Letter from Ide Trotter
Global Warming – September 2006 – Colorado Central Magazine
Dear Ed,
Let me congratulate you on your very rational letter “Why Global Warming Doesn’t Matter” in the August Edition. You are so right. There are many valid reasons for steps we can take that move in the right direction.
So why should I bother to demonstrate that the arguments put forward by the environmental high priests are simply not convincing to unbiased observers?
Personally I have three reasons.
The first is a matter of principle. I like to resist every effort of self-appointed do-gooders to impose their ill-conceived notions through fraudulent science and endless repetition.
Second, it is always fun to expose the twisted and often-bogus arguments of any self appointed priesthood for what it is. In addition, it can sometimes be productive.
Third, there is a better way. Our free market system can get this done without coercing anyone, unless being asked to pay taxes amounts to coercion. It is clear the environmental priesthood would prefer to impose big brother machinations of their devising instead. But history makes it clear that letting folks choose is much more effective than coercion.
On to exposing twisted and bogus arguments for fun.
RECENTLY THE Wall Street Journal had a major editorial page interview with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue. As I’m sure you will remember Mr. Lomborg rose to prominence when his very well reviewed 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist was subjected to a devious attack by the environmental priesthood in Denmark, his home country. The obvious flaws and blatant bias of that attack led to its being thoroughly discredited by a Danish government body to the embarrassment of the attackers. But Lomborg has remained a pariah to the environmental left ever since. Lomborg’s thoughtful assessment has commanded the attention of a widening circle, though. I quote one illuminating paragraph from the interview.
“Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world’s top economists — including four Nobel Laureates – to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world’s problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.”
Now let’s look at some of the interpretations of available data on global
warming. A 1990 UN paper which showed extended periods of higher temperature than we are experiencing today was generally accepted by most of the scientific community for almost a decade. Then in 1999 climatologist Michael Mann attempted to reinterpret the data to indicate a 20th century temperature rise. It is now apparent that he fabricated what you refer to as the “hockey-stick graph.” In summary Mann contrived a purportedly statistical interpretation of available temperature data to indicate temperatures had gradually declined for nine centuries before starting to rise early in the 20th century. In 2003 two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, showed that Mann’s flawed methods would produce a “Hockey Stick” from random data. Last month a report commissioned by the House Energy Committee fully documented the refutation of Mann’s “Hockey Stick.” Three prominent statisticians stand behind this report. They are Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins. Their report shows that the correct interpretation of the data, such as it is but the best that we have, flatly refutes the claims of the environmental priesthood. This is just the type of scientific challenge to their claims that the environmental priesthood would like us to believe doesn’t exist.
THE STATISTICAL REFUTATION of the widely hyped “Hockey Stick” restores credibility to the UN finding that the Medieval Warm Period, roughly the 11th through the 13th centuries, which immediately preceded the “Little Ice Age” you mention, was warmer than any recently experienced. Even the most radical environmental extremist will have to concede that period was well before mankind had any appreciable impact on the environment. It should also be noted that the Medieval Warm Period is not surprising to scientists who make estimates of environmental temperature going back tens of thousands of years. Many scientific disciplines have long recognized lengthy periods of warming and cooling going back millennia. Why else have ice ages come and gone? To quote from the Wall Street Journal which covered the House report in much greater detail, the report’s conclusions “make (the alleged scientific) ‘consensus’ look more like group think. And the dismissive reactions of the climate-research establishment to the (previous) McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.”
Finally, what might be an effective way to induce desired behavioral changes while allowing each of us some freedom of choice in the matter?
I suggest that we stop complaining about the current higher cost of energy, gasoline in particular, and take advantage of the situation. Higher prices will gradually reduce all consumption of fossil fuels that are a major source of so-called greenhouse gasses. If energy production prices decline we should have a plan in place to add taxes sufficient to at least keep final prices from declining. The economy seems to be adjusting to current prices without too much damage. So, the risk to the economy should be minimal. Dependence on imported crude oil should be reduced. Finally, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be inevitable.
WHY SHOULD WE think this would work? First, it is economics 101. But, since that argument may just raise skepticism, I hasten to point out that since price increases from the early “oil shocks” of the 60’s and 70’s energy consumption as a percent of GDP has been cut in half. If the economy continues to perk along we could gradually increase the energy consumption tax and let all of us adjust to those areas of conservation we find least distasteful at a pace of our own choosing. Certainly it has long been recognized that the economy gets less of what it taxes more.
The great weakness of this approach is that it just makes more money available for politicians to fritter away. So I say rigidly dedicate the proceeds to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. That should further reduce demand for transportation fuels and make life more pleasant to boot.
Ide Trotter
Poncha Springs and
Duncanville, Texas
