The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 25/600)
fierobear NOV 09, 11:04 PM
Now that the election is over, time to get back to debunking global warming...especially before the new President makes such talk illegal.

Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?

by David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2122

The clear political failure of the Lieberman–Warner bill last spring shows that support for global–warming legislation wanes considerably when the extraordinary costs are compared to the almost insignificant benefits.[1] In response, those pushing restrictions on carbon dioxide (CO2) have tried to repackage global–warming legislation as jobs bills.

As appealing as the repackaging seems on the surface (lots of high–paid, high–tech workers in lab coats), the support for these claims collapses once it is examined. A little thought experiment helps give perspective.

Fuzzy Math

Suppose Jones used 1,000 kilowatt–hours (kW–h) when the price of electricity was $0.10 per kW–h. He spent $100 on electricity (1,000 kW–h x $0.10 = $100). Now suppose the price rises to $0.15 per kW–h. Responding to the higher price, Jones cuts his electricity consumption to 700 kW–h. How much better off is Jones with the higher price? Most would say, since he is now spending $105 for less electricity (700 kW–h x $0.15 = $105), he is worse off.

However, those promoting restrictions on CO2 turn economics, logic, and math upside down. In their world, the answer is: Jones consumes 300 kW–h less and, at $0.15 per kW–h, he saves $45 (300 kW–h x $0.15 = $45). Then he spends this "extra" money and creates jobs.

Everybody else correctly thinks that since Jones now spends $105 for 30 percent less electricity, he is $5 poorer and has to get by with less energy. He has less to spend, not more. Thus there will be less employment, not more. This is especially true since one of the ways Jones cuts energy consumption is to use more expensive energy–conserving products, making his loss greater than $5.

Phantom Job Creation

The topsy–turvy, we–save–with–higher–prices way of thinking undergirds a recent well–publicized University of California study that claims restricting access to energy creates more income and more employment.[2] The study notes that per capita electricity use in California is 40 percent less than the national average and attributes this reduction to efficiencies brought on by state policies.

But Californians pay 36 percent more for their electricity, have watched manufacturing's share of state output drop by 15 percent since 1980, need less electricity for heating and cooling than the rest of the nation, live in smaller houses than the national average, and pay billions of dollars to generate electricity using inefficient alternatives.[3]

The 40 percent cut in per capita energy use is not free "efficiency," but it is treated as such. And it is projected to get 1 percent more "efficient" every year without cost. The job creation in this study is as fallacious as the reasoning on which it is based. But the silliness does not end there.

Another much–publicized study, done for the Center for American Progress, makes an even more fundamental error.[4] The authors of this study fall prey to the classic "broken windows" fallacy whereby spending money creates jobs as the expenditure multiplies throughout the economy. The fallacy comes from ignoring the equally large destruction of jobs (actually larger because of something called "deadweight loss") from taxing the $100 billion, which eliminates a similar cascade of job creation elsewhere.

A third, less–well–publicized study from the University of Tennessee is also based on the broken–windows fallacy.[5] Here the authors calculate the jobs created by forcing renewable energy to 25 percent of total energy nationwide. But they neglect to account for the cost (and lost jobs) of the taxes needed so the government could subsidize all that inefficient energy.

In a recent study of the economic impacts of restricting CO2 emissions, researchers at the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation did not find an increase in employment; to the contrary, such restrictions resulted in rather significant job losses.[6] In some years, employment losses from the Lieberman–Warner restrictions would be 900,000 jobs. These job losses are net of any "green" jobs that are created.

"Green Collar" Jobs

When energy prices rise (whether due to changes in market conditions or regulation and taxes), markets will adjust in many ways. Consumers reduce consumption and buy more energy–efficient products. Producers economize on the use of energy by cutting production and purchasing more energy–efficient machinery.

Of course, some producers will see an increase in sales when energy prices rise. For example, manufacturers of heating and cooling equipment may increase sales as firms and households replace older air conditioners and furnaces with newer more efficient ones. This will increase the demand for labor, material, and capital used by the heating and cooling manufacturers. Those changes will induce yet other changes elsewhere in the economy as suppliers to the heating and cooling industry adjust their production. These sorts of responses have happened in the past and have been estimated using real data and are incorporated into the hundreds of equations built into the macroeconomic model used by the Center for Data Analysis.

Broken Ideas

Energy is a valuable input to the modern economy. Cutting CO2 makes less energy available, and when the impacts are traced through the economy, some jobs are created but more are lost. Counting only the jobs that are created distorts the analysis and invalidates the conclusions.

When all is said and done, restricting CO2 cuts energy, income, and jobs. Pretending that breaking windows creates employment may make choosing among alternatives easier, but it leads to bad policy.
fierobear NOV 16, 03:18 AM
HAHAHAHAHA! Looks like we caught that bastard James Hansen, lying AGAIN!

The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
# Read more from Christopher Booker

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
advertisement

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
fierobear NOV 16, 01:12 PM
EcoAmerica Poll: Climate skeptics are the majority, not the minority

Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.

Yes you read that correctly, it is all in this article on the Nature Conservancy webpage. And that goes along with what was discovered in June this year by the newspapers UK Guardian and Observer, which reported that:

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem…

The Nature Conservancy story citing 18 percent, is citing the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica It also found that political party affiliation is the single largest indicator as to whether people see climate change as a threat.

It seems it is all political, as there are some other fascinating tidbits. For example:

* Convinced it’s happening: 54 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats.
* Think that weather has gotten more severe: 44 percent of Republicans; 77 percent of Democrats.
* Noticed the climate changing: 54 percent of Republicans; 84 percent of Democrats.
* Trust Al Gore when he talks about global warming: 22 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
* Trust environmentalists who talk about global warming: 38 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
* Trust anyone who talks about global warming: 39 percent of Republicans; 75 percent of Democrats.
fierobear NOV 16, 02:40 PM
EU climate change push in disarray as Italy joins Iron Curtain revolt

(excerpt)

Europe’s commitment to ambitious green goals became the latest victim of the global financial crisis yesterday when a growing number of EU countries rebelled, claiming that the plans were now too expensive.

Plans for binding European legislation by December were dropped as the EU watered down the carbon dioxide blueprint that it had announced with a fanfare 18 months ago.

The revolt by eight countries, led by Italy and Poland, left the EU’s self-proclaimed mission to shape a global, postKyoto agreement on greenhouse gases in disarray.

President Sarkozy of France, which holds the rotating EU presidency, led the way in appealing to all 27 countries to stick to their targets.

But tempers flared at the quarterly European Council in Brussels, with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, clearly furious at the pressure being applied. During a stand-up row behind the scenes, he told Mr Sarkozy that the targets would crucify Italian industry.

“Our businesses are in absolutely no position at the moment to absorb the costs of the regulations that have been proposed,” Mr Berlusconi said later.

Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, said: “We don’t say to the French that they have to close down their nuclear power industry and build windmills, and nobody can tell us the equivalent.”

In an extraordinary break with EU protocol, both leaders said that they did not have to stick to the deal because neither had been in office when it was signed by their predecessors in March 2007.

The eight countries have the voting power to form a blocking minority, should they choose to do so.

Under the original deal, EU countries would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 – rising to 30 per cent if it encouraged global agreeement. Mr Sarkozy succeeded in preserving the overall goal but he faces an increasingly uphill task to hold various countries to their individual contributions.

The row erupted at the same time as Britain strengthened its policy. Giving his first speech to the Commons as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband said that Britain would increase its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from 60 per cent to 80 per cent.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-16-2008).]

fierobear NOV 16, 03:36 PM
Any bets on how and when our new far left president will bring this kind of insanity to the U.S.?

Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs

By David Derbyshire

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.
Petrol

Filling up: Motorists would need a carbon card at the pumps


Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

But critics say the idea is costly, bureaucratic, intrusive and unworkable.

The Government says it supports the scheme in principle, but warns it is 'ahead of its time'.

The idea of personal carbon trading is increasingly being promoted by environmentalists. In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.

For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.

MP Tim Yeo MP, says the scheme could be more effective at cutting Britain's greenhouse gas emissions

Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.

'We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said.

'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges.

'What we are asking the Government to do is to seize the reins on this, leading the debate and coordinating research.'

The Government is committed to cutting CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Climate Change Bill going through Parliament aims to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Government has said it backs the idea in principle, but it is currently too expensive and bureaucratic.

Environment Minister Hilary Benn said: 'It's got potential but, in essence, it's ahead of its time. There are a lot of practical problems to overcome.'

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report into the scheme found it would cost between £700million and £2billion to set up and up to another £2billion a year to run.

Tory environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth added: 'Although it does have potential we should proceed with care. We don't want to alienate people and we want everyone to be on board.'

But critics say the idea is deeply flawed. The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.

Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.

It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.

HOW THE SCHEME WOULD WORK

Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.
Phranc NOV 16, 09:57 PM
Holy crap I believe they still try to force feed this crap. On the 1/2 time show that one of those cackling crows from the View talking about melting glaciers could make the sea levels rise "at least 200 feet" and how the coral reefs are all dying because the oceans are getting so much warmer. And how the melting snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro is threatening so many people. Will these people ever sop the dishonest guilt tripping ways. Do they even think and learn for them selves or will they only rely on the spoon fed lies they regurgitate over and over again?
fierobear NOV 16, 10:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

Do they even think and learn for them selves or will they only rely on the spoon fed lies they regurgitate over and over again?



That's how s*** like this gets promoted and popular. Many people just believe whatever the hell they are told. Some are just followers. Some like causes, and global warming is a HUGE cause to join, maybe the biggest yet. SAVE THE PLANET! SAVE HUMANITY! And they can sell any bullshit they want under the banner of global warming.
ryan.hess NOV 19, 11:55 AM
Since the publication in 2006 of the paper, "Recent cooling of the upper ocean", climate scientists have been scratching their heads, trying to figure out why the upper layer of the ocean had cooled from 2004-2006. Since the oceans absorb more than 80% of the heat from global warming, we should expect to see the oceans heating up if the globe is warming. Climate skeptics pointed to the result as evidence that the planet was not warming after all.

http://earthobservatory.nas...eanCooling/page1.php

If you don't feel like reading 5 pages....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The expendable temperature sensors were wrong.
Phranc NOV 19, 11:59 AM
Given NASA's agenda and continued deliberate fudging of the numbers I'll wait for some one else to back that up.
ryan.hess NOV 19, 12:04 PM
NOAA?



It appears as though Russia is on fire.