Category: Global Warming

Is the Science Really Settled?

The last 17 years without warming have been disappointments to climate activists insistent that the globe is getting hotter thanks to human activity. So what happens when the climate acts in ways that that do not fit the human-caused global warming narrative? How do warming proponents respond to them?

The IPCC released its latest climate change report in September, stating with 95 percent probability that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” But Benjamin Zycher at the American Enterprise Institute dove into the document and detailed exactly why the IPCC report “is a political document first and a (partial) summary of the scientific literature only secondarily.” (And if you are wondering where that 95 percent probability comes from, see Kenneth Green’s piece.)

Greenpeace Founder: Humans Not Responsible for Global Warming

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

Which science-denying flat earther uttered such blasphemy? None other than Patrick Moore, cofounder of the activist environmental group Greenpeace.

The Global Warming Fiasco

Leadership to focus debate on the critical questions has never been more important.  Devastating consequences lurk for those asking the wrong questions. A lot of research money and newsprint has been allocated to whether the planet is warming or cooling (the concern in the 1970s), and whether humans are responsible. But those questions are relatively trivial, and border on irrelevant.

Once we have probable cause to believe that climate change, from what it would otherwise be (regardless of the reason), would be worthwhile, the key issue becomes which, if any, human actions are capable of cost effectively producing desirable climate changes. If the answer is there are no such policies, it doesn’t matter if the planet is warming or cooling, or whether humans have had a significant hand in it or not. Living with the risk would then be less costly than attempts to address it. If the answer is there are some potentially cost effective policies, we should consider only such policies, and consider them whether humans are responsible for warming or cooling, and whether we can prove change one way or the other. For example, there may be no evidence of climate change, but if we are capable of cost-effectively improving the climate, then we should pursue such policies, which would include researching the distribution of costs and benefits, and other potential efficiency trade-offs. If we can figure out a way to cost effectively reduce hurricane frequency or intensity, it doesn’t matter if humans have done something in the past that has increased hurricane damage, or if hurricanes are more intense or numerous now than at some other time.

Given that the likely necessary conditions (for example, an enforceable international agreement that includes all major emitters; Kyoto doesn’t) for a cost effective climate change policy may be improbable, the only sane unilateral actions against potential adverse climate change are policies that would help there, but make sense without climate change benefits. There are many such policies; for example congestion pricing to reduce traffic jams and revenue-neutral tax burden shifts to fossil fuels.

Global Warming When Hot, Climate Change When Cold

Have you noticed that anytime America sees a hot weather-related event — be it a drought, a major heat wave, a hurricane, etc. — such an incident is, quite obviously, evidence of global warming? A cold weather event, on the other hand (snow or a freeze or anything much like the winter storms that the U.S. has seen over the last several weeks), brings a flurry of reminders from climate change advocates that “weather” is distinct from “climate” and that cold weather events are in no way evidence that global warming has subsided — quite the opposite.

Apparently, a heat wave is obvious evidence of global warming (catastrophic, man-made warming, to boot), but a cold snap cannot possibly be evidence of global cooling, or even a lack of warming. Any event that appears to boost the global warming theory is trumpeted while facts that contradict the notion that the world will soon burn itself to a crisp are quietly ignored. Surely this must be the world’s largest case of selective hearing.

Confusion Over How to Criticize Greenhouse Gas Emissions

When environmentalists get all concerned about the negative influence of human activity over climate patterns around the globe, they typically point an accusatory finger at those nations with the highest levels of aggregate greenhouse gas production. Because greenhouse gasses are a direct side effect of economic activity, the guilty countries are always those with the largest economies. For example, a recent Global Post news article by Sarah Wolfe notes that the four biggest aggregate emitters of greenhouse gasses per year are China (6 trillion tons), the U.S. (5.9), Russia (1.7) and India (1.3).

Another Year of Global Cooling

An article by David Deming, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, in the Washington Times:

Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.

SOTU: Old Wine (a hint of vinegar) in New Bottles

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address made early, prominent mention of energy and climate policy.  However, it was the same old, same old.  Much to the dismay of the environmental left, he continued to tout an “all of the above,” energy strategy, which he claimed as his own.  However, as I detailed earlier, when the President was running for reelection against Mitt Romney, his policy would be better described as: “I’ll take undue credit for the growth in domestic oil and gas production, while continuing to throw good money after bad subsidizing expensive, unreliable renewable energy sources.”

Oil and gas production is up private and state lands thanks in no part to the President, but leases and new production is down on federal lands — all due to Obama administration policies. 

The President called on Congress to boost funding on infrastructure, calling it critical to continued job growth and economic progress, yet he alone, for five years, has held up one of the most critical infrastructure projects the U.S. could undertake: the Keystone XL pipeline.  With a stroke of the pen, President Obama could have already initiated the pipeline running from Canada to Texas, without spending a dime of taxpayer money or adding to the deficit.  Yet, beholden to his radical environmental constituency, the President has erected roadblock after roadblock to the pipeline, at the costs of thousands of new jobs and greater energy security.  Keystone’s study and approval process has now dragged on longer than World War II. 

Finally, the President touted his continuing end-run around Congress on climate policy.  Ignoring the Constitution he swore to uphold and the will of the people as expressed through the action (or inaction as it may be) of the legislature on carbon emissions, the Administration has already proposed CO2 emission limits that threaten the reliability of electric power delivery for millions and that will contribute to increased and increasingly volatile costs.  In the 2014 State of the Union he threatened more of the same, expanding the number of industries covered by emission limits proposing to make the limits tighter. 

If this wasn’t so sad for our economy and the Constitutional idea of divided powers, it would be funny, especially since Japan, Europe and Australia are backtracking on their climate commitments (having already experienced the economically costly impacts that result from them).

 

Japan, Europe and others fleeing the sinking climate ship

Australia’s government fell in part due to its commitment to economy deadening commitments to limit energy use to fight global warming.  The new government ran an “Economic Progress first, Climate scaremongering last,” campaign and shortly after it took power ditched the previous government’s climate plans.   

Japan, a global leader in the push to rally support for strict greenhouse gas limits, stunned the world and the UN Climate summit late last year when it ditched its commitment to greenhouse gas cuts

Now Europe, including Germany, Britain, Spain, and Poland, among others, are cutting their subsidies to big renewable energy schemes, and calling for scaled back greenhouse gas commitments. 

While the world comes around to the previous U.S. position on climate change — carbon cuts are just to harmful to people and the economy while doing little good for the environment — the Obama administration is wildly rushing like a lone lemming  towards the cliff of ruinous carbon restrictions (a suicidal nightmare that the rest of the world has just woken up from). 

Sadly, as in so many other areas of policy, President Obama seems oblivious to economic truths and common sense with regards to climate change.

Imperial Presidency rules through regulations

“It’s a new year and you know what that means — new regulations. The Obama administration has wasted no time in writing them.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Now, to be fair, every Presidential administration issues rules and regulations, that’s how laws are implemented.  However, some Presidents issue more regulations than others and seem to use regulations to legislate directly, skipping the legislative process, by stretching the rules and regulations issued beyond either the letter or intent of the law upon which they are supposed to be founded.  In this President Obama has few Presidential peers. 

As proof, an annual analysis by my friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, finds that the Obama administration issued an average of 56 new regulations for every law passed, a record high ratio. 

Keeping up his record pace, without any new laws having passed, on just three days in January 2014, the Obama administration posted 141 new regulations

This move to rule through regulations is in keeping with Obama’s stated commitment to “not wait for Congress to act,” if Congress refuses to enact the President’s policies, Constitution be damned.

082813.jpg

Of course successive sessions of Congress are largely to blame for the rise of the Presidential ability to rule by fiat.  Since the beginning of the Progressive era in the late 19th and early 20th Century,  the country has seen rise of the administrative state accompanied by the growing list of alphabet agencies (each approved by Congress) needed to manage it.  Congress has largely abdicated it’s constitutionally assigned role of legislating, and delegated it to executive branch agencies.   The problem is, Constitutionally, Congress alone is empowered to pass laws and there is no provision in the Constitution for it to delegate that power to others.  Still, successive Presidential administrations have encouraged Congress’s trend of delegating authority (and why not, it gives the President more power) and, alarmingly, the Courts have acquiesced in the trend — in the meantime seizing power for themselves. 

David Schoenbrod has written a number of insightful books on Congresses irresponsible delegation of authority and the tragic consequences it has had for this country including: Power without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People through Delegation

I’d like to propose a remedy, though it would require an act of Congress, a President who would sign off and future Congresses to actually exercise the power — each and every step, probably wishful thinking.

Congress should enact a law that requires every rule or regulation proposed to define, enable, carry out and enforce a law or portion thereof, to come before itself for an up or down vote on the regulation – thus, establishing its authority and responsibility for the it.  No longer could Congress pass a vague feel good laws, allow executive agencies to fill in the details and then complain that the agencies overstepped their authority when adopting or imposing the regulations.  If hoping Congress would approve every regulation is too much (though I think it is actually in the spirit of the Constitution), perhaps they could vote on every rule or regulation that had over a $25 million impact on the economy.  Having passed a law, if a regulation stemming from the law could not get a majority vote from Congress, one can assume it did not conform to Congress’s will in passing the law — which would also leave much less for the Court’s to interpret.  This would not solve all the problems the country faces but it would be a step toward greater accountability for the Legislature.

One can dream.

Richard Lindzen: Profile of a Moderate Climate Skeptic

The Weekly Standard has a good article highlighting the career and views of Richard Lindzen.  Even the alarmists have to take his views seriously and he’s one of the few skeptics who the media will still quote.  I have noting to add to the piece, read the article.  You’ll come away enlightened.