The Sky is Falling

The fat’s in the fire. The two most argumentative people in the Washington, DC suburbs are at it fast and furious. Walt Francis, economist know it all v. Wild Bill, just plain vanilla know it all, are going to discuss climate change for the masses of our readers.

Walt is in the corner of the debunkers of global warming and Bill is kind of half way between an agnostic and a follower of the consensus. We invite your comments to brennan01@cox.net and WaltonJF@aol.com.

As usual, this round began with Walt’s flinging of a take no prisoners gauntlet to his large mailing list. Naturally, I couldn’t resist commenting. And Walt could not restrain himself from a point by point refutation of the pearls. Since it’s my blog that he invited me to use, naturally, I won the debate, but I leave it to our readers, known and unknown, to judge if the sky is truly falling.

The first item is the gauntlet; the second the response and, finally, the refutation. It began with this from Walt:

Friends:

For your amusement and edification, I pass this along.

Sparked by an article in this morning's NYTimes science section, quoting the scientific disagreement with the "chicken little" global warming "apocalypse coming real soon" crowd, I googled one of the quoted scientists, "Don J Easterbrook", a distinguished climatology expert with more credentials on this subject than the entire Board of Directors and President of the AAAS combined.

He's done a superb Power Point slide show on the science and facts on this topic, which I hereby append. Or you can simply go to the following URL: gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=215
After you've watched it, which will take only five or ten minutes, see if you don't agree with me that we have more to fear from an ice age than from CO2-driven global warming.

A couple of days ago the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, a distinguished economist, issued an attack on "ideological environmentalism" after the European Union leaders struck a deal to cut carbon emissions in Europe that would create economic havoc in the Czech Republic. "Mr Kaus said the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s." "They keep shooting at a moving target," he said (Wash Times article. The Post doesn't cover global warming "deniers".)

Too bad that the Bush Administration isn't more careful on this topic. They're wasting billions on climate research that could better be spent elsewhere. But I guess all politicians have to follow the latest fad scare, until it is forgotten and replaced by another fad.

Walt "Keep Pumping that Carbon" Francis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Walt,

As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.

Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side, I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.

Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is. Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions? If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.

I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.

In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree - that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem. The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands. This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.

My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case. They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing. My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.

An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.

In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.

Bill

----------------------------------------------------
The rebuttal (alternatly, my comments then Walt's):

Walt,

As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.

Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side,

Bill, I believe that of the qualified scientists, normally called climatologists, the majority are on the "we don't know enough to reach any conclusions, but there are likely other causes of this minor blip" side. The messianic believers include dogcatchers and sociologists and biologists and chemists and other unqualified folk to pad their totals. Regardless, science is not about consensus, but truth. A lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, and still others in phlogiston, etc.


I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.

You are correct that nothing of import wll happen in our lifetimes, or our childrens'. Sure seems like a good strategy to engage in watchful waiting.


Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is.

Pardon me, but what oracle decided that global warming was "adverse"? Best as I can tell from the actual literature (not news stories) it will have mostly positive impacts on both humans and critters.


Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions?

What's the harm? You jest. However, the Francis plan is to make it illegal for anyone believing in global warming to use any electric power, natural gas, or gasoline. We will distribute polar bear rugs to you folks in the "consensus". That will not "cut the use" of fossil fuels, but will reduce the rate of increase slightly. What is your plan for cutting the use? A $100 a gallon tax on gas? A $1 a kilowatt hour tax on electrictiy? You won't do a damn thing except impoverish Americans. Are we going to enforce those taxes on the Chinese? The Africans? I am unaware of any sane proposal to change energy utilization that would do anything more than reduce slightly the rate of growth. An all out nuclear program, which I support on national security grounds, with 500 new nuclear plants in the USA in the next 50 years, would not reduce the use of carbon. Get real! (I trust you know enough to understand that solar and wind power are jokes in this context, advocated only by the scientifically and economically illiterate.)


If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.

There are no consequential minuses. No one has shown any adverse impact of global warming, if that is real, worth talking about. I hope you don't believe any of the nonsense about 20 foot increases in ocean level, or the polar bears being wiped out, or Malaria wiping us out (did you know that Malaria was endemic in the USA until we wiped it out a hundred years ago, during the little ice age?) that you read in the religious sermons on this issue. Not one reputable scientist in the world agrees with that crazy fearmongering stuff. Only reporters and newscasters repeat it.

As to "cutting back", that is, in a word impossible. There aren't enough machine guns in the world to make any nation impoverish its citizens in the name of this religious cause, based on the phony "consensus" of unqualified "scientists" speaking on subjects of which they are ignorant.


I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.

Not one, not one single one of them, will "participate." You had better plan to relax and enjoy it. As to "not have a very great adverse impact" that is right up there with the tooth fairy. Just try and find one single study, by competent economists, that asserts we can reduce carbon use with no adverse impact that is not ten times greater than the great depression. P.S. I have a great book on the "solar power scam" that debunks that nonsense.


In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree -

The "great majority" of scientists are not competent to render an opinion on any subject, let alone this one. They specialize, and the cosmic ray guys don't have a whole lot to say about the fruit fly guys, or vice versa. Where on earth did you get the idea that the "great majority" agreed on anything except the chicken little theory of the apocalypse, a religous rather than scientific belief?


that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem.

Well la de da. Who said the "world's government's" would consider, let along implement, the economic destruction of their own countries. The EU just voted to reduce carbon emissions below 1990 levels 20 years from now. That is what they agreed in Kyoto. In total, they are 10 percent above those levels after 10 years of lip service. The latest proposal, according to the papers, is to impose speed limits on the German autobahns. The Germans are enraged. But if the EU bureaucrats get their way, that little move will increase, not decrease, carbon emissions. I leave it to you to work out why.


The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands.

I beg your pardon! The global warming scam IPCC says sea level in the next century will rise one foot, six inches above the natural level of increase as we come out of the last ice age. Al Gore says 20 feet. Guess who doesn't agree with the alleged scientific consensus? As to Bangladesh, even in the Al Gore scenario they can do what the Dutch did. It is a no brainer. Of course, they can't do what the Dutch did if we reduce them to the stone age by banning coal and petroleum.

BTW, under global warming the ice caps grow, not decrease. They are growing today. True, the arctic ice is shrinking but that is not an ice cap and if that trivial amount of ice melts completely, which it won't, the oceans will not rise one tenth of an inch. Meanwhile, the real ice caps in Antartica and Greenland grow rapidly, fed by increased precipitation from warming, freezing that increased precipitation, and thereby reducing the ocean levels. I think you've been reading too many scare headlines by Washington Post envirofreaks, and not enough of the actual literature on the subject.


This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.

The actual scientific consensus among meteorologists is that storms are NOT going to get worse, Al Gore to the contrary. I totally fail to understand your concern. Yes, countries that put their buildings on low lying shores will get pounded, with or without global warming. We call it the "New Orleans Syndrome." Yawn. Bangladesh will have no greater problem a hundred years from now than it has today, but a great deal more national income to use in building dikes. Yawn.


My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case.

I prefer to go along with the vast majority of flat earthers, who certainly have more credibility than whomever you think you are believing. And just what is it they say that you believe? Suppose you believe the alleged consensus put out by the ICC, and the oceans rise a foot a hundred years from now. So what? Just what are you "going along" with? Do you think that a single one of those physical scientists, sociologists, and soothsayers has any competence whatsoever to estimate the economic impacts of any actions whatsover? Let us assume, illustratively, that biologists can "prove" that global warming will wipe out 90 percent of the frog species in the world (it turns out, in fact, that a human spread fungus is the problem. But let us ignore that inconvenient truth). Let us "go along" with them. Just what are we supposed to do? Mandatory sterilization of all women? Ban the automobile? What is their proposal and what competence do those frog scientists have even to discuss the subject? I would rather "go along" with witch doctors than biologists.


They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing.

There won't be a consensus to do a damn thing, let alone "this course", whatever that is. The reasons are that few climatologist believes there is a problem beyone that one foot ocean rise, and irregardless no government is going to shaft its citizens for the apocalyptic fears of the scare mongers. The United States response so far is "better" than average: we subsidize the corn farmers to produce ethanol that burns more carbon than it saves.


My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.

Some of us think that the coming ice age is a bigger problem, and we should burn more carbon to prevent it. About half the climatologists are on that side. Suppose I agree with you that no price is too high: which side of the qualified scientists do I beleive? And why would I believe any of them when the science on this subject is not even in its infancy? Some would think being cursed for doing the wrong thing out of irrational fear is a lot worse than being calm, cool, and watchful.


An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.

A "conservative" government position is to ban anything someone thinks, correctly or incorrectly, kills people? We tried that once before, and the "ban it completely" crowd was right: alcohol kills. Are we going to ban gasoline? Ban home heating oil? Ban automobiles? What on earth are you talking about doing that could possible slow down, let alone reverse, the growth of carbon emissions on this planet? (I can actually think of a workable option: nuke the Chinese and bring on nuclear winter. That will stop the warming!)


In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.

My position is that we don't know enough to be on one side or another. Your position is to do something, you don't know what, at some price in human misery you have not calculated, to prevent an imaginary harm that you can't even describe. I don't know what basis you have for disagreement. Apparently you believe the nonsense you read in every Washington Post story on this subject, in the grotesque distortions they print. If you decide you are interested in the science, I have a half dozen books by qualified scientists on this subject who ravage and ridicule the true believers. The latter have published no rebuttals.

Meanwhile, if you actually read the powerpoint slides with any care, ask yourself the following question: is there a single scientist in the world who can dispute what you saw? If so, what is his name? What is his counter evidence? And what data does he have on all those dreadful things that happened to Bangladesh or the polar bears or whomever the last ten times we entered a global warming cycle?

BTW, did you know that the oceans have risen 400 feet in the last 12,000 years. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Human used to walk across the English channel and the Bering Straits. Just what awful thing will happen if the oceans rise another foot in the next hundred years? If the January temperatures in the arctic rise on average from minus 40 to minus 30, but are unchanged in the continental USA? Until someone can describe with some particularity the harm, the consequences, the alternative, and its consequences, this is all rubbish.

Walt responding to Bill. Just pass this along in your blog or whereever.

The issue here is not science, but irrational religious fears of armageddon and apocalyse by true believers. There is actually nothing to discuss except what causes their peculiar mental state, and whether or why it may or may not be different than the mentality of the Salem witch trials or the people who fled hearing the Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" martian invasion radio show. By all means pass this one.
---------------------------------------------------

That's it.

Blog on!

Wild Bill