By Andy May
This was my first climate change conference and I had a great time. So, here is a quick note sharing my most memorable take-aways from the conference. Most of the comments below are paraphrased, but if they are exact quotes, I’ve put them in quotation marks. To hear the full talk by any of the speakers go to the Heartland.Org site here.
The most memorable statement is from Myron Ebell. Three U.S. elections “have turned on climate issues.” These are 2000, 2010, and 2016. In 2000 Al Gore lost because he lost West Virginia. This “was due entirely because someone named Buck Harless put,” in every voter’s mailbox a study he commissioned showing the effect on West Virginia’s coal industry and economy of Al Gore’s proposed policies. The 2010 election was turned by the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which caused the House Democrats to lose 20 seats and making the House of Representatives Republican. Finally, in 2016, climate change and the fossil fuel industry were explicit issues and Clinton and Trump were on opposite sides. The pro-fossil fuel side won the key fossil fuel states of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Walter Cunningham, the famous Apollo astronaut, who also has a physics degree from UCLA, stated he had “never seen any evidence supporting the [climate] alarmist view” or “supporting man changing climate.” He, Pat Michaels, Steve Milloy, Jay Lehr and Myron Ebell all strongly support eliminating the EPA CO2 “endangerment finding.” The endangerment finding states that CO2 is dangerous to mankind. For more on this see Penny Starr’s article here. This clearly unscientific finding was upheld by the Supreme Court even though CO2 is essential for life on Earth and is a vital food for plants. Walt Cunningham noted that the alarm for excess CO2, in the Apollo spacecraft, was set at 3,000 ppm and on the space station it is set at 5,000 to 10,000 ppm. These levels will likely never be reached on Earth again, although the atmosphere has reached these levels in the very distant past (prior to 200,000,000 years ago). The current level is about 400 ppm, people can become dizzy if the CO2 level in a sealed room exceeds 40,000 ppm. Most plants die when the level goes below 150 ppm.
The endangerment finding will be used to destroy the fossil fuel industry, our economy and millions of jobs, if it is not eliminated, according to Michaels and Ebell.
Fred Singer is now 92 years old, but what a trooper. Everyone at the conference was inspired when he gave his outstanding presentation. He clearly explained why the evolving surface weather station network, which has been dominated by airport stations since 1990, has affected our temperature record. Airports are notorious for spurious high temperature readings for obvious reasons. They have too much pavement and too many hot airplane engines. He also explained how “correcting” ocean buoy temperature readings to ship water intake temperatures, as NOAA has done, is erroneous.
Willie Soon presented a paper he wrote with Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly. They showed that arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s was preceded by an arctic sea ice advance from the 1940s to the 1970s. This suggests that the current sea ice retreat may be a natural cycle and not due to man-made global warming, particularly when one considers that the Antarctic sea ice extent is at a record level.
Indur Goklany noted that, due to fossil fuels and modern farming technology, crop failures are a thing of the past. 70% of the recent greening of the planet is due to more CO2 and we are now “living in the best of times.” How true.
Roger Bezdek noted that “Fossil fuels are the driver of economic growth and jobs.” He added that “fossil fuels will continue to provide more than 80% of world energy for the foreseeable future.”
Craig Idso analyzed the effect of CO2 on the 45 most important food crops in the world and concluded that the recent increase in CO2 has provided trillions of dollars of additional food to the world’s population. This increase in food production has amounted to a $5/ton CO2 benefit to mankind. This $5 benefit should be subtracted from any calculation of the so-called “social cost of carbon,” but this has not been done. He noted that Norman Borlaug has shown that if all known fossil fuels on the planet were burned in one day, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase to 1000 ppm to 2000 ppm. The data in Dr. Idso’s database shows that plant growth continues to increase in a linear fashion to, at least, 2000 ppm.
Dr. Pat Michaels made an impassioned plea to reverse the CO2 endangerment finding and quoted Eisenhower’s final speech from January 17, 1961:
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.“
I have added the emphasis. It is clear, at least to me, that what President Eisenhower predicted in 1961 has already occurred. Those of us, and there were many at the conference, who are “solitary inventors” or “independent researchers” struggling to understand climate change without using the assumption that man is causing it, are facing a public that has become the “captive of a [self-serving] scientific-technological elite.” The elite is publicly funded with our tax dollars by government bureaucrats with an anti-fossil fuel agenda. The bureaucrats are aided by environmental organizations that create pseudo-scientific nonsense to support the crusade and line their pockets.
Lamar Smith has fought this “pseudo-science” by attempting to require the EPA and other agencies publish the scientific studies used to create government regulations. This seems very reasonable, our taxes paid for these studies, the studies add costs to our factory production and they increase the cost of goods we buy. Why shouldn’t the science behind the regulations be fully published as Representative Smith’s “HONEST” act requires? His previous “secret science” act, which was very similar, was threatened with a veto by President Obama. Why would Obama want to keep scientific work, paid for by taxpayers, secret?
Susan Crockford showed that polar bears were classified as a threatened species, even though their numbers were increasing, because of a computer model. Unfortunately, for the modelers, the conditions they predicted for 2050 occurred early, in 2009, and the polar bear population still increased! Hmmm, it seems that legislation or rules based on computer models can be in error. Imagine that?
Scott Armstrong appropriately noted one of the iron laws of political economics:
“There is no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by the political interventions intended to fix it.”
He also said:
“Government has no business in research.”
Jay Lehr was one of the five people who helped design and create the EPA from 1968 to 1971. He believes that they did some good work for the first eight years or so and improved the environment in the US. But, he also believes they have not done anything useful since 1980 and should be eliminated today. All 50 states now have their own environmental organizations (not true in 1971) and work like this should be done at the state level, in his opinion. What coordination between states is required could be handled by a commission composed of state appointed commissioners. The current US EPA is “a wholly owned subsidiary of the green movement” and its green agenda is harmful to the USA.
According to Ben Zycher the Ivanpah solar power plant in the Mojavi Desert of California is a huge failure. It only produces 65% of the power promised because “the sun didn’t shine as much as we predicted.” The power produced costs $180/mWh, versus natural gas costs of $60. And this doesn’t include substantial subsidies and a $1.6 billion loan from the U.S. government. Ivanpah has now requested U.S. grant money to use to pay back the U.S. loan.
James Taylor has calculated that renewable mandates cost electricity customers $130/year in Kansas, $190/year in Ohio, and $400/year in New Mexico. Obama said renewable energy would necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket. Obama got that one right. He should have added that wind and solar will kill 1.5 million birds and bats every year and that biofuels (especially algal biofuels) are an environmental nightmare.
Mary Hutzler computed a new levelized cost of electricity that corrects the serious errors made by the EIA and IEA. She includes the cost of backup and buffering required for solar and wind. She uses natural gas combined cycle backup systems because they were the cheapest. For a discussion of non-fossil fuel backup systems see here.
Steve Milloy notes that “Government has perverted science.” Like many other speakers, he thinks it is imperative that the CO2 endangerment finding be reversed. Steve Milloy was one of the members of Myron Ebell’s EPA transition team, created by Donald Trump when he was still a candidate.
The famous Professor Will Happer gave an excellent speech where he noted the following points:
- Climate models do not work.
- Climate changes regardless of CO2 levels.
- More CO2 leads to more benefits for mankind.
- It is immoral to deprive the world of fossil fuels.
- The social cost of carbon is negative.
As a special treat, I highly recommend that you listen to the wonderful speeches given by Lord Christopher Monckton and EU Parliament member Roger Helmer. The speeches are wonderfully worded and presented, as only they can. The speeches cannot be properly summarized and must be heard in full to be appreciated. Highly recommended.
I will conclude this conference summary here. It was a wonderful conference and I am very grateful to Joe Bast and his wonderful team for putting it on. The organization, the food and venue were excellent. It was very nice to meet the people whose papers and posts I’ve been reading for years, face to face. I realize everyone doesn’t have the resources or the time to attend a conference like this, but if you get the chance it is well worth it.
Thanks for the summary Andy. You must have been looking at my notes. Other highlights for me (watch the videos for the full contexts):
Jay Lehr stated in his opening remarks that in his “biased” opinion CO2 has NO role in causing climate change. The Paris Accord allows for other countries to sue the U.S. for alleged CO2 emissions that waft over them.
It was painful to see such a physically frail S. Fred Singer being helped to the platform. But then he started giving his presentation and you realized that his mental capacity is essentially undiminished.
Don Easterbrook – CO2 cannot be the cause of climate change as the record shows CO2 always lags temps.
Indur Goklany – Fossil fuels are nature’s battery.
Richard Trzupek – Sierra Club is beyond delusional.
J. Scott Armstrong – “Be conservative by adhering to cumulative knowledge”. Regulation has always failed to fulfill its intended purpose.
Steve Milloy – We must separate government from science.
If you have the time I highly recommend that you watch all the videos. Willie Soon crammed so much information into his allotted time slot that I’ll probably have to see that one 3 or 4 more times to take it all in.
Great comment, thanks! Good points.
Please find below two articles of mine published in The Hans India daily newspaper in March 2017 relating to global warming and water pollution aspects.
http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/News-Analysis/2017-03-24/Blaming-everything-on-global-warming/288704
http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/News-Analysis/2017-03-01/Rulers-least-bothered-about-environment-/284043
Blaming everything on global warming
THE HANS INDIA | Mar 24,2017 , 04:16 AM IST
________________________________________
.
Recently several articles related to global warming appeared in The Hans India and the recent one appeared on 5th March 2017. This type of surveys-observations from the air convey very little on the science of climate change. Ten year records become astonishing events, weather catastrophes of 50 or 100 years ago are forgotten.
It makes for good click bait but cripples our ability to prepare for the inevitable. In the last one year stories after stories were published internationally on the drought in California linking it to global warming. Now, California is reeling under heavy rain and snow falls. A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months.
Proverbs on climate with the reference to seasons [in Telugu] were built based on the experience of our forefathers and also they are part of Astrological Panchangas. In the last few days, the media is agog with the heat. In fact, the extreme temperatures are not new to this part of India. According to 1931-1960 Normal [Red] Book of IMD, Hyderabad reached 37.2, 42.2, 43.3 & 44.4 oC in February, March, April and May respectively.
Present conditions haven’t crossed these limits. Also clear skies present high diurnal variations and cloudy skies present low diurnal variations. These are controlled by local “climate system – atmosphere, hydrosphere, crystosphere, land surface, biosphere–” and “general circulation patterns – wind patterns –” at any given location and region. Pollution also influences the climate, particularly in winter with temperature inversion layer formations.
Earth’s climate is dynamic and always changing through natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system. Droughts and floods form part of natural variability in climate and form main part of the climate change. These are beyond human control. We need to adapt to them. Agriculture was adapted to such vagaries by our forefathers; they built location-specific technologies in terms of farming systems.
However, with the increased interference of humans on nature, the natural variations are being modified at local and regional scales. The combination of these is known as climate change. Also, meteorological parameters are inter-related and mutually interactive. Natural variability consists of irregular variations that include “intra-seasonal & intra-annual” variations and “systematic variations” expressed by fluctuations or cyclic variations of different durations. In the case of temperature, the man-induced variations have two components. They are changes through greenhouse effect and non-greenhouse effect.
Global warming is a part of greenhouse effect associated with the anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The non-greenhouse effect is termed as ecological changes associated with the changes in land and water use and cover, generally expressed by urban-heat-island effect and rural-cold-island effect. The human-induced change is expressed as trend. Thus, climate change is not global warming; but global warming is only one part of human-induced changes of climate change.
In the global (land and ocean) temperature anomaly of adjusted data series 1880 to 2010, the trend presented an increase of 0.6 oC per Century of which around 50% is the global warming component – 0.3 oC per Century. The satellite observational data series show half of this only [0.15 oC], as it considers urban-heat-island and rural-cold-island effects unlike ground- based measurements in a balanced way.
With all this, unfortunately, it has become a ritual, to attribute every weather event to El Nino or Global Warming without looking into weather and climate of the regions. In 2014, WMO Secretary General in his World Meteorological Day release attributed the 2013 drought and warm conditions prevailing in the Southern Hemisphere to global warming following the footsteps of IPCC and the Ethiopian drought conditions were attributed to El Nino by FAO Representative in Ethiopia. In fact, they are part of natural variations which was discussed in my book as back as 1993.
Nature is being destroyed by both natural disasters such as cyclonic activity, earthquakes, volcanic activity, tsunamis, etc; and activities to meet human greed such as wars, oil-gas-water extraction, physical destruction of ecologically sensitive zones and destruction of natural water flow systems, violation of acts or laws, etc are often attributed to global warming.
The flood disasters in Uttarkhand in June 2013; Jammu and Kashmir in September 2014; November-December 2015 in Chennai & Nellore; September 2000 in Hyderabad are the manifestations of human greed. Now governments are wrongly putting the blame on global warming. Indian institutions are making even Prime Minister to make false statements like “Chennai floods are associated with the Global Warming.” We must realise the fact that “ignorance is terrible but exaggeration is dangerous.”
Even at the recent 104th (2017) India Science Congress in Tirupati such statements were made by prominent people and also presented all-India Southwest Monsoon Rainfall is decreasing but on the contrary it presents a 60-year cycle wherein choice of data set in a sine curve define increasing or decreasing trend. It is like our proverbial saying “There is Tiger, here is the Tail” and in line with this “There is global warming, here is the impact.”
(Writer is Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment, Hyderabad)
By Dr S Jeevananda Reddy
Continued——
Rulers least bothered about environment
THE HANS INDIA | Mar 01,2017 , 05:31 AM IST
________________________________________
.
Human societies’ impact on environment is a function of population growth, more particularly in urban areas with around present 30% concentration which may reach 60% by 2050, their consumption patterns and their innovative technologies-based lifestyles. We consume resources from healthy ecosystems and make it unhealthy ecosystem over time.
Unplanned urbanisation, population explosion, agriculture and uncontrolled sewage discharge into rivers and lakes/tanks are primary reasons behind the rise in surface water pollution. Gulf of Mexico turned into a dead zone spreading over thousands of square kilometers with runoff that contains residues of chemical fertilisers & sprays from agricultural farms carried through Mississippi River in USA. We are using groundwater indiscriminately but we are not taking any action on recharging the groundwater and thus causing water pollution. The surface polluted water also polluting groundwater.
Just before Paris climate meet in 2016, Pope Francis released a provocative encyclical on the environment – Laudato Si. Again a few months back, he emphasised that destroying the environment was a sin. He further noted that humans were turning the planet into wasteland of debris, desolation and filth, and called for urgent action. Pope Francis further emphasised that, “We must not be indifferent to the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of ecosystems, often caused by our irresponsible and selfish behavior.” He called for consumers to modify their modern lifestyles by reducing waste, planting trees, etc.
The same was emphasised by UN & US Presidents just before Paris meet. But this was not reflected in the Paris Agreement document. A report of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) warns about the rising water pollution in three continents, namely Asia, Africa and Latin America, placing hundreds of millions of people at risk of contracting life-threatening diseases and putting aquatic flora and fauna under extinction threat. It observed that, “The increasing amount of wastewater being dumped into our surface waters is deeply troubling.
Access to quality water is essential for human health and human development. Both are at risk if we fail to stop the pollution.” Stan Cox’s ‘Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine,’ argues that corporate food and medicine industries are destroying environments and ruining living conditions across the world.
In twin cities, with the poor town planning more than 50% of lakes [952] and gardens [415] were replaced by concrete structures. We generate huge quantity (around 2000 million liters per day) of sewage and industrial effluents but we don’t have the capacity to treat at least 25% of such water and, as a result, Musi River and water bodies have turned into cesspools of poison. These in turn pollute groundwater. Reuse of that much water would have reduced the burden on bringing water from far-off places for drinking and other purposes.
We rarely look at precautionary principle; instead of prevention measures, we try controlling measures with which we rarely achieve the stated goal. Also, with isolated control measures, the scenario will not change. Take for example, will the Supreme Court order really improve the industrial pollution? The court needs to look into ground realities such as excess production and zero pollution. Without that, there will not be any improvement in reducing the pollution levels.
In the case of Musi river rejuvenation project or for that matter any other river including Ganga, isolated cleaning operations will not change the river condition except resulting in crores of rupees changing hands. In the case of Musi river, the government must start cleaning up of water bodies and water flow systems from the starting of catchment area and at the same time not allowing industrial effluents going out.
For the last two decades, several agencies studied the quality of groundwater in and around Hyderabad and presented the state of affair, little has been done by the government, except the media presenting those results. Even the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) presented its report in 2009. APPCB tried to show lower pollution potential through manipulation, which I countered and brought to the notice of MoEF and CPCB. The CPCB presented its next report wherein it showed increased levels of pollution index. Now it deteriorated further with government mooting Pharma City, a new point to dump both solid and liquid wastes generated.
Instead of controlling pollution from existing industries, the government is trying to increase them with new industrial estates/Pharma City and hospitals. As long as the government looks at health hazards in this direction, pollution will automatically grow by leaps and bounds.
(Writer is former Chief Technical Advisor to WMO & UN)
By Dr S Jeevananda Reddy
I thought the social cost of carbon was positive ! The deserts are greening , food production numbers keep improving so to me it’s a positive thing not negative .
Cost vs. benefit; if you don’t have to pay for a benefit, then its cost is negative.
“Dr. Pat Michaels made an impassioned plea to reverse the CO2 endangerment finding and quoted Eisenhower’s final speech from January 17, 1961:”
I’m glad to see Eisenhower’s quote is finally catching people’s attention. It highlights the logical outcome of the empowerment of government research over the policy makers. To discover that EPA research isn’t released to the public is truly shocking, and needs to be changed immediately. That is almost unbelievable. How can there be Gov’t watchdogs when you aren’t allowed to study the evidence? What is the EPA? A Mob run organization? Anyway, Eisenhower’s quote should be passed around. It was featured on my blog and in the documentary “The Changing Climate of Global Warming.” Be sure to pass it around.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Prophet Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/climate-science-on-trial-eisenhower-warned-us-about-climate-scientists/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/chromium-supplement-oral-route-parenteral-route/description/drg-20070098
Chromium supplements are used to prevent or treat chromium deficiency.
The body needs chromium for normal growth and health. …. Chromium helps your body use sugar properly. It is also needed for the breakdown of proteins and fats.
wiki
In the United States, the dietary guidelines for daily chromium intake were lowered in 2001 from 50–200 µg for an adult to 35 µg (adult male) and to 25 µg (adult female).[
—
Cr(VI)[edit] wiki
The acute oral toxicity for chromium(VI) ranges between 50 and 150 µg/kg.[70] In the body, chromium(VI) is reduced by several mechanisms to chromium(III) already in the blood before it enters the cells. The chromium(III) is excreted from the body, whereas the chromate ion is transferred into the cell by a transport mechanism, by which also sulfate and phosphate ions enter the cell. The acute toxicity of chromium(VI) is due to its strong oxidational properties. After it reaches the blood stream, it damages the kidneys, the liver and blood cells through oxidation reactions
So chromium is essential for human growth but is also toxic and carcinogenic
CO2 is essential for humans and plants
but:
Occupational CO2 exposure limits have been set in the United States at 0.5% (5000 ppm) for an eight-hour period.[105] At this CO2 concentration, International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.[106] Studies in animals at 0.5% CO2 have demonstrated kidney calcification and bone loss after eight weeks of exposure.[107] A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2 likely due to CO2 induced increases in cerebral blood flow.[102] Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.
Perhaps my previous comment re intelligence does not occur at high CO2 levels was not such a joke after all – 1000ppm lowers information usage.
so are co2 and chromium Safe?
in the required concentrations – yes, but in excess – no.
That is true of everything.
Check out the LD50 charts of common substances.
Salt stands out as something we all need to survive and our bodies excrete continuously, but is deadly if eaten in a large amount.
Aspirin, caffeine, nicotine…all have LD50s extremely low compared to, say, glyphosate.
Glyphosate is so non-toxic that some studies were unable to force enough of it into the stomach of certain mammals to kill any of them, and yet is the singular villain in religion of an entire green horde of doom-crying professional worrywarts.
Go figure.
All things in moderation.
We are now moderating the excessively low levels of CO2 we found in the air when we found the collective wherewithal to measure and comprehend the significance of such things.
http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/LD50-common-chemicals.jpg
Dirty dishwater is unlikely to be very toxic either, but only a fool would drink some to prove that point.
Besides, Roundup, and other commercial herbicides which have glyphosate as an active ingredient, does not contain only glyphosate…it also has various surfactants and other adjuvants which may or may have equal toxicity to the glyphosate.
But hold on a second…are you refuting the science here?
Do you claim to have data at odds with the findings of the numerous studies which have investigated the safety of glyphosate?
Or are you engaging in a value judgement?
How much coverage in the MSM?
Surprisingly, it so far seems to have received less attention this year than in some prior years.
“particularly when one considers that the Antarctic sea ice extent is at a record level.”
er, no, it isn’t.
It is at a record low after just two exceptionally high years.
The arctic sea ice is STILL at a record low, having been like that for most of the time since late September.
and yes it looks like the arctic has cycles… except we’re now way below the low point of what is likely to have been the last one and still going down… and we’re overdue for the uptick.
As I suggested to Nick above, why talk about sea ice extent around Antarctica at all? It’s clear that either direction, the scammers will blame it on man-made climate change.
““What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change” (Mann)
Agreed?
By whose calendar? I didn’t know nature had schedules.
I’m starting to think that predicting the end of the world is the only thing that makes you happy.
I tell it like it is.
If there’s something happening, why spend a lot of time persuading people ‘there’s nothing to see here’?
I’m beginning to think hiding from reality is the only thing that makes you happy…
“I tell it like it is.”
Bollocks.
You make it up as you go along.
Griff
**I tell it like it is.**
So tell us that you cannot find a paper that MEASURES the warming by CO2.
Tell us.
Waiting………………..
Also, antarctic ice isn’t at a record low. It’s bang on the average. Currently a little over it.
Archer if you are talking about Antarctic sea ice extent as being bang on the average, you must not know what 2 standard deviations below the average means. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
“In the Southern Hemisphere, sea ice likely reached its minimum extent for the year on March 3, at 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles). This year’s minimum extent was the lowest in the satellite record, continuing a period of satellite-era record low daily extents that began in early November. ”
Lowest in the satellite record is a record low, isn’t it??
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“The arctic sea ice is STILL at a record low, having been like that for most of the time since late September.”
The arctic sea ice is only at record lows if you cherry-pick the time period. There was less arctic sea ice in 1972 than now. The year 1978 was a highpoint for arctic sea ice. So you ignore the 1972 low year and begin your calculation starting from the high point of the satellite era 1978, which skews the picture radically.
https://realclimatescience.com/2015/09/starting-graphs-in-1979-world-class-fraud/
Andy, I enjoyed meeting you at the conference. Great job on the summary.
Happer’s last point,
, is a very important one. At a reasonable discount rate, 7% as the OMB has suggested for public projects for a very long time, present value of near term benefits, which are easy to quantify, greatly outweight the long term costs, which are fairly nebulous.
There is an effort to replace the simple 7% guidance with a rate of 3% for “intergenerational transfers”. But this is just an exercise in circular logic. It is, in effect, discount rate shopping to find one that makes one’s current fantasy look reasonable.
There is an even worse effort being promoted by outfits such as “progressivereform.org” who appear to wish to eliminate benefit/cost ratio or net present value analyses altogether. It is interesting, and a bit disheartening, to see that some statutes, actually many, prohibit rational analyses of the benefit/cost ratio variety.
Omg Don’t these people have children/grandchildren? Go stick your head back in the sand, everything will be fine!
I wonder if they realise that corporations are ONLY interested in profits so the nearsighted executive can get a bonus. Really disappointing artical.
Nick
Record low ‘global sea ice’ so the Solomon Islands and Nauru should (finally) be disappearing, correct?
Inconvenient data — Solomon Islands’ mean sea level for Jan & Feb 2017 is lower than the mean for holy moly — 2000, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015.
Inconvenient data — Nauru’s mean sea level for Jan & Feb 2017 is lower than the mean for holy moly — 1997, 2002, 2004, 2014 and 2015.
Nick the ‘experts’ have been warning over a decade that melting sea-ice will drown us, so why is it having the opposite affect right now?
Who will lobby Solomon and Nauru to refund climate mitigation money fraudulently obtained over the past decade during which time their mean sea levels have been on a small down trend?
If you read the science, it rules out CO2, just look at Nature Magazine. I wish this was covered at the event.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope They’ll Hang Themselves
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/climate-science-on-trial-give-a-climate-alarmist-enough-rope-theyll-hang-themselves/
Great conference. Naturally the speakers were superb. This has been the standard for the 10 U. S. Conferences I attended. The hotel also did an outstanding job. Meals were cleared fast after banquet sessions. Servers were very polite. Servings all appeared to be individually made for us.
As a side light, the Cure bar and restaurant staff were very friendly and efficient. The same can be said for the Concierge Office.
Overall, the conference was outstanding.
James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech)
Just as when searching some climate topic on google the top entry will be ‘skeptical science [sic]’, on searching the names giving talks you’ll find the top, or sometimes second top (after Wikipedia), google entry will be the desmog hatchet-job website. — odd.
Having attended myself, I have to disagree about what are the key take-aways.
From a policy perspective, the single most important is to revisit and vacate the EPA’s endangerment finding. Pat Michaels put it very clearly that, if the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant is not nullified, any attempt to dismantle other green programs can – and will – be stopped in the courts. The very first order of business is remove CO2 as a regulated air pollutant. Period. Full Stop. All other initiatives follow on from there. Without it, there is little hope of achieving any other goals.
The second is to formally remove the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Why the UNFCCC? It’s the shortest route. Only 1 year’s notification is required and no explanation or justification is necessary. It can be done almost entirely in the Executive branch without legislative involvement except to confirm the fait accompli. It immediately obviates participation in the IPCC. It immediately withdraws the US from the Paris Treaty. I’m a fan of quick and easy.
I’m a bit late commenting on this great article but I hope someone will answer. On concentrations of CO2 that might be harmful to humans, has anyone estimated the rate of increase in concentration of CO2 inside a car with all windows closed and the air circulation switched to Recirc?
In my car when I am alone I start to feel drowsy after about 10 minutes. With more people in the car it’s faster.
Peter,
Maybe ten times the current level would be harmful, over time, but not much it seems . . consider how rarely people die when sleeping in cars or other enclosed situations . . I tend to get dozy too, but I’m pretty sure it’s from vibration.
I agree, there are many reasons for becoming drowsy in a moving car, vibration, boredom, not enough sleep. I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with the increased level of CO2 in a closed environment. I have frequently driven long distances going cross-country in a closed vehicle. Sometimes I get drowsy, that usually means it is time for the co-driver to take over! On my last trip, there were four other people with me, we all managed to stay awake.
PMK
Nearly forgot, Walter Cunningham told us that NASA had no problem with the Apollo astronauts breathing in 3-5K PPM and in the space station it is even higher.
PMK
Here’s WaPo’s Heartland story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-mercers-trump-mega-donors-back-group-that-casts-doubt-on-climate-science/2017/03/26/dc1fde86-109b-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.703c558e46eb
Interesting…I saw the Mercer father and daughter but had no idea who they were. I didn’t notice that they were being fawned over either.
PMK
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen
I agree with your observation that the half-life of excess co2 in the atmosphere is ~35 years. The only caveat I would add is to call it an “apparent” half-life. It may not hold in the future, like many of the other relationships in climate science.
If Samuel would stop his name calling for a minute, he could do a simple calculation to show the relationship between the excess co2 and the proportion of co2 extracted from the atmosphere. Simply take the beginning value of the excess (e.g. 400ppm – 280ppm = 120ppm excess), add the emissions for the year (e.g. 5ppm), and divide this into the actual growth rate (e.g. 2.5ppm). It comes out to 2%. Using the rule of 72, the half-life is ~35 years.
This can be easily modeled in a spreadsheet and the relationship is fairly constant for the last 50-some years. If you exclude land-use emissions, the rate starts a little higher and levels off at 2%. If you include land-use emissions, the rate starts a little lower and again levels off at 2%.
This calculation would make for an interesting blog post.