Saturday, July 31, 2010

Global Warming Alarmists Struck Down but They Won't Admit It

So what happened that struck down the global warming alarmists?

Much more than I can give here. But since I wrote my last blog entry on why the war on global warming is a war on the poor, new information has come to light that. Just today (07/30/2010) a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came out about the best evidence so far about global warming. It drew on research from 48 countries. The article came from Bloomberg News, and was entitled, Report: Warming is unmistakable. It starts with the usual alarmism about global warming. It’s not until the end of the article that we get the actual facts. After all, why let the facts get in the way?

I’ve written previously that the best evidence shows that the Earth is heating at the rate of about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) per century. And I’ve also said that it is possible that this may have a net positive value for humanity.

So what does the NOAA conclude from its most recent data? The Earth warmed about 1 degree F over the last 50 years. For those of you that are mathematically challenged that comes out to 2 degrees per century. Are you scared yet?

What about the prediction made by the global warming alarmists?

Not unexpectedly, the article did not mention the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final report, and its predictions using various climate models? It also didn’t mention Al Gore’s predictions that he gave in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

No, neither of these were mentioned, nor were any other previous predictions. I can only presume that the reason for this is that more people will realize that it is a waste of money to try to mitigate this level of global warming, especially if the mitigation method has to do with reducing our “carbon footprint.”

So let look at the United Nation’s IPCC final report and cut to the chase. One part of the report gives the various estimates of how much the temperature will increase by 2100. The estimates vary from 2 to 11 degrees F.

First, I’ll bet that you didn’t realize how much variability there was in the IPCC report. This variability wasn’t written about much, because most people would think, what kind of ridiculous prediction is that? Maybe they will soon predict that the Sun will come up in 2100. Actually, I have to give the authors of the final report credit for being honest about how little they knew about how much the temperature might change over the next century.

And let’s be honest here. The current evidence is that the Earth will warm 2 degrees F by 2100, and that is precisely the low end of the IPCC’s estimate. Kudos to them. However, their best estimate was 5 to 6 degrees F, so the Kudos are minimal. (Just to let you know the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. If it ends up being at the low end, it would be about the same as the estimated rise during the 20th century of about a foot).

The estimate for the 20th century was that the temperature rose about 1 to 1.5 degrees F. Did anyone notice?

But what is the Earth does start warming faster than it has been over the last few decades?

This is certainly possible. It’s even possible (but less likely) that the Earth will cool. Notice that I haven’t predicted what the global temperature would be by 2100, I just extrapolated from current data. Frankly, I have no idea what the global temperature will be in 2100, and neither do you, or Al Gore, or anyone else.

But if the Earth does starting warming at rate of more than 3 degrees per century, it would probably be wise to attempt to mitigate this. Not by attempting to cut our carbon dioxide emissions, which my last blog pointed out will have no discernable effect. Rather there are cost-effective geo-engineering solutions that research is currently being done on. For more information on these see my blog post about global warming.

And if you want good solutions that will improve our environment, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and save us money, check out my post on Rational Environmentalism.

So why are there so many in the media and so many groups that are worried that we are “destroying the Earth?”

It’s hard to know exactly. Part of the reason, I believe is that people like to believe strongly in something, and believing that you are helping to save the Earth is quite motivating.

With respect to the media, it is natural for them to print the bad news, or at least try to make news sound bad, even when it isn’t. Such news sells better than a story about Girl Scout cookies.

But I also think that some people have an almost unconscious guilt that they are trying to assuage. They might feel guilty about the U.S. being so prosperous compared to most other countries, and that our prosperous ways are harming the Earth.

How can this be countered?

It can be countered by developing what might be called a “prosperity consciousness”. Let’s all look around objectively and see that the most prosperous nations have the highest standards of living, less pollution, less poverty, more choices, are better educated, and live longer and healthier lives than nations that are not as prosperous. And when some disaster occurs, they can deal with it much better than less prosperous countries.

We should want all good people of this world to be prosperous, and there are plenty of resources available on our planet to be able to do this.  This is the attitude that I'd like us all to adopt.
______________________________________


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Why the “War on Global Warming” is a “War on the Poor”

Haven’t you written about global warming before?

Yes. Click here for a link to that post, which contains more details than are given here, and would be a good background for this post.

The reason for this new post is that Congress is currently considering what is called a “cap-and-trade” tax. This is a form of a carbon tax that taxes industries that emit CO2. The purpose of this post is to show that any such tax will make everything more expensive, and yet do nothing to prevent global warming. So the poor will be harmed, and it will be for nothing.

Why will such a tax make everything more expensive?

Whenever we burn oil, natural gas, or coal to obtain energy, CO2 is given off. So any sort of carbon tax would increase the cost of energy since we obtain most of our energy from these sources. We frequently think of energy in terms of gasoline and electricity, and the price of those will certainly increase. But keep in mind that the chair you’re sitting on took energy to make. So the price of everything will increase with such a tax.

Won’t a cap-and-trade/carbon tax cause us switch to more “sustainable” forms of energy such as solar or wind?

Probably so. But these forms of energy supply only a small fraction of our energy needs, and they are still expensive. As solar and wind and other forms of energy become inexpensive, we will naturally start generating energy from them. But it will take decades before they become a significant source of energy. Until then, why create poverty?

But if a form of carbon tax will reduce our CO2 emissions, won’t that reduce global warming, and benefit all?

No, if the United States decreases its CO2 emissions, it will have no significant effect on global warming. There are many reasons for this. First, a few years ago, China became the leading emitter of CO2, and the amount they are giving off is growing substantially, whereas we are not substantially increasing our CO2. Likewise, India, other Asian countries, Africa and South America are all increasing their CO2. So even if we were to decrease our CO2 emissions by say 30%, this would have little effect on global CO2 concentration.

Even worse, projections from the last 30 years indicate that global temperatures would rise about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by 2100, which may actually have a net benefit to humanity. The reason for this is that plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis, and give off the oxygen that animals (and humans!) breathe. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 315 parts-per-million (ppm) in 1958 to 385 ppm in 2008. (This is about 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air). Many greenhouse owners prefer to use 1000 ppm in their greenhouses because their plants grow better with that concentration of CO2. This indicates that increasing CO2 in our atmosphere will increase plant and tree growth, thus making food more plentiful and affordable.

And even though you’ve heard otherwise, the truth is that we still don’t know how much global warming manmade CO2 emissions are causing. You’ve certainly heard the almost hysterical pleas from Al Gore and others who consider manmade CO2 emissions an apocalypse waiting to happen. But what has happened?

Trends indicate a 3 degree F increase over the next century and a 1 to 2 foot rise in sea level. Does this sound apocalyptic to you? Have you noticed that dearth of articles in the last few years about how much global warming is occurring? The reason is that for a decade or so, there has been no global warming. How many articles have you seen about that? Have you noticed that instead of the term “global warming”, alarmists are using the term, “climate change.” This is safer for them since they can still talk about climate change when no global warming is happening. It’s also safe because the climate is always changing. But don’t be fooled. When you hear “climate change” that is almost always a euphemism for “manmade global warming.” Scientists and journalists who have done this ought to be ashamed, for they are hiding the truth.

Are there other reasons for not having a CO2 cap-and-trade tax?

Taxing CO2 will cost us money that we could be using for something valuable. There are “clean coal” initiatives that involve burning coal for electricity (of which the U.S. has hundreds of years’ worth), but that give off much less pollution. This sounds reasonable, except that these initiatives always involve removing the CO2 given off, which is expensive to do. If we eliminated the CO2 requirement, because it has no value, we could redefine “clean coal” as burning coal for energy and giving off very little pollution, such as sulfur dioxide, lead and mercury. This would be of benefit to us since these substances have been shown to be harmful.

Furthermore, the only current cost-effective way we have of generating pollution-free energy is with nuclear power. Streamlining the process for approving and building more nuclear power plants would have tremendous value. As well doing more research into more efficient and less expensive nuclear power plants would be of value. We have over a million years worth of nuclear fuel, mainly uranium and thorium. It would also make us less dependent on foreign oil, once we have good battery-powered cars.

What’s one more good reason for not having a CO2 cap-and-trade tax?

Because it will create poverty, it will do the opposite of what is intended: to make humanity better off. If global warming occurs to a harmful extent, then, just as when other disasters happen, the most prosperous countries will fare much better than the poorest countries. The lesson of the 2010 disastrous earthquake in Haiti was that it wasn’t the earthquake that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it was poverty. Haiti did not have buildings or roads or the various types of infrastructure able to handle a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. In 1989, San Francisco had an almost identical earthquake, and around 60 people were killed. Prosperity matters a great deal, when it comes to dealing with any kind of disaster.

Prosperous countries will be in the best position to deal with whatever negative effects there might be due to global warming. Not only will these countries suffer less if significant global warming occurs, they will suffer less if any disaster occurs. In addition, prosperous countries rarely go to war with each other. It is easier just to trade with each other than to go to war.

I’ve heard from more than one good-hearted person that the Earth would be better off with fewer people, and that they don’t want the rest of the world to have the amenities that we have in the U.S. because it would “destroy the Earth.” This is truly a terrible attitude. Good people should want all other good people on Earth to be prosperous and to have access to the same products that we enjoy. If we do it right, there are plenty of natural resources to provide for all of us, and in a sustainable manner.

In a previous post I gave an environmental policy for the United States that will reduce pollution and CO2 emissions by at least 80% by 2050. And the surprising news about this is that it will create prosperity at the same time. This is about the most anyone could ask for, and it can be done without any form of carbon tax.

There are cost-effective ways to reduce global warming if we need be. (Click on the link at the start of this post to find out about them). But having a carbon tax is not one of them.

Conclusion

A cap-and-trade tax or any form of carbon tax will not benefit the environment, and will create poverty. Congress should reject any such taxes. Rather, it should endorse environmental policies that reduce pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and create prosperity.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________