| Home Page | Blog | Initiatives | Downloads | Social Security | Gov't Spending |
| Taxes | Regulation | Newsletters | Links | Contact us | Join us |
SAFE’s “hit nail on head” blog
(please direct feedback to ww3@atlanticbb.net)
5/5/08 – The Holy Grail: energy policy based on evidence vs. propaganda. Read a Reply
Last week’s entry ended with a jab at “policy wonks” who advocate a government-led restructuring of the energy sector in the name of combating global warming. This week we would like to recognize the efforts of scientists who are doing bona fide research on climate change, such as Dr. David Legates, the Delaware state climatologist.
Legates grew up in Delaware and completed his formal education at the University of Delaware (UD). Leaving the state in 1988, he spent nearly a decade at the University of Oklahoma and two years at Louisiana State University. His specialty is climatology, or the study of long-term climate trends, as opposed to meteorology (the science of weather prediction).
On returning to UD, Legates led the establishment of the Delaware Environmental Observing System, a statewide monitoring system for temperatures, rainfall, storms levels and tides. He was appointed as the state climatologist in September 2005.
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/mar/dlegates092305.html
In addition to being the keeper of climate records for Delaware, Dr. Legates has published many scientific papers, given talks, attended conferences, etc. He networks with, among others, the National Center of Policy Analysis, Heritage Foundation, and Heartland Institute.
Due to his failure to toe the “party line” on global warming, critics have attempted to discredit Legates, e.g., by labeling him a spokesman from an ExxonMobil-funded organization. “Del. scientist’s view on climate criticized,” [Wilmington] News Journal, 2/6/07.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060367/1006/NEWS
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reportedly attempted to have Legates removed as climatologist (basically an academic appointment). Although the governor’s office declined to go along, Legates has been asked to make clear in public statements that he does not speak for the state government. The state climatologists of Oregon and Virginia are out of the mainstream too, and they have been subjected to similar treatment.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20814
Environmentalists have alleged links between ExxonMobil and probably every scientist who has ever expressed heterodox views about global warming. Ironically, one of the quotes noted in the Greenpeace dossier on Legates captures the spirit of their own monitoring activity.
When you have the science on your side, you argue the science. When you don’t have the science on your side you attack the messenger. CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18
On April 23, 2008, four SAFE directors (Dorsch, Martin, Morris, Whipple) attended a talk by Dr. Legates sponsored by the Conservative Caucus of Delaware. The event took place in a second floor meeting room at the Brandywine Hundred Library with an audience of about 40 people. Given the leanings of the audience, it seemed that the state climatologist would be preaching to the proverbial “choir.”
Let it not be assumed, however, that Legates sticks to reliably receptive venues. Just the night before, in recognition of Earth Day 2008, he had spoken about global warming at Cecil College’s North East campus in Maryland.
The speaker arrived and set up his laptop for the slide show. Some chairs had to be moved in order to position the projector further from the screen, providing an opportunity to size up the speaker before the talk got started.
Boyish face, average height, a bit rotund, dressed rather casually, in his mid-40s perhaps, Dr. Legates seems energetic and friendly. He invites several late arrivals to come in and get seated. Hmm, nothing about the speaker stamps him as a corporate shill. Can this really be the man that critics have called “a favorite scientist of the global warming denial machine”?
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS/702010363/1006/NEWS
Legates began with a disclaimer. He would not be speaking on behalf of any branch (executive, legislative or judicial) of the Delaware state government, but merely expressing his professional opinion on the convenient “truth” of global warming. Oh, darn, but no one walked out.
The ensuing talk confirmed much of our own thinking about global warming, which has been presented at length in previous entries. See, e.g., 1/21/08, “An update on global warming (cooling?).”
If the speaker intended to deny global warming, he had a funny way of going about. Thus, in the course of his talk, he acknowledged a warming trend, identified human activity as a contributing factor, and said carbon dioxide (C02) and methane in the atmosphere have a heat trapping effect.
Legates did take issue with the assumption, however, that rising levels of CO2, etc. can be expected to produce a straight-line (or accelerating) increase in global temperatures. How could such a relationship be expected when we know that global temperatures are influenced by many factors, including, probably most importantly, the level of sunspot activity?
Also, the earth was considerably warmer some 800 years ago than it is today, without catastrophic consequences for mankind. The medieval warm period is considered inconvenient in some quarters, and a few years ago a scientist at Penn State University proposed a restatement of the historical data that would have “gotten rid of” it. Errors were discovered in the methodology, however, and this effort was discredited.
The winter of 2008 brought record snowfall levels in many areas of North America (not Delaware), which apparently coincides with the currently low level of sunspot activity. More sunspots may flare up soon, given that alternating cycles of about 11 years of low and high sunspot activity have been observed in modern times. If so, the apparent pause in the global warming trend (average temperatures were higher in 1998 than they are expected to be this year) should end. But there are also precedents for extended periods of solar quiescence.
As we have previously noted, some Russian scientists (presumably not funded by ExxonMobil) believe the earth is on the cusp of an extended period of lower temperatures. Legates did not suggest this; he simply said it is not known what will happen.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
The global warming faithful are aware that a cooling trend may be coming, and some of them are already crafting an explanation about “shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt[ing] the global warming effect caused by mankind.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide
Assuming that predictions of global warming are well founded, what are the likely consequences?
Legates said a greatly increased level of hurricane activity is unlikely. The Katrina disaster was due in large part to the unique characteristics of the local geography including the fact that a large part of New Orleans sits below sea level. Also, while hurricanes have been on the upswing in the northern Atlantic, they have been declining in other ocean basins.
What about the fact that droughts are becoming more frequent in many areas, including Delaware? Don’t blame climate change; population growth and the clearing of land (which causes faster rainfall runoff) provide a ready explanation for dropping reservoir levels.
All of which is not to say global warming is of no concern, said Legates, nor that corrective action may not be indicated. Scientists need to develop a better understanding of what is happening, however, to provide the basis for a “well informed and prudent response.”
While not getting into policy options, Legates commended the views of the Cornwall Alliance, a religiously oriented but scientifically savvy task force that is concerned with stewardship of the environment. Here is an excerpt from their Website, which makes sense to us.
When addressing environmental problems, we should respond first to firmly established risks in ways that are cost-effective and have proven benefit. Prudent stewardship will avoid siren calls to action on speculative problems that are based on politicized science or media-driven hype, focusing instead on well-understood and well-argued evidence. In the world of policy priorities, arguments that millions may die in the next century (due, for example, to poorly-understood and wildly exaggerated claims about climate change) must yield primacy of place to well-understood problems (like unsafe drinking water, dirty fuels like wood and dung, and malarial mosquitoes) that cause some 4-5 million deaths annually and that could be solved for a fraction of the proposed cost.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/cornwall-stewardship-agenda/
Some environmentalists have responded to attacks on Dr. Legates et al. in the vein that academics have the right to be wrong. Besides, as one of them put it, “crucifying the man and these other guys probably does more harm than good, because it inflames people who are looking for victims and looking for the argument that global warming is a conspiracy of nuts and leftists and environmental extremists."
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080301/NEWS/803010370/1006/NEWS
As we have said before, all concerned should forbear from personal attacks and let the science decide. With scientists like Dr. Legates on the job, the climate change debate will be sorted out appropriately in due course.
Meanwhile, the public should resist hugely expensive, long-term programs that would have no measurable effect on the earth’s climate.
The campaign to force Delmarva Power to enter into a 25-year contract to buy electricity generated by a $1.6 billion offshore wind farm exemplifies the sort of “feel good” measures that should be avoided. Fortunately, as of this writing, it appears that the campaign will fall short.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080410/NEWS02/804100348/1007
Let it not be thought, by the way, that this is about defending “the corporate interests.” Bluewater Wind, the firm that proposes to build the project, is owned by an international investment group (Barker & Brown, based in Australia) of considerable size and sophistication. It is a safe bet that Bluewater would earn a handsome profit on the project, while the power costs for Delaware consumers were correspondingly inflated.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50117
For those concerned that too much fossil fuel is being consumed to produce electricity, there is always nuclear power – which is far more practical than wind power given the current state of technology.
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore recently made the case for building more nuclear power plants. Amen! Note, however, that other environmentalists claim Moore is on the take from the nuclear power industry. Special interests are everywhere, it seems.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html
We now return to the subject of the 4/21/08 entry on “pain at the pump.” High gas prices have been front and center in this election year, and here are some recent developments.
American motorists are very concerned about the cost to refuel these days. Listen to what David Gares of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, has to say, for instance, about paying more than $4 a gallon for diesel fuel (his tractor-trailer rig gets a little over six miles per gallon).
You can't charge it back to the shipper, so it comes out of your own wallet. Now you have to start looking at how to cut back.
Gares was one of over 100 truckers who drove to Washington, D.C. to publicize their plight and demand action from Congress. Imagine the traffic tie-ups as their trucks lumbered around the National Mall.
http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1384723
Whatever one may think of politicians, they do listen when people get mad. Thus, some of our political leaders are starting to offer ideas about gas prices that go beyond the standard fare of cracking down on the oil companies, etc.
#One presidential candidate suggested a moratorium on the federal gas tax (18.4¢ per gallon, 24.4¢ per gallon for diesel) between the 4th of July and Labor Day. Another picked up the refrain (albeit proposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies to go along with it), while the holdout (thus far) accuses his rivals of pandering.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/18365854.html
Not that we favor short term, ad hoc actions like this, particularly on top of the income tax rebate that will swell this year’s deficit by some $160 billion. Still, the suggestion does show a willingness to go beyond government as usual thinking.
#Another idea is to suspend purchases of oil for the strategic reserve. Such action would not make much of a dent in gas prices, but in principle we see nothing wrong with it.
#Shelving his rhetoric about reducing America’s addiction to oil, etc., the president pointedly commented at a press conference on April 29 that Congress should stop blocking domestic oil production from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, etc.
One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home. They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day.
Well, better late than never. Let’s go!
#Despite professing to be “deeply concerned about food prices,” however, the president continues to support the disastrous ethanol mandate/subsidy program. Too bad, we have a lot more education work to do on that issue.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080429-1.html
* * * *
To sum up this three-part series, the cost of restructuring the U.S. economy from top to bottom in an attempt to avert global warming would be stupendous. High gas and food prices are just the tip of the iceberg.
So for those who are not convinced that they want to pay for this idea, via either taxes or ever-higher prices, now would be the time to start asking questions about it.
Additional Blogs below:
4/28/08 – The Icarus syndrome: why the bad ideas keep coming. Read a Reply
Last week’s entry ended with a conundrum: If our political leaders are truly concerned about high gas prices, as they profess to be, why are so many “solutions” suggested that would simply make the problem worse?
4/21/08 – Pain at the pump: why energy prices are soaring.
Soaring prices for motor fuel represent a burden for all of us, and it would be nice to do something about them. First, however, we need to understand their cause.
4/14/08 – Getting action on Social Security Read a Reply
Having reviewed the problems of the Social Security system last week, we will now suggest a strategy to sell the needed reforms.
4/7/08 – Straight thinking about Social Security Read a Reply
Reforming Social Security may be easier than figuring out what to do about Medicare and other healthcare programs, but still represents a major challenge. To progress, we must overcome some common misconceptions.
3/31/08 – Government intervention: a surefire way to make things worse Read a Reply
Given a housing slump and slowing economy in an election year, there will be no shortage of suggestions that the government should intervene in a big way.
3/24/08 – The Bear Stearns buyout and other bad omens
Given recent developments, it seems timely to revisit the threat of a fiscal meltdown. Why might there be a meltdown, what would it look like, when would it happen, and should one cut the red wire or the black one to stop it?
3/17/08 – A winning strategy for healthcare insurance Read a Reply
However understandable the desire for universal healthcare insurance (HCI), efforts to achieve this goal could prove counterproductive. A winning strategy, we think, will require a “bottom-up” versus “top-down” approach.
3/10/08 – With liberty, justice, and healthcare insurance for all
Roundly 250 million Americans have healthcare insurance, per the U.S. Census Bureau, but many view 47 million Americans (1 out of 6) without healthcare insurance (HCI) as the real story – and a “gold mine” for political candidates.
3/3/08 – Connecting the dots: earmarks matter, and words also Read a Reply
“It's worthwhile to urge reducing government spending,” a friend recently wrote, “but perhaps a bit abstract when the average reader looks at bottom-line budget numbers.”
More in our "Archives"