rebutting observations on the politically incorrect guide to climate change

There’s alot that is technically correct, but very misleading in the points an unnamed blogger laid out in discussing a book called “the politically incorrect guide to climate change”. I don’t subscribe to his blog, and we don’t know one another, so I’m not going to be so presumptive as to cite him or his entry, but as I was writing out a very long comment, I decided

By way of introduction, I studied environmental issues for my master’s degree. My training for my undergrad was science heavy. My master’s degree was policy heavy. The author of the piece you cite works for a political think tank, not a scientific (or economic, from what I can see) one. Just a point to consider when thinking about what he’s written.

Now, on a point by point basis.

1) Climate does change naturally. There are cycles to it. That doesn’t mean that all change is natural or that human change is irrelevant or comparatively small.

2) We humans are converting the subterranean coal and oil into atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other things) at a sufficiently rapid rate to alter the properties of the atmosphere. I don’t know about the CO2 cycles of prior natural climate change. However, the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has been out of the atmosphere for longer than there have been mammals on the planet, according to my understanding of the science. If you’d like me to, I can research the background on this one.

CO2 does have scientifically determined properties which result in retaining the radiated heat of the sun within the atmosphere more so than the major components of the atmosphere (most notably N2). Again, I can give you sources if you want.

Given both A) and B), man-made global warming is real. You can discuss the degree of its significance and I can do the math for you, if you want me to.

3, 4, 5, 10, 11) Kyoto is a poorly designed measure, which is a result of the political process. It was not written by environmentalists or by scientists. It was written by politicians, trying to protect humans. Some were trying to protect the income of the humans that pay their bills. Others had more magnanimous motives. What emerged was deeply flawed. But the author says ‘it doesn’t do the whole job,’ when it was influenced by people with a political agenda similar to the authors own, in order to make it less effective.

4b) Katrina didn’t ‘seem’ deadly. It was deadly. Human cities weren’t positioned to avoid catastrophic natural events, there were positioned for good land, access to transportation, etc. Yeah, building below sea level is a bad plan, but that doesn’t mean we should dig the hole deeper. Also, the inter-governmental panel on global climate change has had its predictions watered down for years by the ‘global warming is a crock’ crowd. And, big surprise, it’s happening much faster than predicted.

5) “tax the rich at the expense of the poor” I’m not even sure what you mean. Are you saying it would tax both the rich and the poor? That it would tax the rich and the poor would lose out because of trickledown (which was an interesting theory, but not one the data bore out)?

China is still behind the US on greenhouse gas emissions. They’re anticipated to catch up in the next year or two. They are way behind the US on per capita emissions, and not anticipated to catch up for awhile. See also, Kyoto sucks (above).

6) Taxing carbon emissions would disproportionately impact the rich. Of course, they can afford it more.

But if you want to argue that food, shelter, and health care are a basic human right, you might want to pick a different way to guarantee it than “the market will provide,” which I would bet is the author’s employer’s position on the matter. Additionally, many of the poor already do have to make this choice.

7) I’m not a glacier expert, but given the intellectual dishonesty I’ve seen up to this point, I’m suspecting there’s some hankypanky going on here too.

8) Ethanol is a hotly debated topic on the net impact on CO2 topic. I’ve seen figures on both sides of the argument. Most studies come out with a marginal reduction in green house gases. Corn ethanol is a very inefficient way to do it. Corn growers love it. Sugar based ethanol, on the other hand, is a big win. Biodiesel, also a big win. But only in terms of CO2 emissions. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear are big wins in terms of CO2, but each have their drawbacks.

There are other relevant environmental impacts. Soybean and corn farming (for biodiesel and ethanol, as well as other purposes) can lead to soil and water degredation, and net carbon releases, if for instance, there used to be a forest there. Windmills kill birds (not a major threat so far, but something to be aware of). Solar panels involve toxic chemicals (like most silicon manufacturing), hydroelectric generation interferes with salmon spawning and floods previously non-aquatic areas. Nukes create radioactive waste.

Biofuels and most alternative energy sources are more expensive, it’s true. Energy efficiency generally is not. Some efficiency measures have a big pay off over the long haul (see compact flourescent light bulbs (CFLs)), and alot of people don’t want to pony up the upfront cost.

9) Kyoto sucks, but it’s much more than just pork for the makers of CFLs and solar panels. This is an attempt to improve the long term well-being of humanity.

10) Okay, so the author is saying several European countries signed Kyoto and are spitting out more green house gases (GHGs) while the US didn’t and is emitting less. By this point in time, I have no trust in this author at all. What he say may be true. But I doubt he’s checking with the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Of course some anti-government-interference-in-corporate-activities group would be more reliable than that. But all I have to go on here is smoke and mirrors. Sadly, it isn’t my job to keep up to date on this material. This one smells very suspicious to me, I’d check the footnotes and the sources, but I’m not about to spend a dime on this book. (“More than what?” and “Less than what?” are very relevant questions here.)

11) Yes, very clever. Climate changes, so why bother? You’re also not going to completely prevent terrorism, drug use, or murder, so why bother trying on that either? The sun will go supernova in N thousand years, there will be some real global warming. So, why bother?