay huge taxes to cover these costs.
Here’s the thing: If you want to live in a socialist country, why not move to one? Why do you have to change this country? Is the world so small it can’t stand even one free republic? You remind me of Northerners who move to Florida, where I live, and try to make it into New York or Pennsylvania, instead of letting it be what it is.
Owen says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education. All of these countries tax gasoline and energy heavily and drive energy efficient cars (not American guzzlers). Denmark is on its way to being oil independent. Germany has beat America every year in this decade in the amount of exports to the rest of the world. European socialism simply means providing for your people, insuring health, education, and a decent life. The ultrasocialist Scandanavian countries annually are ranked as the top countries in the world for quality of life.
Mr. racookpe1978 seems to be obsessed with his pathological fear of socialism. I would suggest he spend some time in Norway and talk perhaps to my relatives: teacher, engineer, physician, and a farmer’s wife – all robust, healthy, and happy. Travel is a great cure for bucholic parochialism and festering ideology.
I worked with Ericsson for 2 years, some in Sweden, later I worked with SAAB. I have a lot of respect for the scandinavian countries and what they have achieved by making the most of their human resources – they don’t have much in the way of land and minerals (Norwegian Oil is the exception).
However – the northern european cultures have a strong work ethic and a respect for the usefulness of technology – to which I credit their success. I wonder if what you say will still be relevant in 2 years time, given the general indebtedness of the Eurozone on the scandinavian doorstep.
Denmarks flirtation with wind power still has to prove itself as a cost effective option – time will tell. Denmark progressing towards independence of oil – I find that difficult to believe.
Ultrasocialist seems a very strong term to use for countries that have companies such as Nokia, Volvo, Saab, Ericsson, Ikea, etc, that competitively build and sell products on a commercial basis to the world – sounds more like capitalism.
I see all sorts of arguments about which is better for economic prosperity–increased taxes or a reduction in taxes.
Without resorting to facts and figures (which can be distorted to support any supposition the publisher of those numbers may have), let’s look at the basic philosophy behind this whole approach to civilization. The key idea is whether it is better to give or to get (or take and bestow), and I’ll make it personal.
Requiring that I give a large portion of my income to the government doesn’t make me happy, hence I’m less productive because I see all me effort diverted to someone else–I don’t get to realize the benefit of my hard work. No, somebody else does. I say, why bother? I won’t work as hard. The government takes from me and the way they justify giving to others just isn’t fair. By taking this approach to the limit of all workers (which I believe react in a way similar to myself), the everybody’s productivity undoubtedly goes down and malaise sets in. Overall GDP obviously goes down as a consequence. And if you tell me otherwise, I simply won’t believe you–I know you’re fudging the numbers, to put it politely.
Now let’s take a look at the person who got my money, thanks to the largess of the government. They didn’t work for that money, but it spends just the same. Such people are not grateful nor are they productive. Their response is generally one of greed and lack of appreciation–they want more and more because they have little or no understanding how much work went into generating that money. Now because a significant portion of the population is no longer pulling their weight in society, the GDP has to decline. Again, if you tell me otherwise, I simply won’t believe you–I know you’re fudging the numbers, to put it politely.
Somebody getting something for nothing and somebody getting nothing for something are two sides of the same coin when the government become the intrusive thief. It is neither good for society nor for the individual. Such a violation of natural law always carries a natural penalty, generally visited upon those future generations that are completely innocent while it is their parents and grandparents (that’s you and me) that allowed their future to be destroyed.
And no grandiose scenarios, arguments, references, graphs, or prizes in economics can make it otherwise.
evanmjones says:
November 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm
You can’t do it with stimulus. Keynes and his “aggregate demand” theory is out to lunch. If you simply hand out money you have produced nothing. You eat for a day, then starve. The people you buy from get a one-time profit and then nothing. Wealth is “multiplied” by one or even less than one, since it is costly and inefficient to redistribute.
With supply-side, you free up capital that is used to hire people (invest, etc.) and pay them wages as those people produce valuable goods/services. That is self-sustaining and then some. Wealth is genuinely multiplied.
Maybe this speaks poorly for human nature. But that is the way it works. Socialism works about as well for humans as free-market capitalism works for termites. It’s not a liberal-conservative thing. It’s a human-nature thing.
I assume that Keynes’ theories gained traction because they provide a justificational framework for Government intervention into the market/economy. Not on whether they were right or wrong – current experience is rapidly illustrating that Keynes was drastically wrong. However it will take a lot for the zealots to reconsider their dogma.
If you want to live in a socialist country, why not move to one?
Well, maybe that’s not entirely fair. (The rich ones won’t let you in, and the others I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies.)
I assume that Keynes’ theories gained traction because they provide a justificational framework for Government intervention into the market/economy.
Maybe. hey, no one would be happier than I if Keynes had turned out to be right. But he ain’t, and that’s all there is to it. Even sad facts are facts.
Owen says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Perhaps they aren’t interested in maintaining a superheated economy and working day and night.
===============================================
And perhaps we’re not interested in giving our money to the government, and then having the government dictate what we can do. Again, a step up for you guys, you started out with that and were used to it, a form of Roman law. Socialism is a step up from kings and monarchs.
Our country was founded on totally different principals. We are innocent until proven guilty, and we as citizens give rights to our government. Not the other way around.
Again – for you guys, it was a step up.
For us, it is a step down.
Owen says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I would suggest he spend some time in Norway …
Owen, does it ever get above freezing in Norway?
Knowing little about the country, I suspect that they have one short growing season,
and export little in the way of food.
Wow! A full blown political discussion on WUWT. Gotta be a first!
Dr Roy Says: “Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country.”
Socialist Governments can, for a while at least, bribe many low income voters with the taxes of the rich. Usually a while later the people wake up and realise that the greater harm is hurting them personally.
evanmjones says: “I never earned a penny that wasn’t trickled down from someone richer than me.”
The only trickle down effect I have ever felt is from the sibling in the bunk above me when I was a very young child.
Thanks for the good read Dr. Spencer!
The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
Richard Lindzen on this same point, how masses are manipulated with propaganda,
1:18 video
For those who keep commenting on the economic effects of tax cuts:
Don’t forget, like climate, economics is a nonlinear science.
Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.
Vaclav Klaus on environmentalism- the greatest threat to freedom:
As an immigrant to the US I believe I have a perspective that a lot of Americans do not have and certainly those who haven’t lived here cannot have.
I believe that the US is the best place in the world for people to achieve personal growth. It is that way because by and large people here do not like being told what to do and prefer to do it for themselves.
I love it here and would not choose to live anywhere else. I was offered the chance to relocate back to my homeland by my current employer a couple of years ago. It took me less than half a second to say no, and that included thinking time.
God Bless America – it sounds corny to some maybe but I mean it most sincerely.
whatever criticisms are made of the Tea Party (Parties), the fact is they have shaken up the political “elites”. if it were not for the Tea Parties campaigning against cap’n’tax, the GOP would still be on the carbon-taxing fence:
1 Nov: WSJ: Scott Rasmussen: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP
Voters don’t want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves
More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people…
But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Mike says:
November 1, 2010 at 7:15 pm
People mix up different elites. The folks who run the oil companies are an elite. Famous actors and actresses are another elite. Top tier scientists are yet another elite. The latter two may be annoying or amusing, but their fundamental self interests are not in conflict with needs of society and the extent of their power is minimal.
Spenser fails to address why the few scientists sceptical of the extent of AGW seem to keep their jobs and even continue to receive government grants. And he utterly fails to explain why NSF funded research continued to support AGW under Bush. Since Spenser’s own idealogical motivations are now clear perhaps they explain why he is so out of sink with his colleagues whose political views are diverse.
======================================================
Typically, I’ll break up other people’s posts to the points I want to bare, but yours is lunacy in its entirety, so I have to leave it there,.(Hopefully posterity will forget.)
You mention Bush by name, but, not a “top tier scientist” such as Hansen, who went around the world proclaiming the Bush administration was silencing him. More, you didn’t mention the media that followed, aired and printed the “silencing” of Hansen. And, while you correctly assigned “amusing” to the entertainment industry, the news media quoted many in the entertainment industry as affirmation of the silencing. And even today often quote nearly illiterate twits for affirmation of the alarmism de jour.
Now, we can discuss the “extent” of media and the press’ power, but suffice it to say, I think you’re understating the power of the pen. Thank God for the internet! And thank God for hard drives!
Have you notice the “few” skeptical scientists are increasing in numbers? Almost daily! More, why do you girls keep bringing back Bush and his funding? You do know that all spending bills start in the House of Reps? And that Bush was a politician given to political expedience? Sorry sis, I deal with reality. Who did what is of no concern to reality. But, if we’re concerned about opinions, here’s mine. Bush was a fine president for 6 years. After that, he acquiesced to the whims of the majority in both houses. History tells us that’s when things went to crap.
The only trickle down effect I have ever felt is from the sibling in the bunk above me when I was a very young child.
If you ever worked for a boss, then, by definition, you experienced it again even if you failed to feel it.
If you have spent your life as a successful entrepreneur, then my hat is off to you (and, by the way, are you hiring?).
For those who keep commenting on the economic effects of tax cuts:
Don’t forget, like climate, economics is a nonlinear science.
Taxes can be too low. Taxes can be too high. Finding a rate somewhere (anywhere!) between that which maximizes revenue (high limit) and maximizes production (low limit) is FINE with me.
Anything outside that range (too high or too low) is a Trenberth Travesty!
Pablo an ex Pat says:
November 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Thank you Pablo. It is people like you that keep this nation great. Welcome and God bless.
Please note that in the ’80’s Henry Kendall, the Founder of the “Union of Concerned Scientists” was given a Nobel Prize for his work on Quarks during the ’70s.
From everything I’ve read, his contribution was MINIMAL and of MINIMAL impact.
Yet, the N.P. ? What gives? This was just about the time the Swedes were riding their ANTI-NUCLEAR “high horse”, and had put forth a plan to “eliminate” their 12 nuclear power plants, which generate about 45% of their electrical base.
Kendall was their poster boy. (Yes, I know the a Nobel “Peace Prize” is awarded by a Norweigen committee! But the Science prizes are still strictly Swedish..) Thus to BOLSTER CREDIBILITY of the U.C.S., the Swedes managed to find H.K.’s “trivial” work “significant”. Thus my trust in the “integrity” of the N.P.’s in areas such as the sciences, or economics, or “Peace” has been about ZERO for 20 years. It’s a “political beauty contest” where the most politically correct venues have been awarded for years. ALAS, quite the pity that!
Dr Spencer:
What a great essay!
What you describe is the political fallout of a system of granting awards for research by a government that is controlled by elitist politicians who have been carefully and thoroughly brainwashed by big name law schools into believing that progressivism is the only acceptable form of governmental philosophy. The writings of Woodrow Wilson tell us that today’s aspiring liberal politicians are not socialist but progressives. A key tenant of Wilson’s philosophy is that the US Constitution is limiting the efficiency of our government to govern because the defense of individual liberty is wasteful and time consuming. He believed that the governmental agencies are in a better, more informed position to set policy that the legislature. According to Wilson the efficiency of government is greatest when a group of college educated elitists set policy. So today we have agencies with appointed administrators setting policies on education, climate, and energy with an absence of legislative influence.
Many Americans voted for change and they got change. However, the change they got was not what they were promised. It was Woodrow Wilson government by elitists.
attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
‘Global warming’ is also killing people through biofuel programs,
Lord Monckton, 5:12 video
If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.
Ross McKitrick on the morality of helping the poor of the world get electricity with coal,
2:00 video
Most people can’t see the obvious. Anything that contradicts their deep seated convictions is ignored.
I am a liberal. I believe in the maximum freedom for each individual. I believe that unfettered freedom for corporations is just as bad as bureaucracy for subjugating people.
Being Canadian, I would far rather have universal health care than have to deal with an HMO. You Americans do have death panels already, they are called HMOs.
It distresses me that, when the state purports that it is protecting the little guy, what we mostly get is oppression by bureaucracy.
The truth is neither entirely on the right or on the left. That which works is a moving target. Something that raises up people one day oppresses them the next. Any system can be corrupted, fester and die. Clinging tenaciously to laissez faire capitalism or to socialism is not going to work in the long term.
Dr. Spencer, knock off the rant on elitists. It makes you look like just as much of a meat head as you apparently think they look like. Name calling is for children. Your specialty is science. You are an expert on science. You are not an expert on political science or economics or anything else like that. There are good and bad people on both sides of the issue but you should accept the basic human decency of most of the people on both sides. Your best contribution is as a scientist talking about science. Advocacy for what looks like a political position only has the effect of diminishing your credibility.