Pre-Buenos Aires: The Global Warming Debate Scorecard

by William Yeatman on October 2, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

The comment in August by Bill Richardson, President Clinton’s pick for U.S. Secretary of Energy, that global warming advocates had been “outgunned” came as a surprise to those of us who have been watching the huge amount of cash being amassed by interest groups focussed on this issue. The U.S. government, of course, has been spending roughly $2 billion a year on global warming and now proposes a new $6.3 billion package, which includes a set-aside for public “education.”

But in addition, Pew Charitable Trust has pledged some $50 million over the next 10 years to promote this issue to the press and the public, largely through the National Environmental Trust and the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation just donated $1.5 million to train 60 “scientist-communicators” to work the press on global warming. Millions more have been donated by the W. Alton Jones Foundation and other foundations. The issue has been a major focus of the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and dozens of other green activist organizations. On the industry side, approximately $13 million was spent on a nationwide ad campaign in the fall of 1997. Word is that industry plans a similar ad campaign this fall.

In the run-up to the next round of global warming talks, in Buenos Aires in early November, we thought it would be useful to try to gauge how the global warming debate is faring here in the United States. We did a Lexis-Nexis search of editorials and commentary in major publications, using June 1, 1998 as the starting point. We figured that beginning at this date would be a better measure of global warming’s sustainibility as an issue, and would also reflect any concerns raised by the Vice President’s many press briefings over the summer.

Our search, of course, did not include television, which has been largely pro-warming, nor radio, which has been largely against it. Both radio and television reach tens of millions of listeners. Very small newspapers were deliberately excluded, in part because they tend to be strongly conservative and would likely skew the results in the “No” column. News articles would have been too numerous to count, but we figured that editorials and commentary should reflect their impact.

A few of these commentary articles are clearly meant to be self-serving, i.e. industry representatives, Green activists, nuclear engineers promoting nuclear power. Only the editorials reflect the official position of the publications themselves, though all of the articles reveal what their readership has been seeing. We plan to keep a running tally through the end of the year, so if we’ve missed items, please bring them to our attention.

In reviewing this list, several things jumped out at us. First, 41 of the 66 articles appeared in August, a reflection of the Clinton administration’s–and particularly Mr. Gore’s–promotion of the issue. Second, there was a curious dearth of support on either the editorial or commentary pages at two major newspapers that strongly promote global warming on the news side: the New York Times and the Washington Post. Finally, there was a general failure of representatives of either industry or green activist organizations to attack this issue on the commentary pages. Of the industry-based articles that did appear, several were middle-of-the-roadish. The one Green group commentary piece, from Ozone Action, presented a shrill argument for an industry plot. Both industry and activists are working directly with the U.S. government. But it would be arrogant if either thinks that deals can be struck without convincing the American people that such policies are needed or in any way useful.

Over the next two months, perhaps we shall get a clearer picture of what Bill Richardson meant when he said the U.S. government is being “outgunned.”

For now, if it means losing the debate on the pages of major newspapers and magazines, Richardson appears to be right.

Editorials Opposing Kyoto Treaty: 25 publications — 13 editorials, 26 commentary articles

Charleston (SC) Post and Courier: Former government scientist Joseph McDowell in a column “Why is this debate still alive when no credible evidence has been found to support global warming theory?” (8/5/98)

Chattanooga (TN) Free Press: Free Press Editor and Publisher Lee Anderson in a column “there is still no proof of the wild global warming claims of the alarmists who ignore natural climate cycles (8/4/98)

Chicago (IL) Sun Times: Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner in a column says “global warming paranoia just a lot of hot air” (6/19/98)

Chicago (IL) Tribune: Column by Joan Beck says “global warming verdict still up in the air.” 7/9/98)

Detroit (MI) News: Editorial “It is regrettable that the National Council of Churches has embraced Mr. Gore’s line (on global warming).

Freelance writer Daniel Hager in a column “Many of us, taking a longer view of climate history, remain skeptics” (7/20/98)

Duluth (MN) News Tribune: Citizens Research Council President Clyde Nelson in a column “Must we rush into the unknown abyss of treaties that supersede our own Constitution in a mad rush to avert a disaster when even today large numbers of learned scientists cannot seem to agree on the cause, or the impact (of global warming) on the world’s population?” (8/1/98)

Electricity Daily: Editorial critical of “Hansen’s Global Warming Index” (7/27/98)

Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram: Knight-Ridder columnist John Carlisle asks “Is the sun to blame for global warming? Biggest factor on earth’s temperature is 93 million miles away” (7/6/98)

Investor’s Business Daily: Editorial “(The U.S. EPA) is committed to spending your money to persuade you to tell your senator to get on the global warming bandwagon…The EPA calls this educational outreach. It smells like lobbying” (8/4/98)

Junk Science Home Page Publisher Steve Milloy and Michael Gough of the Cato Institute in a column say scientist Frederick Seitz is the “prime target of a government smear campaign” as part of the “broader effort to squelch scientific debate on global warming” (8/7/98)

Journal of Commerce: Editorial notes evidence that the Earth’s climate from 1000-1200 A.D. was about 1 degree Celsius warmer than today, with no input from cars or power plants. (7/6/98)

Small Business Survival Committee chief economist Raymond Keating in a column blasts White House economist Janet Yellen’s view that the costs of Kyoto will be small (7/16/98)

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute “For farmers of the world, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy-expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides, and fertilizer.” (9/1/98)

Las Vegas (NV) Review-Journal: Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates VP Mary Novak, in a column “Instead of hobbling our economy with costly new regulations, we should pursue alternatives to the Kyoto Accord” (8/14/98)

Little Rock (AK) Democrat-Gazette: Editorial “No wonder (Gore) always seems so uncomfortable…He’s not a statesman. He’s a weatherman…The man really missed his calling” (7/13/98

Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal: Kentucky Farm Bureau President William Sprague “America’s most potent agricultural trading competitors…won’t have to shoulder the same cost increases that our producers have to bear (under Kyoto)” (8/29/98)

Montgomery (AL) Advertiser: Editorial “There remains much legitimate dispute about the extent of global warming and its impact on humankind.” (8/13/98)

Omaha World-Herald: Editorial “(Gore) seems to be seeking votes by crying out that the sky is falling” (8/14/98)

National Review: Cover story by Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says “global warming is not a threat to health or the economy. Plans to address it are” (8/17/98)

The Patriot-Ledger (Quincy, MA): Columnist D.A. Mittell, Jr. writes “let’s cut the alarmist claptrap on warm Earth.” (9/5/98)

Philadelphia Inquirer: Columnist David Boldt “We’d be idiots to lash ourselves to growth-slowing policies based on a very dubious, very long-range weather forecast.” (8/25/98)

Providence (RI) Journal-Bulletin: Mackubin Thomas Owens in a column complains about the ramifications of “global warming vs. U.S. security” (7/31/98)

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Editorial “Science is mostly irrelevant to Gore…What Gore is trying to do is drum up support for the Kyoto treaty” (7/21/98)

Editorial “Nothing in the natural world is static…Won’t someone please tell Al Gore?” (8/25/98)

UVA Prof Patrick Michaels in a column “(Americans) know when someone is yelling fire in a crowded greenhouse” (8/18/98)

Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO): Center for the New West President Philip Burgess in a column “Nearly every publicly available study estimating the true costs of Kyoto ends up with dramatically higher cost estimates than those used by Clinton-Gore true believers” (8/4/98)

Salt Lake (UT) Tribune: National Center for Public Policy Research VP David Ridenour in a column “The unusually hot air blowing this summer has come from the White House, not from global warming” (8/16/98)

Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review: Columnist John Webster “on the basis of this uncertainty and exaggeration, the United States would be crazy to don a regulatory straitjacket”: (8/14/98)

Tampa (FL) Tribune: Editorial says “Gore’s attempt to link Florida fires to global warming is pseudo-science” (7/12/98)

Washington (DC) Times: Editorial “Al Gore Warms Up: Is there any misfortune, disaster or otherwise unwelcome phenomenon out there that (Gore) can’t blame on alleged global warming?” (7/16/98)

Syndicated columnist Oliver North writes “…no matter what Kyoto says, businesses aren’t going to stop using fossil fuels. They will simply stop using them in the United States. And…that means fewer jobs” (7/18/98)

UVA Prof. Patrick Michaels writes about “false alarms in the greenhouse” (7/20/98)

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chief Economist J.T. Young in a column writes that the Administration has virtually no blueprint for action behind its proposal to spend $6.3 billion on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (8/4/98)

Cato Institute foreign policy analyst Gary Dempsey in a column says ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is “courting global disaster.” (8/4/98)

National Center for Public Policy Research VP David Ridenour writes about “cooler readings of the heatwave hype” (8/19/98)

Editorial “The Clinton Administration has created an industry of its own to sow fear of climate change worldwide.” (8/31/98);

UVA Prof. Patrick Michaels “Mr. Gore is not talking about the globe’s temperatures after all, and the science he’s peddling hasn’t even been peer reviewed” (8/31/98)

Editorial talks about foundation funding to promote global warming in “deep pockets, hot air.” (8/31/98)

Supporting Kyoto Treaty: 19 publications — 11 editorials, 8 commentary articles

Atlanta Constitution: Editorial “We can ignore these warnings if we choose. But our children and grandchildren may find it hard to ignore the legacy of our greed and selfishness” (8/19/98)

Baltimore Sun: Penn State Prof. of nuclear engineering Anthony J. Baratta promotes “using nuclear power to cool the planet” (6/17/98)

Boston Globe: Editorial “…stop heeding a few powerful but shortsighted interests and take the global threat seriously” (8/14/98)

Chicago Tribune: Editorial “prudence and common sense–and mounting scientific evidence–(suggest) that global warming must be taken seriously” (8/9/98)

Des Moines Register: Editorial “The environment we’re comfortable with simply can’t handle all the greenhouse gases” (8/17/98)

Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: Editorial “global warming is too serious to be used for partisan advantage” (8/12/98)

Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram: Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins “we continue to report global warming as though it were a debate among scientists. It is not.” (8/13/98)

Las Vegas Review-Journal: UNLV geology Prof. Stephen Rowland in a column writes “…our children and grandchildren will pay a far higher price and suffer serious consequences if we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence” (7/26/98)

Los Angeles Times: Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins writes “debate dries up on global warming” (8/16/98)

Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal: Editorial “…the warming trend is going to impose big costs on governments and business enterprises all over the world” (8/13/98)

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Editorial “This summer might be a harbinger of the calamity to come” (8/12/98)

Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger: Editorial “The long-range threat is going to continue–no matter what the forecast shows.” (8/24/98)

North Carolina News & Observer: NCSU nuclear engineering Prof. Donald Dudziak in a column “Mounting evidence that the planet may be warming…require(s) a larger role for nuclear power” (7/17/98)

Palm Beach Post: Editorial “these fluctuations are not normal…” (8/24/98)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Editorial “Americans are going to have to face the fact that fighting global warming and its consequences will cost some money” (8/12/98)

Salt Lake (UT) Tribune: Ozone Action Executive Director John Passacantando in a column “Go ahead and listen to the fossil fuel lobbyists bad-mouth the president and vice president for talking about what is increasingly the most obvious global threat we have ever faced” (8/16/98)

Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review: Columnist Carol MacPherson “global warming is a fact” (8/14/98)

Vancouver (WA) Columbian: Columnist Michael Zuzel writes “Taking action carries a cost, but as recent weather strongly suggests, so does not taking action” (7/19/98)

Washington Post: Editorial calls on Congress to remove riders to the EPA’s funding bill that would bar “contemplation of implementation” of the Kyoto Protocol” (7/21/98)

GLOBAL WARMING/KYOTO–MAYBE: 7 publications — 2 editorials, 6 commentary articles.

Boston Globe: Massachusetts Petroleum Council Executive Director Frank Tivan, in a column “No thoughtful observer would dismiss warming out of hand. But given the scientific debate over the problem, the economic pain is skewed way out of proportion.” (8/11/98)

The Economist: Editorial “…at the very least it seems sensible to invest in better thermometers” (8/15/98)

Insight magazine: Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in a column writes “By agreeing to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions and leaving the accord’s impact on military operations ambiguous, the administration effectively has hamstrung the Defense Department’s ability to protect U.S. national security…The Senate must demand a blanket exemption for all military operations” (6/15/98)

Journal of Commerce: American Petroleum Institute Executive VP William O’Keefe in a column writes that there are “sensible steps” that can be taken to address climate change: energy efficient technology, voluntary emissions reductions, including developing nations in any emissions reduction campaign (7/6/98)

Harvard Prof. Robert Stavins in a column “contrary to overly optimistic claims…it could cost the U.S. economy between 0.3 percent and 3 percent of the annual gross national product to meet the U.S. targets under the Kyoto Protocol….Such costs are not trivial, but neither do they represent national economic catastrophe.” 8/7/98)

Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch: Media General News Service White House Correspondent Marsha Mercer in a column “Gore evidently believes people may be ready for an environmentally aware president who can save us from climate doom” (8/16/98)

Tampa (FL) Tribune: Editorial “Gore’s half answer to global warming” (8/30/98)

Washington (DC) Times: NASA scientist Roy Spencer in a column writes “were it not for the standoff between the White House and Congress over the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the concern over recent high temperatures, this would be just another technical debate hashed out on the pages of scientific journals” (9/3/98)

Hottest August Ever?; Urban Heat Island Effect Still Skews Surface Data; National Ad Campaigns Defend Energy Use, Sound Science

by William Yeatman on September 19, 1998

in Science

Hottest August Ever?

With the passing of another month, Vice President Al Gore appeared to tell us that it was the hottest one ever. Figures provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration show that Augusts global average temperature was 61.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The previous August record was set in 1997 at 61.1 degrees F. As we noted in our last issue, these data are based upon a new, non-peer reviewed temperature index.

Things were not so dire in the United States, however. The 1998 January through August period has been the fifth-wettest on record the wettest occurring in 1979 and the fourth warmest the warmest occurring in 1934 (The Associated Press, September 11, 1998).

Urban Heat Island Effect Still Skews Surface Data

A lot of the hype over record setting temperatures may have more to do with the location of thermometers than the heating up of the planet. Sacramento, California, for example, experienced a record 16 days of 100-degree plus temperatures. It turns out, however, that Sacramento was probably a lot cooler than thermometer readings showed.

According to Channel 13 (KVOR) meteorologist Tom Loffman, “the National Weather Service has its thermometer on a roof where the sun hits and makes it too hot. Ive been pestering those people for years with little success.” The NWS is finally going to move the thermometer to a different location, leading Loffman to predict that “Next year there wont be any more record highs.”

Roger Papas, an NWS meteorologist agrees. The rooftop is “not a good place,” he said. “Its particularly bad because theres a tar roof, and where (the thermometer) sits theres like a penthouse structure near it.”

The NWS office is also going to move its gauges and thermometers in Washington, D.C. A similar move in San Francisco lowered temperature readings considerably.

“One thing I find a little suspicious is that in the seven years Ive been in Sacramento there have been maybe 30 record highs and no record lows,” said Mark Finan chief meteorologist at Channel 3 (KCRA). “It stays so much warmer in the downtown area, youre not going to get record lows. If we do get a cold snap this winter, we might set some records.”

How many more of NWSs thermometer locations are corrupted by hot urban locations (Sacramento Bee, September 12, 1998)?

Etc.

National Ad Campaigns Defend Energy Use, Sound Science

The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a national television and radio advertising campaign to oppose Kyoto-related energy use restrictions. The campaign, aired nationally and in Detroit and Washington DC, focuses on both the morality of energy use and on the growing scientific dissent about the global warming theory (CEI press release, September 16, 1998).

Frontiers of Freedom sponsored a separate radio advertisement campaign that questions the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol. “Uncertain Science, Certain Costs” points out that the global warming theory is highly speculative and has not been confirmed by scientific evidence (Frontiers of Freedom press release, September 10, 1998).

Efficiency Group Advocates Tougher Conservation Measures; Energy Efficiency Measures Will Raise Energy Use; “Mini-Kyoto” in Oreg

by William Yeatman on September 19, 1998

in Blog

Efficiency Group Advocates Tougher Conservation Measures

A new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) outlines “five major energy efficiency policy initiatives” to reach the targets set at Kyoto. These policies, they claim, will “stimulate widespread energy efficiency improvements in all key sectors of the economy,” and will “reduce greenhouse gas emissions at an economic benefit rather than cost to the nation.”

The first strategy involves “rapidly completing ongoing existing efficiency rulemakings” on selected appliances while establishing new standards for others. They also propose increasing the corporate average fuel economy standards on cars and light trucks to achieve a fleet average of 42 mpg by 2010 and 59 mpg by 2020. Incentives for purchasing fuel efficient cars as well as continued R&D on next-generation vehicle technologies are also supported. ACEEE claims that there is “a wide range of technologies that are already available for increasing fuel economy.”

ACEEE is concerned that increased competition will cause electric utilities to decrease their funding for energy efficiency programs, known as public benefit expenditures. Some states have established public benefit trust funds, through a small charge to electricity consumers, to ensure that these programs continue. ACEEE supports a national public benefits trust fund that would provide matching funds to states to encourage and expand public benefits activities.

The use of combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which convert as much as 90 percent of fuel into useful energy, should be encouraged through a variety of measures, according to ACEEE. They argue that many barriers, such as “environmental permitting, environmental regulations that do not recognize overall CHP impacts, utility policies that discourage CHP installation, and unfavorable tax treatment,” are preventing the implementation of CHP systems.

Finally, ACEEE favors a heat rate “cap and trade” system to induce fossil fuel power plants to become more efficient. “The trading system,” according to the report, “would provide credits to generators that are below the prevailing heat rate cap. The credits could be sold to less efficient generators, allowing the market to determine the most economically efficient way to meet the caps.” The cap would be progressively reduced over time.

These measures, claim ACEEE, would account for 61 percent of the emissions reductions needed to reach the target set at Kyoto. The executive summary of the report is available on the Internet at www.aceee.org/pubs/e981.htm.

Energy Efficiency Measures Will Raise Energy Use

Proponents of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are putting a lot of stock in energy efficiency measures. Indeed, energy efficiency is a major aspect of the Clinton Administrations global warming proposals. According to proponents, increased energy efficiency would allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at little cost. Some even believe that on net, it would be beneficial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that we could immediately reduce our energy use by 25 percent with existing technology, “without compromising comfort or performance.”

A leading green analyst, however, is now arguing that these claims are largely false. Horace Herring at the Energy and Environment Research Unit of Britains Open University, argues that though energy efficiency reduces energy use for a particular task, it generally leads to an overall increase in energy use. This results from two effects: the rebound effect and the macroeconomic effect.

Reducing the costs of refrigeration, for example, can lead to the purchase of larger refrigerators that consume more energy. Reducing the cost of heating leads consumers to turn up the thermostat, and so on. This rebound effect is real and substantial.

Lowering the costs of running appliances through increased energy efficiency leads to the macroeconomic effect of increased purchases of appliances. As it becomes cheaper to run air-conditioning units, for example, more people will buy them.

“Both economic theory and history support this view,” says Herring. Increasing energy efficiency and increased energy use have always gone hand in hand. “Policy makers dont want to confront this,” says Herring. “But unless they do, current European policies will be disastrous and there will be no hope of meeting targets for emissions reductions. There needs to be a lot more hard thinking, and much less mouthing of platitudes.” Herring favors carbon taxes and government spending on green investments (New Scientist, September 5, 1998).

“Mini-Kyoto” in Oregon

Under a new Oregon law, electricity utilities who wish to construct new power plants will be required to prove that they will offset a part of the carbon dioxide emissions.

Under this new plan, the Portland General Electric Company will pay $2.5 million to offset more than 4 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions if it builds phase two of its Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project in Boardman. PGE will be required to offset the carbon dioxide before it begins construction of the plant (Climate Business, September 3, 1998).

When Science Meets Politics on Global Warming

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1998

in Politics, Science

(This article first appeared in the Washington Times)

The political and scientific debate over whether the Earth is warming due to human activities was stirred up earlier this month when a research paper, published in the journal Nature by physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, claimed that the satellite temperature data were flawed. Satellite data are the only truly global temperature data scientists have. But contrary to surface readings, satellites have shown a slight cooling trend since readings began in 1979. Mr. Wentz and Dr. Schabel claimed that adjusting the data to account for gradual changes in the orbits of these satellites would result in a slight warming trend. As a result, newspaper headlines trumpeted “the satellite data finally support global warming.” This is quite misleading.

Wentz and Schabel of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research firm, did convincingly establish an effect that we had failed to account for in processing the satellite data. The very slow fall of the Earth-orbiting satellites (called “orbital decay”) changes the angle of the satellites’ view of the Earth’s surface, causing a very slight–and false–cooling in the global average temperature record. But even if Wentz and Schabel’s adjustment was correct, their estimated temperature trend, an increase of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade during 1979-1997 would still have been only one-third of the 0.24 degree Celsius increase per decade that computer climate models predict for the next century in the lower atmosphere.

Were it not for the standoff between the White House and Congress over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the concern over recent record high temperatures, this would be just another technical debate hashed out on the pages of the scientific journals. But for better or for worse, climate science has run headlong into politics and policy. Taxpayers, who have been footing the bill for all of this climate research, deserve to kept informed.

The precision satellite monitoring method, which I developed with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s Earth System Science Laboratory, began explicitly incorporating orbital decay (and other partially offsetting effects) into the data analysis in February. With those corrections made, our detailed review of the satellite data between 1979 and 1997 still shows a cooling but at a smaller rate–dropping at 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade. Given the measurement uncertainty, this is no temperature trend.

Also, though not mentioned in most news accounts, instruments aboard weather balloons provide an independent measure of global temperatures in the lower troposphere, the same layer where satellite readings are taken. Between 1979 and 1997, readings from thousands of weather balloons, and analyzed separately by teams of scientists in three countries–Great Britain, Russia, and the United States–actually show a stronger global cooling.

One problem has already cropped up in the Wentz/Schabel research. It appears that our processed satellite data already had unintended corrections for orbital drift, both in height and in time of day. Proper adjustments for these effects must be done on the raw satellite measurements, not on the processed datasets we provide to the research community. Unfortunately, it will likely take more than a year for our publication of such a complex analysis. This is in contrast to science news journals, such as Nature, that promise quick publication, but at the expense of much needed detail.

With the many statements from politicians and some scientists expressing certainty about global warming, what the public needs to realize is the small disparity in temperature trends being debated here: a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade, or less! Moreover, it is extremely difficult to measure human-induced global warming when the climate system is perfectly capable of going through wild fluctuations on its own. Warming over the last century, suggested by surface thermometer readings, is about 0.6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit). This is so small no one would have noticed it without a painstaking effort to patch together a wide variety of disparate measurements that were never intended to detect such a small signal over such a long period of time.

The 1997-98 El Nino, its effects still lingering, has contributed to record warmth in recent months. January through July of this year have shown the highest readings in the twenty-year satellite record, which now has a trend of +0.04 deg. C/decade. The surface thermometer data suggest most of the last year has been the warmest period since reliable surface measurements have been kept, about 100 years or so. But both thermometer and satellite readings will very likely drop in the coming months as conditions return to normal, or a period of even cooler temperatures, the so-called La Nina, sets in. Has global warming contributed to this recent record warmth? The vast majority of climate scientists would put the blame on El Nino, and I would add that they were blaming unusual weather on El Ninos long before it became fashionable to blame it on global warming.

It is curious that the thermometer data have not had to endure the level of intense scrutiny that the satellite data have undergone in recent years. Is this because the surface data support global warming? The surface data are less than perfect, to put it mildly. Unlike the satellites, which orbit the Earth, each taking some 40,000 readings every day, thermometers cover less than half of the Earth’s surface and are unevenly distributed, with more measurements being taken in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. On land, temperature readings have to be corrected for the “heat island” effect, a local warming that occurs over time as cities spread outward. Then there’s the difficulty in patching together records of measurements taken by different collection methods. Until the 1940s, ships would measure sea surface temperatures by dropping a thermometer into a bucket of sea water. Today, sea water temperatures are measured by thermometers affixed to buoys, or in the intake ports of ships.

Recently, the addition of ocean buoy measurements in the tropical east Pacific and their role in recording a possible false warming has come under investigation. There is also evidence that air temperatures taken just above the ocean surface have not risen nearly as fast as sea water temperatures, and it is sea water temperatures that have, up until now, been included in global temperature estimates. Finally, although land-based thermometer readings have had some correction for the “heat island” effect, there is reason to believe that these corrections have not been sufficient. Even small towns and rural thermometer sites, which are uncorrected, have in general experienced population growth. In short, thermometer estimates of global warming are not “truth” either, and will likely be revised.

Bias is widespread in the global warming debate. Scientists are human too, and have their own pet theories, political and world views, and heartfelt beliefs. Nobel Laureates that expound on the threat of global warming typically have no training in the atmospheric sciences. And while a majority of the climate community probably agrees that some amount of global warming is likely in the next century, there is no consensus on how much warming will occur. There are still too many uncertainties about how the climate system will respond to the gradual increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Ultimately, what the debate boils down to, is whether scientists believe the Earth to be fragile or resilient.

Many scientists involved in the process feel that the official U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s firm predictions of substantial warming were guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists. To some extent, this can be excused since it is often difficult to pin a scientist down to a definite answer. The American public is clearly divided on the issue, with the balance of opinion often depending upon how survey questions are phrased. The public’s confusion is justified, since nearly the same level of confusion exists in the climate science community.

Even though I am a global warming skeptic, if global warming is proven to be a dire threat, I hope that I am the one who proves it. But in today’s politically correct climate, I can guarantee you that no one will ever receive a Nobel Prize for proving that it was not a threat.

Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center analyzes global temperature data from weather satellites. Dr. Spencer is not expressing any official position of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These are his personal views.

Gore Clobbers Farmers

by William Yeatman on August 31, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

Vice President Al Gore has not yet presented the Senate with the global-warming treaty he negotiated last December in Kyoto, Japan, but it’s a ticking time bomb for farmers in the United States and the rest of the First World.

The Kyoto treaty would require ratifying countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 45 percent per capita by the year 2012. Such a drastic emissions reduction would probably cut First World economic output by at least 3 percent, eliminate millions of jobs and throw the affluent nations into a steep recession. (The treaty would put no constraints on the Third World.)

For farmers in the First World, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy- expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Natural gas, for example, is about 75 percent of the cost of anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer.

In addition, the treaty would mean ceilings on crop yields, to further discourage the use of fertilizer. It would mean limits on livestock production, especially cattle, to reduce the production of methane. And it would mean restrictions on food processing and transport, forcing food to be grown closer to the consumer, often at lower yields and often with more soil erosion.

Terry Francl, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profits by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans don’t take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profits would fall only about 20 percent.

The first world’s farm incomes would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the First World. Countries like Argentina and Brazil, not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise.

Environmentalists would be thrilled. Modern farmers would be forced out of their tractor cabs and dragooned into low-input, low-yield farming. Meanwhile, the world’s farm-export demand would shrink. Instead of importing food, Asia would try to produce four times as much food at home. There would be no Kyoto-treaty restrictions on its farmers.

Unfortunately, expanding farm output in Asia is exactly what the environment doesn’t need. Compared with the First World, Asia has six times as many people per acre of arable land, and its farmers already use perhaps six times as much nitrogen fertilizer per acre.

The only land on which Asian farming can logically expand is currently tropical forest, home to millions of wild species. The Kyoto treaty seems wonderfully designed to trigger the massive loss in wildlife that biologists fear. In other words, Mr. Gore is volunteering his own farmers for bankruptcy and a major percentage of the world’s wildlife for destruction.

The excuse is that he’s doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet – which drives us back to the key question: Is global warming real, and how bad will it be?

The vice president has been holding press conferences all summer long at which he declaims that our temperatures in the aftermath of El Nino have been “”the highest on record.” But the records only go back 100 years, and the 19th century was the coldest in 10 centuries.

Equally important, the big computer models of global weather patterns have cut their projections of warming from about 5 degrees Celsius to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine recently circulated a petition among scientists that says: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere.” More than 15,000 scientists have signed the institute’s petition.

Signers include more than 6,000 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, experts on plant life and animal life and others qualified to speak on global warming. The institute is independent and receives no funding from industry.

A competing petition circulated by Washington-based Ozone Action has gathered 2,600 signatures, and only about 250 of the signers are qualified to speak on global warming.

When global-warming activists are confronted with their lack of evidence and the weight of scientific opinion, their fallback position is: “”What if we’re right? What if catastrophic global warming is on the way, and you prevent us from stopping it?”

The mild global warming now projected by computer models that the environmentalists say we should believe would simply return us to the best weather in history. The projected warming of 2 degrees Celsius would recreate the Medieval Climate Optimum of A.D. 950-1300.

Farmers would get milder winters, fewer storms, only a slight increase in daytime summer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to fertilize crops and pastures.

The alternative laid out by the Kyoto treaty is so awful, for both people and the environment, that we should require a very high degree of proof from Mr. Gore and his global-warming activists.

Much Ado About Global Warming

by William Yeatman on August 27, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

Vice President Al Gore has not yet presented the Senate with the global-warming treaty he negotiated last December in Kyoto, Japan, but it’s a ticking time bomb for farmers in the United States and the rest of the First World. The Kyoto treaty would require ratifying countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 45 percent per capita by the year 2012! Such a drastic emissions reduction would probably cut First World economic output by at least 3 percent, eliminate millions of jobs and throw the affluent nations into a steep recession. (The treaty would put no constraints on the Third World.)

For farmers in the First World, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy-expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Natural gas, for example, is about 75 percent of the cost of anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer. In addition, the treaty would mean ceilings on crop yields, to further discourage the use of fertilizer. It would mean limits on livestock production, especially cattle, to reduce the production of methane. And it would mean restrictions on food processing and transport, forcing food to be grown closer to the consumer, often at lower yields and often with more soil erosion.

Terry Francl, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profits by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans don’t take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profits would fall only about 20 percent.

The First World’s farm incomes would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the First World. Countries like Argentina and Brazil, not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise. Environmentalists would be thrilled. Modern farmers would be forced out of their tractor cabs and dragooned into low-input, low-yield farming.

Meanwhile, the world’s farm-export demand would shrink. Instead of importing food, Asia would try to produce four times as much food at home. There would be no Kyoto-treaty restrictions on its farmers. Unfortunately, expanding farm output in Asia is exactly what the environment doesn’t need. Compared with the First World, Asia has six times as many people per acre of arable land, and its farmers already use perhaps six times as much nitrogen fertilizer per acre. The only land on which Asian farming can logically expand is currently tropical forest, home to millions of wild species.

The Kyoto Treaty seems wonderfully designed to trigger the massive loss in wildlife that biologists fear! In other words, Gore is volunteering his own farmers for bankruptcy and a major percentage of the world’s wildlife for destruction. The excuse is that he’s doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet-which drives us back to the key question: Is global warming real, and how bad will it be?

The vice president has been holding press conferences all summer long at which he declaims that our temperatures in the aftermath of El Nino have been “the highest on record.” But the records only go back 100 years, and the 19th century was the coldest in 10 centuries. Equally important, the big computer models of global weather patterns have cut their projections of warming from about 5 degrees Celsius to less than 2 degrees Celsius. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine recently circulated a petition among scientists that says: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere.” More than 15,000 scientists have signed the institute’s petition. Signers include more than 6,000 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, experts on plant life and animal life and others qualified to speak on global warming. The institute is independent and receives no funding from industry. A competing petition circulated by Washington-based Ozone Action has gathered 2,600 signatures, and only about 250 of the signers are qualified to speak on global warming.

When global-warming activists are confronted with their lack of evidence and the weight of scientific opinion, their fallback position is: “What if we’re right? What if catastrophic global warming is on the way, and you prevent us from stopping it?” The mild global warming now projected by computer models that the environmentalists say we should believe would simply return us to the best weather in history. The projected warming of 2 degrees Celsius would recreate the Medieval Climate Optimum of A.D. 950-1300. Farmers would get milder winters, fewer storms, only a slight increase in daytime summer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to fertilize crops and pastures.

The alternative laid out by the Kyoto treaty is so awful, for both people and the environment, that we should require a very high degree of proof from Gore and his global-warming activists. So far, it looks as though the Kyoto treaty would cause economic recession, rural disaster and widespread wildland destruction-while trying to prevent what would be better weather!

DENNIS T. AVERY, who is based in Churchville, Va., is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News.

In Search of Global Warming

by William Yeatman on August 24, 1998

in Science

Climatologists are critical of Vice President Al Gore’s tendency to attribute the latest isolated weather event to global warming. Gore has found evidence of global warming in a variety of weather phenomena — from January’s ice storms in the Northeast, to the June wildfires in Florida, to warmer than normal temperatures in July.

“There is a problem with making a lot of hay out of one individual event,” warns Gerald North, head of Texas A&M University’s meteorology department. “The climate is the average of all those events happening all over the world,” he adds.

Other scientists are similarly cautious.

  • “There are probably multiple causes, and we don’t know for sure what warming may be human induced or what may be natural fluctuations,” says Robert Quayle, head of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

  • Although the first seven months of this year were the warmest worldwide in a quarter-century, Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, reports that temperatures have already begun to return to normal and could come in below normal for the year as a whole.

  • John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, says the globe has warmed since the 19th century — but, he adds, “that was probably the coldest century of the last 10.”

  • “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century,” a 1995 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found.

As scientists’ climate models improve, they predict less global warming. In 1990, the median predicted warming by 2100 was 3.2 degrees Celsius. By 1995 that estimate had dropped to 2 degrees Celsius — with a low estimate of 1 degree, including factors that may cool the climate (see figure http://www.ncpa.org/pd/gif/median.gif).

Source: Anna Bray Duff, “More Global-Warming Hot Air,” Investor’s Business Daily, August 25, 1998.

EPAs Propaganda Machine Rolls On; $1.5 Million to Create Scientist-Activists; Solar Energy Off the Dole?

by William Yeatman on August 22, 1998

in Politics

EPAs Propaganda Machine Rolls On

The EPA is “spending untold millions on propaganda about global warming,” according to Investors Business Daily (August 4, 1998). “The EPA calls this educational outreach,” says IBD, The EPA is “spending untold millions on propaganda about global warming,” according to Investors Business Daily (August 4, 1998).

Recently Congress voted to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to spend money on educational outreach and informational seminars on global warming. Critics of the legislation worry that it will allow the EPA to continue its advocacy of the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

IBD notes that there are five federal agencies the EPA, the Agriculture Department, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Geological Survey sponsoring 20 pro-Kyoto workshops nationwide. One of the attendees of an EPA workshop, who questioned the science behind global warming, was told to “sit quietly” or leave.

EPAs web site asks state governments to “encourage and support the federal government to take action at the national level.” Brochures distributed at an EPA-sponsored conference in Baltimore demanded that the U.S. “now begin designing policies and programs” to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. In Atlanta, EPA literature, warned of heat waves, storms, droughts, migration and crowding, disease carrying animals and infective parasites. “[T]hese visions of doom,” says IBD, “are all designed to scare people into pressing Congress to take away their freedom with more rules and laws.”

$1.5 Million to Create Scientist-Activists

A Green group is planning to spend $1.5 million to help “some of the nations leading environmental scientists” become “professional communicators.” The program, funded by the Ecological Society of America and operated by Oregon State University, also hopes to “improve the flow of accurate, credible scientific information to policy makers and the general public on critical issues of the environment.”

Though there is nothing wrong with improving scientists communication skills, its abundantly clear that this program is meant to promote the extremist ideological views of Green activists. Project director Judith Vergun of OSU says that “[t]he current rate of ecological change is unprecedented in the history of the Earth.”

The press release announcing the program goes on to state: “For instance, on the issue of global warming, many people may be confused by complicated studies and pseudo-scientific critics who argue the phenomenon is an unproven theory of no particular importance.”

According to the press release, “[T]he vast majority of credible scientists,” believe that “global warming is now a reality, that the time for action is here and that the looming crisis is very real, with implications for everything from severe weather events, to the spread of disease, disruptions of agriculture and forestry, rising sea levels and habitat loss.” It continues: “the gap between common perceptions and scientific reality has to be bridged” (OSU News Service, August 4, 1998).

Solar Energy Off the Dole?

Congress appears ready to cut funding for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) through the Department of Energy. SEIA received $1 million (about 60 percent of its budget) in 1997. Expected cutbacks have forced Scott Sklar, SEIAs president, to lay off 10 of his 21 staff members (National Journal, August 15, 1998).

Solar energy has been subsidized for decades, but the millions of dollars sunk into this alternative fuel have not made it self sufficient. Congress action may be the first step to weaning solar power off of welfare.

Canadas “clean-technology” industry is also being hit with the budget-cutting axe. The Canadian Environmental Industry Strategy, a three-year, $14.7 million program has had its funding zeroed out. Most of the money was used to help Canadian industries sell their technology overseas (The Gazette (Montreal), August 17, 1998).

Kyoto in the Pulpit

Some church groups are beginning to shift their focus from saving souls to saving the planet. The debate over global warming, according to The New York Times (August 15, 1998), “is spilling over into pulpits and pews as religious organizations speak out about morality, faith, and the Kyoto Protocol.”

The National Council of Churches sent a letter to convince the U.S. Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without requiring emissions reductions from the developing nations. The councils general secretary, Rev. Joan Brown Campbell says that the group wants global warming to be “a litmus test for the faith community.”

The National Religious Partnership for the Environment is embarking on a major lobbying effort to convince Senators from nine states, from Appalachia to Michigan, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have been targeted.

Some larger religious organizations, such as the United States Catholic Conference and the National Association of Evangelicals, are planning to consider their own positions on the issue. The Southern Baptist Convention “has not taken a position, and in view of the unsettled science, it seems unlikely that we will take such a position,” according to spokesman William Merrell.

Satellite Data Still Robust Despite Challenge; El Nios Role in Texas Heat Wave Confirmed; More Evidence of Rapid Natural Warming

by William Yeatman on August 22, 1998

in Science

Satellite Data Still Robust Despite Challenge

A paper claiming to have detected an error in the satellite temperature data has caused quite an uproar. The press has jumped all over the story proclaiming that the main pillar of the skeptics argument has now fallen and it is time to move on with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. AAP Newsfeeds headline proclaimed, “New Evidence to Silence Global Warming Doubters,” and the Washington Post headline blared, “Global Warming Assertions Enhanced; Study Cites Flaw in Data Collection That Undermines Position of Skeptics.”

The authors of the paper, physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, claim to have discovered that the satellite global temperature data is distorted by a loss of altitude known as orbital decay (Nature, August 13, 1998). This changes one of the angles from which the satellites measure the microwaves used to determine the Earths temperature. According to Wentz and Schabel, taking this error into account changes the temperature trend from 1979 to 1995 from a cooling of 0.05 degrees C to a warming of 0.07 degrees C.

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA, who compile and publish the satellite data, agree that orbital decay must be accounted for. When they take the effect into account, however, they still find a cooling of 0.01 degrees C. The difference between the two findings gets to the crux of the matter. Apparently, Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel used data that had already taken most of the effect into account.

Spencer and Christy, in order to insure accuracy, check the measurements of satellites against one another. According to The Economist (August 15, 1997), “calibrating one satellite against another allows all sort of errors to be compensated for, whether they are known or not.” Wentz and Schabels conclusions result from double-correcting the same effect.

El Nios Role in Texas Heat Wave Confirmed

Despite Vice President Al Gores claims that the heat wave in the southern United States is proof of global warming, level headed scientists are blaming the phenomenon on El Nio. A new study published by the National Weather Service (NWS) says that even though it has weakened considerably El Nio is still to blame for the high temperatures in the Southwest. It will probably persist for another month.

“Were expecting this warm water to peter out in the next 3 to 6 weeks,” says Anthony Barnston, a forecaster with the NWS. El Nio will be replaced by La Nia which could mean even more dryness for the southern U.S. “If we dont get more normal precipitation in the late summer and early fall, were looking at a very large [drought],” says Barnston (Science, July 31, 1998). The study is available at nic.fb4.noaa. gov/index.html.

Hurricanes in Decline

Several studies have discredited the claim that a warmer planet will lead to an increase in hurricane activity. Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, found in a study published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that Atlantic hurricane activity has declined. Other studies have found similar results.

A new study by Mark C. Bove, David F. Zierden and J. OBrien at Florida States Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, looked at hurricane records of the Gulf of Mexico extending back to 1896, and found that the number of hurricanes have declined in recent years. The data show a peak in the 1916-1925 period of 14 storms, 6 of which were severe. The 1986-1995 experienced only 8 storms, 1 of which was severe, equaling the study periods previous low set in 1896-1905.

Its not clear why the decline is happening, says Mark Bove. One explanation is that there appears to be a 30-year cycle of hurricane activity that has been detected by William Gray, a hurricane expert at Colorado State University. But the cause of the 30-year cycle is also unclear (Associated Press, July 22, 1998).

More Evidence of Rapid Natural Warming

While a lot of ink is being spilt on the possibility of manmade global warming, researchers are finding more and more evidence that the earth has undergone profound, natural climate variations over short periods of time. The latest research, published in Science (August 14, 1998), has found that there was a significant warming about 2,000 years ago in equatorial Africa. The evidence shows that lake water during this period warmed by about 8 degrees F. Other research has also found a similar warming in Alaska and Lapland during the same era, but the new findings are “important because it was conducted around the equator, a region that plays a crucial role in determining the climate system throughout the planet.”

“Our findings show that the climate can warm up suddenly without any connection to human activity,” says lead researcher Aldo Shemesh of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Though the factors that triggered the warming are unknown, Shemesh believes that they “could allow scientists to distinguish between natural climate variability and warming due to manmade factors” (Greenwire, August 17, 1998).

Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth; Current Federal Funding Has Little Effect on Emissions

by William Yeatman on August 22, 1998

in Blog

Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth

Electricity has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy over the last twenty years, according to technology forecaster and consultant Mark P. Mills, president of Mills-McCarthy & Associates, Inc. Since 56 percent of the nations supply of electricity is provided by burning coal, reductions in coal use under the Kyoto Protocol could have serious economic consequences, especially since the service sector has grown relative to other economic sectors.

The U.S. economy has become significantly more efficient since 1977, says Mills. In that year, “one dollar spent on energy use supported $9.50 of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today one dollar spent on energy yields $14 of GDP.” Most of this improvement has occurred in the service and manufacturing sectors, which make up 85 percent of GDP. This was accomplished through converting energy use from combustible fuels to electricity use. “All of the net growth in new energy supply for two decades has come from electricity,” according to Mills.

Energy demand in services has increased by 30 percent, but has increased electricity use by 71 percent. Manufacturing has only increased energy use by 8 percent while increasing electricity use by 25 percent.

While the amount of combustible energy required to support a single dollar of GDP has dropped precipitously, the amount of electricity needed to support a dollar of GDP has remained constant. This is true despite large gains in the efficiency of many electricity applications. Mills warns that “policies cannot restrict the supply of electricity, or increase its cost, without endangering the economy.” Mills article, which appeared in the World Climate Report (August 10, 1998), is available at www.nhes.com.

Current Federal Funding Has Little Effect on Emissions

The U.S. federal government spends about $5 billion per year on global warming related programs, but makes no appreciable reductions in short-term emissions with this money. According to a new Congressional Budget Office report, these funds are spent either directly on global warming programs or indirectly on programs that effect fossil fuel use. “Since most of the funds are spent to learn more about the phenomenon and to improve energy efficiency in the future, the short-term effect [on emissions of greenhouse gases] is minimal,” the report said (BNA Daily Environment Report, August 17, 1998).

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →