Environmental Ombudsman: Climate Change

Hubris and Folly.

This Washington Post article explains that the average consumer will pay $175 per year as a part of the new "climate bill," an act of legislation by the US Congress meant to combat global warming. Some believe that the costs per household could be as high as $4,300 per year. The problem? There are several, with the legislation and the climate change movement as a whole.

This legislation, as described, only makes sense if you believe each of the following things:

1) Global warming exists.
2) Global warming is caused by humans.
3) Global warming is bad.
4) Humans can take steps to reverse the effects of global warming.
5) The benefits of those steps outweigh the costs

Lets look at each.

1) There is a general consensus that global warming exists on a macro level. There was a little ice age believed to have ended around 1850, and a general warming over the last 150 years. However, two things bear mentioning. First, there has not been a global warming trend over the last 10 years. While still a warmer than average decade, there has actually been a cooling trend since 1998. Second, it was just 30 years ago when Lowell Ponte, backed by the vast majority of the scientific community wrote "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species..."Fast forward to January of this year, and Al Gore, in front of Congress, averred that global warming "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth" within this century. The point? Analysis of weather trends, mapping global temperatures and the predicting of future climates is an undertaking still in its nascency. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

“...the phenomena fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. [Nor is there] evidence that the climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change." - Marine Geologist Robert M. Carter of James Cook University in Australia.

2) Lets assume that there is a global warming trend. Is it caused by humans? The UN's IPCC suggests that man-made increases in greenhouse gas levels are responsible for upwards of 90% of the temperature increases over the last 150 years. There are two logical barriers here.

First, day 1 of logic class teaches you that correlation doesn't imply causation. The IPCC states that human carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of world temperature changes while failing to show that a change of a certain amount of carbon will result in a corresponding change in temperature, all else held constant. The IPCC's paper, linked above, takes the following logical progression: 1) it notes that man made carbon dioxide has increased by .01% (100 parts per 1 million) over the last 150 years, 2) lists observations of increased temperatures and then 3) states that humans are most likely responsible for most temperature changes. Of course, this skips over the most important step - How is it determined that a 100 part per million increase in carbon dioxide will increase temperatures? Answer - its not! No one knows whether that 100 part per million increase in carbon would raise temperatures by 1 degree or by 1 trillionth of one degree, and no one cares. The IPCC sees one thing increase, and another thing increase, and says, the first thing causes the second! Debate over. It remains unclear to TWO how the IPCC linked global warming to carbon dioxide and not, say, the popularity of reggaeton music or number of west coast girls wearing Ed Hardy hats, both of which have also experienced notable (and at times troubling) increases over the past few years.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

The second logical barrier is the failure to take into consideration outside forces. For the sake of argument, lets assume that human carbon dioxide increases have a measurable effect on temperature, all else held constant. Lets now take a deeper look. 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapor. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 4% of the greenhouse gases, and human contributions to carbon dioxide levels account for about 3% of that - in other words, about 0.1% of greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from humans. Presumably, there could be variances and changes in the make up of the other 99.9% of the greenhouse gases that might have some effect on the atmosphere.

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Lets forget about the atmosphere. There are other things to consider. Ocean currents like El Nino and El Nina cause temperature change -- explaining 2008's lower temperatures, according to the IPCC (this admission, on its own, would seem to support a more tempered position on the effect of humans on climate). Solar activity, totally ignored by the IPCC, is thought by many climatologists to be the single most important factor in temperature fluctuations. When one considers the fact that Mars' ice caps have been melting and that there's presumably been no human carbon dioxide increases there, it would seem like a factor that reasonable people would at least include in the climate change discussion. However none of these other factors - atmospheric, land-based and solar - are given any credence by the IPCC.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

3) Whats so bad about the world getting warmer? A fascinating social aspect of the global warming crisis is the unspoken assumption that climate conditions are perfect only as they are right now. Any variance up or down, we are told, will result in total catastrophe. TWO would propound that if human beings are effecting the climate, we are far better off slightly increasing temperatures (creating more water, more vegetation and more farmable land) then slightly decreasing temperatures (which would decrease water, vegetation and agriculture).

4) Can humans take steps to reverse global warming? Assuming that you believe that 1) global warming exists, 2) its caused by humans and 3) its bad -- you still have to think that human beings can reverse it to even consider supporting this bill. The climate change bill looks to reduce carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, by 42% by 2030 and by 83% by 2050. The problem? The IPCC says that even if carbon emissions were to be stabilized now, global warming would continue on for centuries (centuries!) because of lag times in our atmosphere's reaction. Now, TWO sees no reason to believe that the IPCC knows what its doing, but would assume that it would lean towards empowering and encouraging green legislation if possible.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group.

5) When one factors in the unintended, but likely, consequences of such legislation - including increased costs to ordinary citizens (estimates of $175 per year to consumers and as much as $4,300 to households in bills), onerous restrictions on businesses and a loss of American jobs - along with the nebulous state of climate change science, one wonders if the benefits (if any) of such a bill could possibly outweigh the costs.

“The [global warming] scare mongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

TWO has said it before, and he will say it again: TWO is an environmentalist. Corporations should internalize their costs on society, we should push safe emissions where possible, and we should take the steps necessary to protect our resources. We should move to smarter modes of transportation and shift away from foreign oil as much as practicable.

What we should not accept is alarmism, rushed and hazy logic and unscientific thought. I have long privately believed that the global warming crisis resembled a large scale street hustle. If you've ever seen a street hustler sell, he brings together a crowd, waives some goods in front of their face, quickly explains what they are without any opportunity for discussion, and then has a couple of cronies in the audience, acting like ordinary pedestrians, who then rush up to frantically try to buy all of it. If done correctly, this sets off a frenzy, and everyone wants to buy.

Applied here, green political leaders and organizations are trying to sell the public on the threat of global warming. Scientists, funded in many cases by green organizations, rush to support the position, reports are waived around and the public is stirred into a frenzy. Before anyone can question it, the debate is over and anyone who questions the position is quieted.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, formerly of NASA and who has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

The reason why you don't declare that a debate is over or quiet skeptics is because discourse in our society is structured around the belief that an open and free market place for debate is the best way to judge the merits of different ideas. Ironically, this bill is being proposed just as we are moving in on a tipping point in the global warming discussion. A record high of 41% of Americans believe that the global warming threat is exaggerated. Whereas 5 years ago no one would EVER have questioned global warming in a mainstream publication, highly regarded conservative columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer have recently expressed their skepticism and even liberal institutions like the New York Times have tempered their support.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

I can't predict whether this bill will pass, but I think that it is difficult to defend its passage based on the above. I can predict that at some point in the future, possibly within our lifetimes, civilization will look back on this "global warming crisis" as the pinnacle of human hubris and folly.

In conclusion:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal [in history]…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Hackery Ombudsman: Paul Krugman

There are many different kinds of hacks.

But before we get into that - lets address my whereabouts recently. Some of you became a bit concerned with my absence, wondering where the column was, wondering what I was doing.

To all of that I say shhh shhh shhhh. Everythings ok. Lets see if you can guess what I was doing. Was TWO

A) Pausing before his next column, like a basketball player sinking a three pointer holding his arm aloft as he runs down court, simply to impress upon the readers how incredibly correct he was about Lebron and the Cavs

or

B) Lounging at his estate in Santorini (pictured above), sipping marula fruit cream liqueur and disburdening himself of musings on Bismark's Germany

Trick question. BOTH! Because TWO is both always right and has a Pan-European accent.

A brief moment on Lebron... in addition to the posturing and grimacing and limping around (which was on display almost constantly)... did you notice the Lebron-Headwhip? Here is a man who is 6-8, 275 pounds, who knocks people around like bowling pins when he flies through the lane. However, should he be caught in the face or upper chest with a flailing hand or an errant basketball, he whips his head backwards, rotates his arms in huge concentric circles and usually rolls around on the ground for a while. Did Shaquille O'Neal do this during the hack-a-shaq days where he was hacked acrossed the shoulders, face and arms 20 times a game? No.

Look, Lebron will be the best player in the NBA if he isn't already. He is young and has time to mature. In his defense, he has been told he is the greatest from the time he was 12 -- that sort of things leads to arrogance which may, in time, be tempered. TWO can admit that he would be just as bad if he had attained success at such a young age. As it is, I am older than Lebron and whenever my column has over 1000 hits in a day I spray champagne out of the window onto unsuspecting pedestrians below. They hate that. But thats how I celebrate. Anyway, I continue to find it disheartening that the basketball commentators are typically too hacky to call out Lebron on his antics.

Moving on to a different kind of hack, can we have a moment on Paul Krugman? Krugman might be the hackiest journalist to ever attain acclaim in American history. Krugman's most recent opus was this article, blaming Ronald Reagan (who is dead) for the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Am I oversimplifying? Is TWO using hyperbole? The title of the article is "Reagan Did It." Like its the last utterance of a victim at a murder scene.

How did Reagan commit this crime 5 years after his death? Well, with the passing of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of course! This bill, passed 26 years before the 2008-2009 financial crisis, deregulated the savings and loan industry. One of the consequences was that it allowed lenders to lend more freely to potential home purchasers. Krugman's thesis is that this Act was the main cause of our current economic downturn.

Before we just accept this argument and move on with our lives, TWO would like to examine facts. TWO loves facts. The Garn - St. Germain Act was a bi-partisan bill sponsored by Congressman Ferdinand St. Germain (D-RI) (who sounds like the sort of person who I would invite to my property in Santorini, but I digress) and Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) (who sounds like the sort of person who would be re-caulking bathroom tiles at my property in Santorini, but I digress again). It passed the House and, with some amendments, the Senate overwhelmingly. Co-sponsors included current Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and current Democratic Congressman Steny Hoyer. The Act allowed savings and loans to increase commercial lending to up to 10% of its assets, national banks to lend 15% of assets (up from 10%) and similar other slight increases. There's a savings and loan debacle a few years later, but essentially 10 years go by without any sort of substantial change in American home ownership and 25 years go by without any sort of housing related financial crisis.

Fast forward to 1993. Home ownership is at 63%. At the urging of the Clinton administration, bank regulators reform the Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks to show they were lending to a set number of lower-income buyers. By 2000, home ownership has suddenly jumped to 68%. Meanwhile, GSEs like Fannie Mae are being pressured to provide more and more mortgages to high-credit-risk purchasers. How outrageous were the rates? In 1997 Fannie Mae was offering 97% loan to value mortgages. The Bush administration was no better. Attempting to rebound from the dot com bubble, Alan Greenspan advocated refinancing and borrowing against speculative home values and Bush tirelessly pushed for more home ownership for more low-income buyers. By 2001, Fannie Mae was actually offering 100% loan to value mortgages -- in other words, allowing people to buy homes without putting any money down! As pressure mounted to lend, the number of dangerous loans increased. During a three year period between 2003-2006, sub-prime and Alt-A loans jumped from making up about 1/10 of all mortgages to making up nearly 1/3. By 2008, US consumers were spending almost $1.1 trillion more than they were earning in spendable income.* When the values of homes fell, homeowners who had refinanced often had almost no equity value in their homes and often just didn't pay. Others couldn't afford their mortgages after the downturn. Financial institutions, many of whom held massive amounts of mortgage-backed-securities (Bear Stearns collapsed under a 35:1 leverage ratio) found that the underlying assets were greatly, greatly overvalued and illiquid. All the while, government officials (the Fed, the Clinton and Bush administrations and members of Congress) were asleep at the wheel, as we've discussed before.

To summarize, although there has been a general trend towards open markets and free lending over the past 30 years, the events proximately causing this financial crisis undeniably took place throughout the past 10 to 15 years. No serious thinker would call President Reagan, of all people, "the prime villain" of this financial crisis.

And that is really the point. Paul Krugman is capable of being a serious thinker, but he chooses not to be. He instead chooses to be a hack. A economics professor, skilled writer and (somehow) Nobel Prize winner, he has relegated himself to the journalistic equivalent of a drunk heckler at a basketball game, yelling inflammatory things to anyone who will listen. As people tune him out or change seats, he has to yell louder and more obscenely to get noticed. By the end of his career Krugman will be writing articles like "George Bush - Sarah Palin Love Child Is Wolf Boy" for the National Enquirer.

Politically, there are two types of people: People who treat their political party like its their favorite college football team and people who just want the government to get things right. The former will trace back the roots of any problem to a misstep by their rival and make any argument, no matter how convoluted, to show that their "team" is blameless. The latter would prefer that elected officials who get things right be given proper credit, and those who get things wrong be held accountable, no matter the letter after their name.

In conclusion, don't be a hack.


*We don't really cite sources in any organized way here at TWO, but, for those interested, I relied heavily on financial figures from this article by Peter J. Wallison and this speech by Robert Rodriguez