August 2007


by William Yeatman on August 29, 2007

This site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition
Updates by the Competitive Enterprise Institute


Daily Round-up
March 7, 2007

Some global warming-related stories you may have missed:

  • British companies involved in the Emissions Trading Scheme enjoy a $1.5 billion profits windfall while energy prices to the consumer increased 72 percent
  • Germany at odds with France over emissions reductions
  • Some Texas mayors upset by Houston mayor\'s emissions policies infringing on their cities
  • Bank of America sees the dollar signs involved in carbon trading (for an explanation of why this is a cartel, not involving new money, see here)
  • Hugo Chavez thinks his country has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia
  • Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr discover what looks like a big mistake in the IPCC summary.

Daily Round-up
March 6, 2007

Just a couple of stories today:

Finally, a propos of the first item, a reminder that the EU\'s economy is 20 to 30 years behind America\'s.

Daily Round-up
March 5, 2007

Lots of global warming-related stories you may have missed:

Daily Round-up
March 2, 2007

Some global warming-related stories you may have missed:

Daily Round-up
February 28, 2007

Some more global warming-related stories you may have missed:

Daily Round-up
February 27, 2007

Some global-warming related stories you may have missed:

Daily Round-up
February 26, 2007

Here\'s a few global warming-related stories from around the world today:

The Washington Times story about the UN data also includes the following:

Global warming is not a \"top-tier\" issue, according to a Pew Research survey of 1,708 adults. Respondents ranked the issue fourth from last in a 23-item list of policy priorities for the White House and Congress. Only 19 percent expressed \"deep concern\" about global warming. A minority 47 percent blamed it on human activity. Among conservative Republicans, the figure was 20 percent; among liberal Democrats, 71 percent.

\"The issue is of relatively low priority for members of both parties,\" the survey said. It was conducted Jan. 10 to 15, with a margin of error of three percentage points. is back
February 26, 2007

Security concerns meant we had to take the site down to strengthen it. Were back now, more resilient than ever, and will try to update regularly with global warming-related stories you wont find anywhere else


With Al Gore\'s movie An Inconvenient Truth hitting cinema screens across Europe, here are links to some critiques of the film:

Gorey Truths: 25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
National Review Online, June 22 2006
[T]his is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movies graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

A Skeptic\'s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
Competitive Enterprise Institute, August 21 2006
An Inconvenient Truth (AIT), Vice President Al Gores book on The planetary emergency of global warming and what can be done about it, is not the non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science and moral common-sense that it purports to be. Rather, AIT is a colorfully illustrated lawyers brief for global warming alarmism and energy rationing.

The most important contribution to the global warming debate for some time comes in a new study of global warming economics from one of the dozens of climate economists, Yale's William Nordhaus. His 253 page extravaganza (pdf link) finds that the cost of unabated global warming will be about $22 trillion to the world. So what about the plans to stop it? Well…

"First, the [UK Treasury's] Stern proposal for rapid deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the future damage from global warming by $13 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion dollars. That's not a good deal. For an even worse deal, the DICE-2007 model estimates that the Gore proposal would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion. As Nordhaus notes, both proposals imply carbon taxes rising to around $300 per ton carbon in the next two decades, and to the $600-$800 per ton range by 2050. A $700 carbon tax would increase the price of coal-fired electricity in the U.S. by about 150 percent, and would impose a tax bill of $1.2 trillion on the U.S. economy.

"In addition, scenarios which attempt to keep the future average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius and concentrations below 1.5-times pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations are also not cost-effective. The DICE-2007 model calculates that both would cost more than $27 trillion in abatement costs and provide only about $13 trillion in reduced damages."

Now, Nordhaus proposes a small, globally-harmonized carbon tax as the best way to avoid both climate damages and high abatement costs, reducing damages by about $5.5 trillion at a cost of $2 trillion. However, as far as I can see, and I haven't slogged through the entire report yet, Nordhaus does not consider an alternative approach that aims at reducing damages by deregulation and resiliency. This approach is admirably summed up by Professor Julian Morris of the University of Buckingham in an op/ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal this week (and archived here for those without a subscription): "In the short term, though, the main response to climate change must be adaptation. That is because most of the problems associated with climate change are extensions of problems that we already face today – from malaria and water-borne diseases to flooding and crop failure. If we could tackle those problems now, reducing their severity, incidence and consequences, then they would be also less of a problem in the future, with or without climate change.

"By adaptation, economists generally do not mean government mega-projects, such as dams and the like. Rather, they mean enabling people more effectively to address the problems they face. This is especially so for the poor, who suffer the most from the vagaries of the weather – they are least adapted to the current climate.

"For the poor, the best adaptation strategy is to become wealthier and to diversify away from subsistence agriculture. Then they would be able to afford to pump and purify water – avoiding the water-borne diseases that today kill around two million children. They'd be able to afford clean energy (even if it is produced in coal-fired power stations), thereby avoiding the noxious fumes that result from burning wood, dung and paraffin in poorly ventilated fires, which currently leads to over a million deaths a year from respiratory infections. And they'd be able to afford sturdier houses with better drainage and air conditioning, keeping them away from animals and stagnant water, and keeping out mosquitoes and malaria – which currently kills around two million a year. But none of this will come about without a great deal of economic growth, which is unlikely to take place if Kyoto-style policies are implemented."

It may well be that such an approach will deliver even better positive results than Prof. Nordhaus' carbon tax. Given that Prof. Nordhaus' work clearly demonstrates the positive harm alarmist policies will have on the world, even with global warming effects, it is time to put those decisively off the table forever, and start to analyze the effects of adaptation as opposed to demand-side interventions.

Blackpool, UK: Iain Murray of Cooler Heads member CEI, will address The Freedom Association in the UK at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party Conference

WASHINGTON — Injecting synthetic "super" greenhouse gases into the Martian atmosphere could raise the planet's temperature enough to melt its polar ice caps and create conditions suitable for sustaining biological life. In fact, a team of researchers suggests that introducing global warming on the Red Planet may be the best approach for warming the planet's frozen landscape and turning it into a habitable world in the future.

Margarita Marinova, then at the NASA Ames Research Center, and colleagues propose that the same types of atmospheric interactions that have led to recent surface temperature warming trends on Earth could be harnessed on Mars to create another biologically hospitable environment in the solar system. In the February issue of Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets, published by the American Geophysical Union, the researchers report on the thermal energy absorption and the potential surface temperature effects from introducing man-made greenhouse gases strong enough to melt the carbon dioxide and ice on Mars.

"Bringing life to Mars and studying its growth would contribute to our understanding of evolution, and the ability of life to adapt and proliferate on other worlds," Marinova said. "Since warming Mars effectively reverts it to its past, more habitable state, this would give any possibly dormant life on Mars the chance to be revived and develop further."

The authors note that artificially created gases–which would be nearly 10,000 times more effective than carbon dioxide–could be manufactured to have minimal detrimental effects on living organisms and the ozone layer while retaining an exceptionally long lifespan in the environment. They then created a computer model of the Martian atmosphere and analyzed four such gases, individually and in combination, that are considered the best candidates for the job.

Their study focused on fluorine-based gases, composed of elements readily available on the Martian surface, that are known to be effective at absorbing thermal infrared energy. They found that a compound known as octafluoropropane, whose chemical formula is C3F8, produced the greatest warming, while its combination with several similar gases enhanced the warming even further.

The researchers anticipate that adding approximately 300 parts per million of the gas mixture in the current Martian atmosphere, which is the equivalent of nearly two parts per million in an Earth- like atmosphere, would spark a runaway greenhouse effect, creating an instability in the polar ice sheets that would slowly evaporate the frozen carbon dioxide on the planet's surface. They add that the release of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide would lead to further melting and global temperature increases that could then enhance atmospheric pressure and eventually restore a thicker atmosphere to the planet.

Such a process could take centuries or even millennia to complete but, because the raw materials for the fluorine gases already exist on Mars, it is possible that astronauts could create them on a manned mission to the planet. It would otherwise be impossible to deliver gigaton-sized quantities of the gas to Mars. The authors conclude that introducing powerful greenhouse gases is the most feasible technique for raising the temperature and increasing the atmospheric pressure on Mars, particularly when compared to other alternatives like sprinkling sunlight-absorbing dust on the poles or placing large mirrors in the planet's orbit.

The United Nations is trying to blame natural disasters on, of all things, people. President Bush, however, is standing in its way.

The U.N. is holding its second-ever "World Conference on Disaster Reduction" this week in Kobe, Japan. Scheduled for the 10th anniversary of the deadly January 1995 earthquake in Kobe and following in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami, you might think that the conference's focus would be 'natural disasters.'

But the first indication that this isn't necessarily the case comes when you compare the titles of the current and previous U.N. disaster conferences.

The title of the U.N.'s first disaster conference, held in 1994, was the �World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, which, incidentally, occurred during the U.N.-proclaimed "International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction" (1990-1999).

Natural disasters, as far as the U.N. is concerned anyway, apparently are no longer 'natural.'

Behind the "1984"-like de-natural-ization of the disaster conference is, of course, the ongoing effort by the U.N. – a leading promoter of the unproven notion that humans are significantly altering global climate for the worse – to be able to blame people, as opposed to Nature, for deadly and costly occurrences such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and the like.

And the particular people that the U.N. would most like to pin the blame for global warming on would be deep-pocket Americans, American businesses and the American government. As the global warming alarmist community likes to point out, the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the alleged global warming, emitting 25 percent of all greenhouse gases while possessing only 4 percent of the world's population.

Toward the goal of blaming the U.S. for what used to be considered 'natural disasters' in order to eventually extract financial compensation, the U.N. conference's draft action plan is riddled with references to climate change [read, 'U.S.-made climate change'] as causing or contributing to 'disasters.'

The Bush administration rightly opposes the U.N.'s effort to de-naturalize disasters and has requested that the document's references to climate change be removed. But U.N. officials oppose such changes.

"I hope there will be a global recognition of climate change causing more natural disasters," said Jan Egeland, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.

Weather disasters like hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, ice storms always have, and always will plague man. As far as we know, they are entirely natural occurrences. There is absolutely no credible evidence that humans � much less Americans in particular – have had have any discernible impact on the frequency and severity of – dare I say it? – natural disasters.

Given the media's new habit of linking virtually any extreme or unusual weather with global warming, some scientists now even feel compelled to go out of their way to reaffirm that global warming isn't causing natural disasters, as in the case of the string of hurricanes that hit south Florida last summer.

The U.N. dramatizes the need for its 'action plan' by claiming that: economic damages resulting from 'disasters' have increased from about 1,500 disasters costing $200 billion during the 1970s to 6,000 disasters costing $700 billion during the 1990s; and the number of people 'threatened' by 'disasters' has increased from about 750 million people in the 1970s to about 2.5 billion people in the 1990s.

I don't know how accurate those estimates may be, but to the extent that natural disasters do wreak more economic havoc and threaten more people now than 30 years ago, that is most likely due to all the upscale development that has spread during that time to coastal regions and other areas more vulnerable to the whims of Mother Nature.

Participating in the U.N. conference is the German insurance company Munich Re, which issued a report –Megacities � Megarisks: Trends and challenges for insurance and risk management,- bemoaning the alleged impacts of global warming and other 'disasters' on insurers.

Munich Re claims, for example, that the urban heat island effect – the modern-day phenomenon where cities are warmer than surrounding rural areas due to increased heat trapping by concrete and asphalt – amplifies the effect of global warming to increase the number of deaths caused by heatwaves.

Despite any intuitive appeal, this assertion is unfounded since there is no scientific evidence that global warming – which involves a hypothesized few-degree rise in global temperatures over the course of a century – has anything to do with summer heatwaves – which involve sudden dramatic, short-term shifts in local temperature.

Weather, after all, is not climate.

The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.

Insurers, apparently, are more than happy to accept premiums for writing risky policies, but not too happy when Mother Nature and policyholders force them to make good on claims. redesign launch

by William Yeatman on August 11, 2007

in Events

Wow, this is really going to be great!