TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

Inquiring minds might want to take a quick look at what Dr. James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has to say:

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Nino of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nino – La Nina cycle. …

“Global warming stopped in 1998” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Nino of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. …

Solar irradiance will still be on or near its flat-bottomed minimum in 2008. Temperature tendency associated with the solar cycle, because of the Earth’s thermal inertia, has its minimum delayed by almost a quarter cycle, i.e., about two years. Thus solar change should not contribute significantly to temperature change in 2008.

La Nina cooling in the second half of 2007 (Figure 2) is about as intense as the regional cooling associated with any La Nina of the past half century, as shown by comparison to Plate 9 in Hansen et al. (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf) and updates to Plate 9 on the GISS web site. Effect of the current La Nina on global surface temperature is likely to continue for at least the first several months of 2008. Based on sequences of Pacific Ocean surface temperature patterns in Plate 9, a next El Nino in 2009 or 2010 is perhaps the most likely timing. But whatever year it occurs, it is a pretty safe bet that the next El Nino will help carry global temperature to a significantly higher level.

Competing with the short-term solar and La Nina cooling effects is the long-term global warming effect of human-made GHGs. The latter includes the trend toward less Arctic sea ice that markedly increases high latitude Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Although sea ice cover fluctuates from year to year, the large recent loss of thick multi-year ice implies that this warming effect at high latitudes should persist.

Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with an unusual global temperature change, i.e., it is likely to remain close to the range of (high) values exhibited in 2002-2007. On the other hand, when the next El Nino occurs it is likely to carry global temperature to a significantly higher level than has occurred in recent centuries, probably higher than any year in recent millennia. Thus we suggest that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.

In other words, despite cooling factors such as the ongoing La Nina and our position at the lowest point on the solar irradiation cycle, global temperatures remain high (and the five-year running average continues to climb) because of anthropogenic forcing factors, and unless there is a major volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in the new few years, we can expect that the next el Nino will bring new global high temperature records.

More here:  http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf

[snark on]

One of Sean Corrigan’s threads brings us not only more information on handy Misesean definitions, but a path towards Yuletide joy.  (For those of you who have not been reading them, Sean’s columns and comment threads are truly gifts that keep on giving.) 

In this case, we learn more about “watermelons”, and how to enjoy them.

– In the second comment on Corrigan’s “Heroic opposition to the Bali-hoo on AGW”, http://blog.mises.org/archives/007541.asp#more, one reader capably summarizes what I call the “Corrigan Creed” (sometimes known as the “Reisman Rule”), which is now ensconced as a seemingly venerable part of the Mises Blog orthodoxy:

Evidence does not deter the global warming crowd. Nor does a list of dissenters. Dissent is viewed in the same light as denying the holocaust. Global warming is the new religion.

It also serves as a handy excuse to grab power. This is what Al Gore and his fellow “watermelons” are really after. Scare the masses and the elites can get away with perpetrating any fraud imaginable, including the notion that governments can change the weather.

Posted by: Steve Hogan at December 13, 2007 9:22 PM 

– After first swallowing Corrigan’s commendable suggestion that the very noticeable and widespread warming of the Arctic may be due to localized geothermal heating in one remote corner of Greenland (as opposed to the seven degrees Fahrenheit rise in air temperatures over the past 15 years bandied about by so-called “scientists”), reader IMHO, sadly behind on important lingo, implores:

BTW, would someone please be kind enough to explain to me the use of the term “watermelon” and its relationship towards those who support global warming? Thanks! 🙂

Posted by IMHO at December 15, 2007 1:20 PM

– Faithful follower Dennis – who nobly objects to the “goose step” advance of “statism and the revolt against reason” in much of the academic/intellectual and media worlds and to the “perversion of reason-based discourse and truth that has been fostered by an alliance of rent-seeking politicians, court ‘intellectuals’ (including many natural scientists), bureaucrats, statist businessmen, and others” – helpfully and ably explicates the term:

The term “watermelon” is used by some to describe an individual that is allegedly green (environmentally friendly) on the outside, but red (socialist), on the inside. As to its relationship to global warming, I believe that you can make the inference.

Posted by Dennis at December 15, 2007 1:47 PM

– For the sake of making the “inference” perfectly clear, I offered IMHO the following further color (further emphasis added) on how Miseseans view global warming “watermelons”:

Further to Dennis, in other words, “watermelon” is a venerable ad hominem here, useful for Miseseans to put fingers in their ears and dismiss what practically everyone who disagrees with them on climate change – from our national academies of science on down – has to say.

The trick is to first dismiss the evil “enviros” – you know, that class of rent-seekers that Rothbard and others tell us were created when statist corporations managed to subvert common law protections against polution damage to property – by focussing on their efforts to use the state to control corprations, while resolutely ignoring not only corporate statism but what Austrian economics tells us about how markets and private transaction are inefficient with respect to resources that are not clear owned or protected by enforceable property rights.

Then, having dismissed those wacky “watermelons”, we can simply ignore everyone else, by jeering at the enviros and thereby implicitly imputing to the whole scientific, economic, business and government community the same malevolent and stupid misanthropism.

Neat trick, isn`t it?

IOW, enviros should be burned at the stake for the heresy of trying to use the state to solve a possible problem, and everyone else, who have gullibly been corrupted by them, ignored. In this way, we can cleanse the body politic and avoid serious mistakes. See?

[Serious people know that only irreproachable commentators like Dr. Reisman get to suggest that we use the state to address possible climate change:

“there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. … This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.“]

http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp

– Enjoying the occasion, another reader reaffirms his willingness to partake in the Misesean ritual:

Did someone say ‘stake’? 🙂 I’ll prepare the pyre!

Posted by Inquisitor at December 16, 2007 11:02 AM 

– Whom I promptly commended:

Good boy, Inquisitor!

Now, we just need Sean, a “neopyrrho” or somesuch to light the fire, and we can neatly cleanse the world of misanthropic scum!

Enviro-haters, unite!

TT

O what fun, what joy and conviviality, the Austrian community offers!  And how appropriate for the season! 

Who but a Scrooge would fail to agree with the reasoned Misesean revolt against revolting unreason, or to heed the clarion, heart-warming call to roast the Beast?

As the solstice arrives, let us rejoice in the Good News that the gathering forces of Darkness have been defeated at Bali by the voices of reason – spines stiffened by PR from the clear-eyed contrarians trumpeted by Corrigan, and champions of liberty and free markets in Russia (where the overlords are firmly opposed to measures that would reduce their personal wealth and growing influence on oil markets); a new dawn of light and reason must surely be ahead of us!

So let us enjoy the spirit of the holiday, I say!  As “Inquisitor” suggests, let us assemble a few watermelons, gather with our brethren ’round the cleansing pyre, remember the words of the angels on the first Christmas (announcing “Peace on Earth; goodwill towards men who slay enviros”), and sing merry holiday songs, like “What fun it is to ride and sing, a slaying song tonight” and “Enviros roasting on an open pyre”!

And then, united in fellowship and renewed in purpose, we can arise fresh in the dawn of a New Year, to proclaim our undying dedication to Reason and, linking arms, boldly step out in glorious battle against the evil, goose-stepping, man-hating watermelons.  AFTER we’ve defeated the RED herrings, THEN we can turn our attention to their bootlicking sycophants – throughout the world’s scientific, economic, business and government communities – who have swallowed the enviros’ KoolAid.

And with Reason (not to mention love of mankind and brotherhood) on our side, how can we fail to prevail?!

Ron Bailey of Reason, reporting from Bali, has an interesting post up summarizing the discussion by James Connaughton, director of President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, on one small aspect of the climate conundrum, namely, what would be actually involved in meeting the energy shortfall implict in targets to reduce CO2 emissions by half by mid-century.

 The crux?

Connaughton offered an interesting thought experiment. The major economies emit 22 gigatons (1 billion tons) of CO2 annually. In one reference case, those emissions would rise to 37 gigatons by 2050. So, Connaughton says, assume that we need to reduce current emissions by half from current emission—by 11 gigatons—to stabilize CO2 atmospheric concentrations. That means that the world would have to find the equivalent energy that producing 25 gigatons of emissions would have produced in 2050.

To get a handle on what this might mean, Connaughton asked, “How big is a gigaton?” One gigaton is equivalent to 273 coal-fired electric generation plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Of course, there are only a few demonstration plants now, and 273 plants represent 7 percent of the world’s current coal-fired generation capacity. Estimates of how much CCS might cost range between $150 to $250 per ton of carbon (or $50 to $80 per ton of CO2). By one estimate CCS would raise the cost of electricity to 25 to 40 percent; others suggest that the increase could be as much as 85 percent.

Connaughton also pointed out that avoiding the emission of a gigaton of CO2 implies building 135 new nuclear power plants. The world has 400 now. In addition, a gigaton is equivalent to 270,000 windmills which is 4-times more than are currently operating. Growing enough biofuels to reduce a gigaton of emissions would take an area twice the size of the United Kingdom. Of course, such projections rely on the deployment of near-term technologies. It’s impossible to tell what new technologies a higher price on carbon fuels might call forth from the world’s laboratories.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123945.html

There is a new paper out by economist Richard Tol that summarizes all of the economic work on climate change over the past two decades, in light of recent analyses, particularly the ground-breaking new work by Harvard’s Marty Weitzman on how the “fat tail” of climate risk affects cost-benefit analysis.  Tol is attached to the Economic and Social Research Institute (Dublin), the Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam), and the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University.

Tol`s paper, “THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON: TRENDS, OUTLIERS AND CATASTROPHES”, is here: http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/margcostmetawp.pdf

 Tol`s conclusions?

There are three implications.

Firstly, greenhouse gas emission reduction today is justified. The median of the Fisher-Tippett kernel density for peer-reviewed estimates with a 3% pure rate of time preference and without equity weights, is $20/tC. This compares to a future price of carbon permits of $8/tC in the European Union (and a spot price of ¢3/tC).  The case for intensification of climate policy can be made with conservative assumptions. One does not have to rely on dodgy analysis as in Schneider et al. (2007) and Stern et al. (2006).

Secondly, the uncertainty is so large that a considerable risk premium is warranted. With the conservative assumptions above, the mean equals $23/tC and the certainty-equivalent $25/tC. More importantly, there is a 1% probability that the social cost of carbon is greater than $78/tC. This number rapidly increases if we use a lower discount rate – as may well be appropriate for a problem with such a long time horizon – and if we allow for the possibility that there is some truth in the scare-mongering of the gray literature.

Thirdly, more research is needed into the economic impacts of climate change – to eliminate that part of the uncertainty that is due to lack of study, and to separate the truly scary impacts from the scare-mongering. Papers often conclude with a call for more research, and often this is a call for funding for the authors or a justification for further papers by the authors. In this case, however, quality research by newcomers in the field would be particularly welcome.

Tol drew these conclusions from the principal results of his research, which were as follows:

Besides more data and more advanced statistical analysis, this paper offers four results.

Firstly, there is a downward trend in the estimates of the social cost of carbon – even if the IPCC (Schneider et al., 2007) would like to believe the opposite.

Secondly, the Stern Review (Stern et al., 2006) is an outlier – and its impact estimates are pessimistic even when compared to other studies in the gray literature and other estimates that use low discount rates.

Thirdly, the uncertainty about the social cost of carbon is so large that the tails of the distribution may dominate the conclusions (Weitzman, 2007) – even though many of the high estimates have not been peer-reviewed and use unacceptably low discount rates.

Fourthly, if everyone were to pay a carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon (but not reduce emissions), there is a fair chance that annual taxes would exceed annual income for many people.

(emphasis added)

The recent Marty Weitzman paper that Tol refers to is here:

Marty Weitzman: “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change”, December 5, 2007 [Update: Weitzman has revised; the latest version is dated Februaru 8, 2008]; http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/modeling.pdf

On the main blog, Sean Corrigan posts the latest missive of what he considers the brave dissenting voices on climate science. http://blog.mises.org/archives/007541.asp.

The letter nods briefly at the concerns summarized by the IPCC reports about warming and the role of human economic activity, and raises good issues about how global society should react, including the respective merits of public policy and private measures directed towards mitigation and adaptation.

But Sean does not examine any of these issues, but simply (i) touts the supposed “heroism” of the dissenters, (ii) complains about the supposed unfairness of the Bali conference sponsors (the 180+ states that are party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) for not providing them a soapbox, (iii) cries about the supposed hysteria of the UN Secretary General (Mr. “Barking-at-the” Moon”!) [okay, points for being clever, anyway] and (iv) finally, for good measure, tries to sweep away the undeniable and rapid climate change in the Arctic with a link that tells us about a possible localized factor but nothing about the wider scale changes, which just MIGHT be due to the fact that air temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have increased by about seven degrees Fahrenheit since 1991
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233433.htm.

Interestingly, while Corrigan seems to think his ongoing rants on “carbolic socialism” helps to clarify the issues and the interests of all parties, he constantly fails to note how a large and powerful group of rent-seekers packages the items that he swallows whole. In this case, only a modicum of research shows that these brave dissenters have been smoothly packaged by yet another new “grassroots” organization established to influence policy for the benefit of energy interests.

The whole issue deserves much better discussion, but it seems that many Miseseans are fundamentally not interested, either in conducting a serious analysis or even in being taken seriously.  Instead, they would rather be taken in, either by one group of rent-seekers or by themselves, by swallowing all manner of uninformed science (see my preceding post; http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/14/who-knows-climate-science-the-mises-blog.aspx).  This kind of cantankerous self-delusion and naivete is hardly the best way to show the strengths of Austrian analysis to the world.

I`m getting tired of what I see as the Mises blog fundamentally counterproductive approach to this and related problems – which surely will NOT go away until some sort of management regimes are extended to important global and regional open-access “commons”.

Below is a copy of my initial response on Wrong-Way Corrigan`s thread: [snark on]

Heroes, Sean? Really?

This is an eclectic group (weighted towards social sciences and others outside of climate science) but still more like a bunch of grumpy emerituses who have been wrong time and again over the past thirty years (and don`t even agree with each other) but now wish to assert relevance by reluctantly conceding that change is in the cards and arguing that, given our long delay, sunk costs in current infrastructure and long lead times to change changes, our best course is to simply start getting ready for the ride.

Well, if even these folks think we need to start getting ready, then perhaps even the most skeptical should admit some slight concern. (I note that climate science “skeptics” John Christy and Pat Michaels didn`t sign on; can you guess why?)

 – Our most respected scientific bodies have been stating unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and that human economic activity is a significant factor. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called “the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,” issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005); http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

I know; they and all of the other scientists who participated in the IPCC process are all hysterical misanthropes, whom freedom-loving rationalists can sweep away, in favor of this hero`s lot, who are now clearly changing tactics to argue adaptation instead of mitigation. (The lack of stomach in this second group is enough to make one wonder whether we might be better off without ALL scientists, isn`t it?)

– You and others are good at pointing out evil and rent-seeking motives on the part of everyone you disagree with – practically everyone now, it seems – but do you ever to trouble to notice how you`re being played by this letter? Like a string of others (this is the fourth in the past five years), it was started in Canada, organized and pushed by smooth PR professionals via a sophisticated vehicle (that are designed to provide “balance” while conducting “grassroots” campaigns) that clearly has significant backing from energy interests; this campaign differs in that it was perhaps more polished – for example, though the core signers remain the same over all four letters, this one was “by invitation only”: http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html; http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html; http://tinyurl.com/2fpnsg; http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-not-really-science-people; http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists.

While energy firms have entirely legitimate interests, they too are rent-seekers and it behooves one to note that when they speak they certainly have their own interests in mind. Even more so when they try to hide who they are and pretend to be impartial, grassroots groups concerned only about the pubic interest.

– The letter itself argues that we’d be better off adapting to/managing the effects of climate change rather than trying to prevent it. This is no slam dunk, but clearly there are more iummediate returns from investments in adaptation than in trying to mitigate future climate change. But serious standard cost-benefit analysis has clearly shifted in the past two years to the conclusion that investments in mitigation also make sense:

Nordhaus/Yale: http://www.reason.com/news/show/121926.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/research-the-new-economy-of-global-warming

Marty Weitzman/Harvard: “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change”, December 5, 2007; http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/modeling.pdf

Richard Tol: “THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON: TRENDS, OUTLIERS AND CATASTROPHES”, August 9, 2007; http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/margcostmetawp.pdf; Yohe, G.W. and R.S.J. Tol (2007), Precaution and a Dismal Theorem: Implications for Climate Policy and Climate Research, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/dismaltheoremwp.pdf.

These are the papers that the policy crowd is reading.

[Snark alert; See update at bottom]

The Mises “Daily Article” for December 11 presents “Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?” a brief, unfootnoted post by David Evans, a self-acknowledged non-expert (who has once previously graced the LvMI blog) offering a “very much needed” “correction” to the popular understanding of “whether global warming is actually occurring, and, if so, what its cause is”. 

Given the popular reception on the blog, one wonders if the LvMI has not found a productive niche in providing a soap box, not for economists or libertarians to analyze policy (or to discuss what von Mises intended when he discussed external effects), but for updates on climate science.  On the comment thread for this post, I posted the following (tongue firmly in cheek) comment to Jeffrey Tucker, blog administrator: http://blog.mises.org/archives/007529.asp

Jeff, allow me to commend you and LvMI, a bastion of rational economic thinking, liberty and human welfare, on its decision to expand its influence on (and help its supporters to gird their loins for) the important and complex battle over domestic and international climate change-related policy by turning away from its strengths -economic analysis – in favor of providing a soap box for short and simple “exposes” on climate science by self-made and self-confident experts.

This is clearly just what the doctor ordered, given the warm reception and acclaim – as well as piercing and cogent questions and observations – that David Evans has earned here. As this post propagates through the intertubes, I can positvely FEEL the serious policy world turning toward LvMI and sensing that an important voice of reason, judgment, gravitas and, above all, clear scientific thinking, has just arrived on the scene.

By all means, keep these “scientific” posts coming!

Regards,

Tom

PS: I am not troubled in the least that:

– David Evans has himself previously said that “my only relevant qualification in this debate is that I saw the interaction of science and politics first hand, and that I was on the global warming gravy train” and, when pointed out that Sen. Inhofe staffer Marc Morano had referred to Evans as “a prominent scientist,” forthrightly said “It never occurred to me that he could be referring to me!” and “Morano is exaggerating both my prominence and agenda, and assuming my motivations for his own ends. A typical political approach, if I might point out.” http://blog.mises.org/archives/006581.asp This forthrightness, even though in little evidence on Evan`s current post, is admirable and certainly doesn`t disqualify him from trying explain his understanding of the science. In fact, it increases his credibility vis-a-vis all of those scientists who publish their work in “scientific journals” or hide behind thousands of pages of publicly-available reports and summaries, or brazenly trumpet their ideology on accessible blogs, and all of their deluded, misanthropic, self-seeking and/or struthious KoolAid swallowers throughout wide swathes of the business world and the rest of the “establishment”.

– Or that Evans, while observing that atmospheric CO2 trails rising temperatures in the paleo record, fails to note that the rising CO2 levels today are due to man, what the link between warming oceans and further releases of oceanic CO2 may imply for future warming, or to note obvious ongoing warming or to suggest alternate mechanisms.

– Or the neat way in which he tries to discredit imperfect climate models by assuming the reliability of their results, without referring to the papers he is relying on (by authors previously criticized and subsequently addressed by notorious AGW warmers here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#more-509 ).

– Or that, while focussing on possible flaws in climate models, ignores the actual abundant and startling evidence for ongoing climate change.

Heaven forbid that the Mises blog pollute readers’ minds on this or other scientific views by sending them off to read the IPCC reports, scientific reports by various national academies of science, other blogs by climate scientists and analysts (on various sides) or the like.  It’s clearly better to directly bring in “informed” views of people like David Evans, who haven’t prostituted themselves by actually conducting or publishing climate science, but still manage to keep their finger on the pulse of the scientific developments.

[Update]

Somewhat disappointingly, there actually IS a good discussion of issues raised by the David Evans piece (and the Mises’ blog posting of it), but over at Arnold Kling’s and Byan Caplan’s EconLog: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/12/global_warming_10.html#comments.

Those who are interested in links for where the scientific issues are discussed should look there (adults only; I also do not want to contribute to the delinquency of innocents and innocent wannabes!).

Further to my post on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Dr. Roy Spencer, a prominent climate scientist/skeptic and lead guitarist in a contemporary Christian rock band at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in Huntsville, Alabama, has kindly emailed me the link to two songs that his band has done, mocking Al Gore and climate change. 

And so, without further ado – since I don’t mind a little mockin’, here’s Roy and the rockin’ EcoFreako Commune with:

– “Earth Has A Fever”; and

– “I Want To Mock Al Gore All Night”

http://www.ecofreakomusic.com/.

More on Roy here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html.

But since one good turn deserves another, I’m sure the good doctor will not object to a little ribbing as well.  His conservative views reflect his upbringing and religious faith, which are evident in his praise for “Intelligent Design”.  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I.  Surely there is no reason to suspect that the same religious faith and conservative views might leak into Dr. Spencer`s climate science — which was persuasive enough to string along libertarian skeptics like Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine (editor of “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”) and others (such as libertarian law prof Jon Adler; Skeptic Mag’s Mchael Schermer and Gregg Easterbrook) for quite some time — until

— until Dr. Spencer (and his side-kick IPCC member John Christy) was shown to be sufficiently wrong on atmospheric temperatures over two years ago that Ron Bailey and other libertarian pundits abandoned their public doubters positions and converted in droves, Bailey in posts such as “We’re All Global Warmers Now; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html, “Betting on Climate Change It’s time to put up or shut up“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html, “Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled“, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html, and “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html.

But who cares about science, anyway?  Far more important (and healthier) for us to enjoy the righteous guitar licks he gets in while mocking and rockin Al Gore!

[Snark Alert!]

Duck hunters (and state game departments) are noticing climate change and are changing their individual and group behavior. 

See the NYT December 11 article, “In Duck Blinds, Visions of Global Warming”, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/11hunting.html?th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1197435942-TRI8u27dgZPyQkm47iGnlA&pagewanted=all

A related but older piece with anecdotal discussion of changes in Arkansas is here: http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=40643a10-9173-4719-9e37-0d850e3c0894

Any real hunters looking at this might remember that in 2005 the National Wildlife Federation released its own report on climate change and the impacts that that organization expected on duck habitat and hunting.  The NWF’s report, “The Waterfowler’s Guide to Global Warming“, can be found here: http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=7C28ADA8-65BF-09FE-BA5E60EA98E1DE5A.

And finally I have stumbled into this radio ad from NWF’s lobby arm, National Wildilfe Action: “How To Go Duck Hunting Without Ducks”: http://online.nwf.org/site/DocServer/NWAduckhuntingguideAd.mp3?docID=2461.

Just what we need – more damn rent-seekers, and with guns!

[Update below – Roy Spencer’s band plays “Earth Has a Fever”!]

The speech is worth listening to, especially by those who are inclined to reject Gore’s views on our changing climate, the challenges posed by human activities that affect the climate and his suggestions for political, social and private action, both to mitigate effects and to adapt to them.

CNN video of the speech is here: http://www.climateprotect.org/node/279 (Gore’s website), and the released text is here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html.

The policy core of Gore’s speech was the following:

This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions. This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon — with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters – most of all, my own country – that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

– Al Gore December 10, 2007 

[Anyone familiar with this issue may note Gore DID argue that, as a result of human actions, “the earth has a fever”.  (He went on to say “And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.”)  SOMEWHERE I ran across a great spoof of that by Roy Spencer’s band.  I’ll post it once I dig it up.]

Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the speech by R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC,  Oslo, 10 December 2007.  Pachauri’s speech is here:  http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ipcc-lecture_en.html.

Flash Update!

Roy Spencer, a prominent climate scientist/skeptic and lead guitarist in a contemporary Christian rock band at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in Huntsville, Alabama, has kindly emailed me the link to two songs that his band done, mocking Al Gore and climate change.  And so, without further ado – since I don’t mind a little mockin’, here’s Roy and the rockin’ EcoFreako Commune with:

– “Earth Has A Fever”; and

– “I Want To Mock Al Gore All Night”

http://www.ecofreakomusic.com/.

More on Roy here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html.

And since one good turn deserves another, I’m sure the good doctor will not object to a little ribbing as well.  His conservative views reflect his upbringing and religious faith, which are evident in his praise for “Intelligent Design”.  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I.

But that doesn’t mean that there is any reason to suspect that the same religious faith and conservative views might leak into his climate science — which has proven sufficiently wrong to drive libertarian Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine (editor of “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”) and others (such as libertarian law prof Jon Adler; Skeptic Mag’s Mchael Schermer and Gregg Easterbrook) into announcing over two years ago that “We’re All Global Warmers Now; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html, “Betting on Climate Change It’s time to put up or shut up“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html, “Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled“, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html, and “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming“, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html.

For convenience of reference, I`ve excerpted from the long “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp) those portions of the exchange of posts I and others had with Fundamentalist that relate to creation science. [This is a re-post – as the first wouldn’t format correctly. Some formatting has been lost.]

Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.” Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38’s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 4, 2007 8:43 PM

Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist! A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group? Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them? And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from? http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62

That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness. TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 4, 2007 10:30 PM

Fundamentalist, By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops? Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 5, 2007 10:22 PM

TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?” 100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 7:39 PM

Fundamentalist/Roger: Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.

I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation. My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it? If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?) Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation. Respectfully, Tom

PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars:

God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation. http://www.icr.org/article/3337/

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/

ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands. http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/

In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/3474/

The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!] http://www.icr.org/article/678/
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 6, 2007 9:12 PM

TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.” Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980’s. And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution.

Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too.

TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.” That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.

TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…” Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 11:23 PM

Roger: A few points:

1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.” “the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.” “I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.”

Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview? Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?

“The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/”

“However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355”

2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets.”

These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power.

3. “Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t.”

Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail.

4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios”

Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group?

5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?”

Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position.

6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.”

For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges? Regards, TT

“[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 10, 2007 5:33 AM

TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?” I agree with all of them.

But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist.

Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority.

I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?” and “If not, how does it work?” The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about.

After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism.

Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.” Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM

“…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…” …or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.
Posted by: Jean Paul at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM

Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.” You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 10:03 PM

Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific. Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:31 AM

TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.” I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:03 AM

TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…” You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:08 AM

Fundamentalist/Roger: So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US. Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”.

You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:16 PM

TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…” You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either. You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.

TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.” Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 2:35 PM

Fundamentalist: – Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all?

– Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists?

– I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it?

– Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture.

– If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore.

– “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”.

– “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain.

– “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy. I do appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Tom

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 10:10 PM

… 6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 15, 2007 11:16 PM

TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…” I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 16, 2007 8:06 AM

Roger/Fundamentalist: Thanks for your further comments. …

2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR? I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following:

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/

3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?”

The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change? “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 17, 2007 2:25 AM

TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:” How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently.

As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds.

All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific?

“Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong” As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them.

TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?” Yes I disagree.

TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…?” No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:07 PM

“But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!”  Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:10 PM

Fundamentalist: … 2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode.

3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong.” You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland? …

5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.” And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 6:16 AM

TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,...” And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology.

TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.” You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well.

TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?” The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it.

TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.” I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 8:03 AM

Fundamentalist: …

2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested.

3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites? The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 9:51 AM

TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.” Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough.

TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.” If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at www.creationscience.com.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Roger, I didn’t call you stupid. You are obviously very intelligent, but like the rest of fundamentalists, I see you as invested primarily in defending a particular mind view. Cognitive conservatism is a basic human trait that we all have to struggle with, and I also am a sinner.

3. On creationism, I am certainly not twisting what you said, but mirroring it to you by asking you to confirm whether you intend the implications. You indicated that, like my argument about creationists, evolutionists also “start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied” and that “The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that?” How is it at all “twisting your words” (much less a juvenile debating tactic) to ask you whether you are “seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang?” In fact, that is precisely what you suggested, and it is clearly wrong. Darwin and other evolutionists didn’t start by positing a Big Bang or some such thing at all, but by looking at the differences between clearly related species and wondering if there was a scientific (non-God, non-magical) explanation for them. OTHER scientists got to the Big Bang – not as anything proven, but as a theory – by working backwards from a growing understanding of mechanics, physics and evidence of the motions of stars and galaxies collected with increasingly sophisticated instruments.

4. On the ice core data, I’d like to take a look at what “www.creationscience.com” has to say, and to put it up on my blog with the various sites I’ve offered to you. I’ve taken a look, but can’t find the chapter you’re referring to. Could I trouble you for a more precise link? BTW, the creationist response to the article on ice core dating that I sent you earlier precisely indicates my criticism of creationism generally. Allow me to quote:

“The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. … If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right. “It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

This creationist is clearly trying to fit the facts into his Bible-based view of reality rather than conducting science; scientists, on the other hand, work from the assumption that, to the extent possible, physical laws rather than magic or miracles should provide the basis for our understanding of the world. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 19, 2007 1:15 AM