Is Global Warming a Swindle?

Arnold Kling recommends watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, a movie that sets its sights on debunking the CO2 theory of global warming. Kling's right in saying that we should consider alternate opinions. He's also correct that anyone can make a propaganda film. (I'd much prefer a Power-Point presentation.)

I watched it. Took a few notes. And read some background afterwards. I'll summarize my notes so far.

First, an aside. EconLog is one of the many economic blogs I read regularly on the Internet, and also one of the few sites on the internet from which I have been banned from commenting. I'm always interested in what libertarians have to say (Bryan Caplan is an anarchist libertarian and Arnold Kling what I'd call a right-wing libertarian). Perhaps my comments were often adversarial. But I was often put-off by the (a) high and mighty attitude of "we are economists and everyone else is confused" argument that seems to underly their view of economics and (b) their ideological bias.

If you don't think point (a) is valid, consider Bryan Caplan's book "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" in which he argues--I jest a bit--that only economists should be allowed to vote (he's a big fan of IQ, and apparently libertarian economists have the biggest of them all).

And regarding my concerns about their ideological bias, I commented once that Arnold Kling would make statements like the "The Angry Left, because it is closed-minded, is in no condition to govern. Barring a catastrophe at home or abroad, I doubt that it will be given the opportunity to do so" while in a separate article he states "But my opinion is that in the absence of recognized boundaries and without healthy anger, Israel is existentially threatened." In particular, my point was not to get caught up in left-right food-fights, nor in arguments about Israel, but just to point out that anger seems to be good when it's something Kling likes and bad when it's something he doesn't like. He often discounts those on the left as "angry." For a blog that espouses logic, it seemed--illogical, or specious.

Anyway, they said I should create my own blog, and they're probably right. So back to the movie. I watched it. Here's what the movie says. I'm not saying this is true or false, it's just what they say:

• Climate always changes. (1) Little ice age. (2) Medieval warm period, which was a great time for growing wine and building enormous churches. So what's not to like about warming? (3) Bronze age Holocene 8,000 years ago for 3,000 years. Polar bears survived. It was warmer than now.
• CO2 lags warming, not vice-versa. CO2 produced by warming ocean which has a memory of almost 10,000 years. Therefore CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
• One-half degree temperature rise this century, mostly before 1940, which is before heavy industrialization. Then temperature dropped after WWII. Then increased with recession in 1970. Therefore not related to human CO2.
• CO2 is natural. What's not to like? Without it we'd be dead.
• There are other large sources of CO2. CO2 a minor part of atmosphere and minor greenhouse gas.
• Sun spots and temperatures correlate. Sun spots affect cosmic rays and in turn clouds.
• Warmer earth-temperature means less temperature gradient between tropics and poles, so less storms
• Temperature will increase in troposphere, not on surface. But it's increasing on surface.
• Greenland has been warmer in the past. 7,000 years ago. The ice didn't disappear.
• Malaria can happen in cold weather below 16-18 degrees. IPCC got that wrong.
• Computer models have lots of assumption. In the old days, people were more modest about making predictions (Aside: Gee, maybe they had less powerful computers?).
• Scientists warned about the big freeze in the 1970s. Got that wrong.
• The IPCC has a political process following the scientific one. And some of the scientists wants their names off the report. IPCC removed some sentences that critics of global warming think should be put back into the report.
• Global warming is an industry of scientists, journalists, former Marxists, and environmental crazies who hate industry and modern society. They all have hidden agendas. And don't forget Margaret Thatcher.
• Thatcher got global warming started with her desire to push nuclear power.
• Critics of Global Warming are feeling shamed. And critics of global warming aren't collceting big bucks from oil companies, as suggested by their detractors.
• Global Warming proponents treat the people in the developing world like scum. And how dare those attending a UN meeting in Nairobi shop and stay in nice hotels while poor people are breathing smoke nearby.

And here's a further (economized) version of those notes:

• Causes of global warming: Sunspots, not CO2.
• Implications of global warming: (1) CO2 is natural. (2) The medieval warming produced lots of wine and churches. Call it the "party and pray" argument. (3) Greenland ice and polar bears survived warming 7,000 years ago. Peat bogs have also been warm. (4) Mosquitoes like cold as much as warm--hence disease argument won't be a problem. (5) Weather will be less extreme because of tropic/pole temperature delta.
• Implication of doing anything about CO2: Developing countries will suffer.
• Motivational/Social aspects: (1) IPCC has a political process as well as technical. Political processes are always bad. (2) Hidden agendas: (a) science wants funding (b) Marxists need a new anti-capitalist hook on which to hang their collectivist hats (c) Environmentalists hate modern industrial society--except maybe rock concerts and their iPods. (d) Margaret Thatcher loves nuclear (and can pronounce it properly--thought with a British accent) and hates (i) Arab oil and (ii) British collectivist miners. (e) Critics of global warming are feeling shamed and picked on. Nobody wants to play with them.

And as far as their analysis of CO2 science, here's what they have to say:

• CO2 lags warming (i.e. CO2 increases after warming of oceans and oceans have a long memory, e.g. 10,000 years).
• Computer models are complicated.
• Scientists got it wrong before--the big freeze in the 1970s.

In a subsequent post, I'll consider each of these issues in more detail. In the mean time, Wikipedia has a page up on this topic. And in particular, consider the case of Carl Wunsch, who says he was completely misrepresened in this movie.

That's enough for now.

Climate changes San Diego wildfires?

Do the recent San Diego fires have any relation to global warming? The San Diego Union, in Many blame threat on global warming, touches on most of the significant issues. Wikipedia also provides information on both the 2003 fires and the 2007 fires, two of the largest in California history.

Consier this quote from the Union article in particular:

Five years ago, Neilson and other Oregon State University researchers predicted that periodic increases in rain and snowfall, combined with higher temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, would spur vegetation growth. That would add to already extensive quantities of fuel caused by decades of fire suppression, in which blazes are not allowed to burn out of control and thereby eliminate dead or dying vegetation. One expectation outcome from global warming: more extreme weather patterns.

This made me wonder: what has been the pattern of San Diego rainfall in recent history. To evaluate this, I found data for rainfall at Lindberg Field (San Diego's Airport), covering the years 1964 through 2005. I then added the values for 2006 and 2007. Here's what we get (click on graph for larger version):



What does it mean? Well, let's start with several big caveats: (1) This is not a lot of data, historically speaking. Climates shift-and-drift to-and-fro, like the tides or the seasons. (2) "Eyeing the data," in other words just looking at it, is often misleading.

With those caveats in place, I still argue that one should be able to "eyeball" the data to find patterns. If no pattern is visible, then there seems little need to quantify it statistically. But if a pattern does exist, perhaps we're onto something.

So the question we should ask ourselves: do we see a pattern? Here's my response:

1. The extremes seem to be increasing. In 1966, 14.76 inches of rain fell on Lindberg field. In 1978 and 1983, the maxima rise to 17.3 and 18.49 inches respectively. In 1998 and 2005, we see further rises in the maxima, to 20.89 and 22.81 inches respectively. The trend may not continue; and it might not even be statistically significant. But it does appear, to the eye, that the the local climate is experiencing more extremes.

2. Consider what has happened after the 1998 and 2005 rainfall peaks: abnormally dry periods. Both 2002 and 2007 were the driest years since 1964. In other words, heavy rains followed by drought.

3. Locate the Cypress and Witch/Harris fires on the graph: Both are located in the abnormally dry years following historically heavy rainfall: 2003 and 2007. In other words, heavy rain produced excessive growth followed by dry years that turned that growth into dry kindling. With all that fuel in splace, the slightest spark will do the rest.

This is all speculation. We'll have to monitor rainfal in the years to come. And look for data further back in time. But it is not unreasonable to speculate that this data fits within the framework of the global warming story.

Is this analysis pertinent? Or an example of Global Warming Ate My Homework?

Global Warming Ate My Homework

As I admit in Bjorn Lomborg burns a few "witches", the media--and even researchers--can exagerate or trivialize global warming by focusing on the endless ramifications and possibilities.

How should we deal with this? When considering an issue, global warming or otherwise, I like to--at minimum--find the boundaries of the conversation or issue: when do I know that we are outside the bounds of sound analysis and reasonable discourse? For global warming, I propose the following:

Teacher: "Johnny, I see you didn't turn in your assignment. Did your dog eat it again?"

Johnny: "Nope."

Teacher: "Then why didn't you turn it in?"

Johnny: "Global warming."

Teacher: "???"

Though I'm sure someone can come up with a possible scenario, let's assume for the time being that "Global warming ate my homework" lies outside the bounds of reasonable global warming discourse.

Bjorn Lomborg burns a few "witches"

In the Vancouver Sun, Lomborg maligns those who are concerned about global warming, telling us the debate is filled with a A tsunami of nonsense.

Economized version of his article: Lomborg is not too concerned about global warming. He doesn’t believe rising temperatures and sea levels will be a significant problem; they may even bring more good than harm. He thinks a little research and development will solve all our problems, though he’s not too specific about this. For everything else: business as usual. He would like us to focus our resources on eradicating disease, corruption, and starvation.

Here’s a more detailed dissection of his essay, broken down into topics:

1. Hyperbole: Lomborg tell us there is too much hyperbole surrounding global warming. How does he tell us? With hyperbole. For example, he tells us that those who are concerned about the more extreme possibilities of global warming are like inquisitional witch burners. While doing this, he ignores the hyperbole and animosity that exists on the other side of the argument, e.g. Senator Inhoffe comparing “An Incovenient Truth” to “Mein Kampf” and comparing those concerned with global warming to Nazis. In addition, Lomborg doesn’t consider the power (of the purse) and momentum/complacency that exists on the cynics (do nothing) side of the debate.
2. Scare tactics and nonsense: Lomborg tells us that global warming activists, as well as the media, aim to frighten the public with never-ending reports on the potential negative effects of global warming. He has a point. But surely he understands that the press--devoted to assorted and sordid horrors real and imagined, true atrocity and false tragedy, O.J. Simpson or Paris Hilton—is going to fill the pipeline with global warming trivia. A more earnest discussion is required. Is Lomborg willing to participate in it? Or even lead it? Rather than wasting his time--and ours--singling out and maligning as inquisitionists those who believe global warming may be a significant problem?
3. Cost-benefit analysis: Lomborg argues that we should perform a cost-benefit analysis, e.g. telling us several times how many people might die from heat. But he never tells us how many will be saved from decreased cold. I’ve read that far more will die from more severe summers than will be saved from less severe winters. What does he think? And what of drought? Or affects on crops? If he’s going to argue for cost benefit analysis, perhaps he should be forthcoming, honest, and more specific in his writings. He doesn’t seem to be.
4. Tsunamic metaphor: Lomborg builds his entire idea for this article on the idea of a tsunami. It’s catchy, providing a riff through which he threads his argument. But the tsunami was a real tragedy. And his argument can be interpreted as saying the following: we should ignore that tsunami because there are other people dying in the world. This is analogous to arguing that we should ignore plane crashes because there are far more automobile accidents in the world. True, we do need to consider the tradeoffs, but some tradeoffs exist on paper rather than in fact. And often tsunamis are important.
5. Global warming not the only problem: Lomborg points out that the world has other problems: disease, starvation, and corruption. Why doesn’t he mention crime and militarism? Why does he not mention all the enormous amounts of money spent each year on the military? If we’re going to perform cost benefit analysis, shouldn’t we look at everything?
6. R&D is the solution: Lomborg largely argues for increased R&D, not for directly cutting carbon production. R&D is great. No argument here. But there are two issues to consider: (a) If global warming is a serious problem, like the smoker--shouldn’t we stop smoking? Shouldn’t the doctor tell the man who is smoking that he needs to stop, and not just that “it’s ok, we’ll spend more on cancer research.” Sometimes it makes sense to stop smoking. Do we have time to wait for that next generation low-tar, low-nicotine cigarette? (b) Lomborg ignores the issue of when future R&D might reduce carbon production. He doesn’t consider at all whether we might have to start capping at some point, with or without the fruits of R&D.
7. How bad can it be?: Lomborg mentions a hypothetical sea level rise and temperature increase caused by global warming. He says both are manageable. Yet he provides absolutely no costs associated with them. His only argument: sea levels have risen before. Nor does he provide any ranges to help his readers understand how high temperatures and seas may rise.
8. What is the limit for CO2 production?: Lomborg never states whether we can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Does he believe there is any limit at all? If we can’t R&D our way to that limit, is he willing to support carbon taxes? Or caps? And is he willing to tax or cap at a level that will limit the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

So where are we in this debate? In particular, what is Bjorn Lomborg’s position? Here are some questions we should ask ourselves in order to better understand:

1. Is the globe warming?: Lomborg seems to be saying yes.
2. Are humans a source of this warming?: Lomborg seems unsure. He seems to say yes, but not always. He seems to leave it open to doubt in the way he discusses the topic.
3. What will be the cost and/or benefit of this warming on the planetary ecosystem and human society? Lomborg says it might not be that bad.
4. If humans are a cause, and we don’t like the costs, should we take action? Lomborg says let’s do some research.
5. If we decide to take action, what form will it take and when will it be implemented?: Lomborg doesn’t say.
6. If humans are a source, what are the best and worst case scenarios (and associated probabilities)? Lomborg doesn’t say.

If Lomborg wants to show us the path forward, he should answer the following questions:

1. Is there a maximum level of carbon that humans should emit into the atmosphere? What is that level?
2. Is he willing to promote limits on carbon production, through outright caps or carbon taxes, if we cannot reach those limits through R&D?
3. What are the time frames that he proposes for R&D and, more importantly, for reductions in carbon production?
4. Who are the voices on both sides of this debate that he proposes should take part in the solution?

Right now, Lomborg seems focused on creating what might be called comparative strawmen (tsunamis versus malaria, for example). And engaging in what I call hyperbolic hypocrisy—global warming activists are alarmist and he’ll prove it by being alarmist himself—comparing them to witch burners. Lomborg has demonstrated himself as a writer. He turns a mean phrase. But many questions remain to be solved, in the science and policy realm, and he seems bent on burning witches rather than engaging in a reasoned and balanced debate.

Perhaps everyone should stop burning metaphorical witches and instead have an honest look at what the science is telling us, including the risks and probabilities associated with the many possibilities that exist between “climate change deniers” and the inquisition. This is difficult when people are referred to as witch burning inquisitionists or Nazis.