climate change — VOICES for REASON

On the latest episode of Power Hour—the monthly Internet Radio Show where I interview today’s top energy experts to discuss today’s top energy issues–I talk to leading climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

Today’s discussion of energy policy is dominated by the claim that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are warming up the planet, with catastrophic results on the climate. We’re told that this is a matter of consensus among all the top scientists, and that the time for debate is over–it’s time for action.

Power Hour is a show based on the idea that to draw the right conclusions for action, you first need to be informed. And in my opinion the time for debate is certainly not over because the vast, vast majority of us don’t even know what the debate is about, let alone what has been proven and what hasn’t, let alone what the action implications are.

That’s why I decided to do this episode on climate science and climate change. One reason I brought on Dr. Lindzen in particular is that even though he is an extremely prestigious scientist, he doesn’t count on that prestige when he explains issues—in fact, he is very critical of the phenomenon of people taking the pronouncements of climate scientists on faith.

The purpose of this episode is not to definitively establish how much CO2 is impacting the climate. Rather, it’s to get a more objective idea of where the field of climate science actually is in answering that question. Is it really known that man-made CO2 is leading to catastrophic consequences, as many prominent figures claim? Is it really known that man-made CO2 is having only benign consequences, as other prominent figures claim? Listen to the show to hear Dr. Lindzen’s intriguing views on these and many other issues.

For more on this episode of Power Hour, and to be notified of future episodes, sign up for my free monthly newsletter (“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy”) here.

(By the way, if you want an easy way to fit Power Hour into your schedule, download it to your MP3 player and listen to it during your commute.)

Download an MP3 of this episode.

Subscribe to Power Hour on iTunes:

http://itun.es/iFK42H

Subscribe to Power Hour for other podcast programs:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/PowerHourWithAlexEpstein

Image: Wikimedia Commons

The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) invite you to celebrate industrial civilization and defend the energy that makes it possible during “Human Achievement Hour” this Saturday at 8:30 p.m. EST.

The event coincides with “Earth Hour,” which encourages people worldwide to turn off their lights as a protest against carbon emissions. During “Human Achievement Hour,” we encourage you to leave your lights on and fully enjoy the benefits of industrial civilization made possible by burning fossil fuels. Beginning at 8 p.m. EST, CEI is hosting a celebration at its offices in Washington D.C. and via livestream.

Back in 2009, ARC fellow Keith Lockitch explained the importance of standing against the “Earth Hour” campaign:

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.

People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

With a new year approaching, we looked back at some of the topics we discussed on VFR since the blog was launched. Here, we highlight a few of our favorite VFR posts that you may enjoy revisiting (or reading for the first time, if you’re a new reader).

Posts by Keith Lockitch.

• Green central planning—our hydrogen future?
• Climategate: a green conspiracy?
• Green energy: neither free nor forever

Image: flickr/Ahorcado

According to a story in Politico, there is a good chance Republicans will at least partially gut the EPA’s dictatorial power to control carbon emissions–and therefore the entire carbon-centric American economy.

As I wrote on this blog last year, with this power

the EPA can dictate what kind of cars we may drive, what energy sources we use for power, what expensive add-ons are necessary for power plants, and anything else that is connected to CO2 emissions–i.e., everything else. (Note: in the article, the Obama administration says it supports global warming legislation that will transfer much of the power to dictate emissions from the EPA to other regulators; I find this no more comforting than Soviet citizens used to find a shuffling of chairs at the Politburo.) All of this power is justified by the view that CO2 emissions are a negative thing–which is justified by the theory that the aggregate CO2 emissions of all the world’s people are raising the average global temperature.

But all of this evades the incredible value of CO2 [energy] in every aspect of our lives. Carbon energy has been and remains vital to the industrial society that has doubled human life-expectancies, and, among a million other benefits, enables us to cope with all manner of changes in climate (natural or manmade). There is simply no economic evidence that other sources of energy (besides nuclear, also opposed by environmentalists) can produce comparable amounts of energy at affordable prices. Therefore, CO2 emissions are a vital component of a modern standard of living.

We owe it to ourselves to do everything we can to remove the EPA’s energy-killing power.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Anytime you see an electric car you are likely to see a “zero emissions” sticker on it, implying that the driver of the car is driving without emitting CO2. Electric car companies are using this idea to market their cars, and to imply that those of us who drive gasoline-powered cars should feel guilty. For example, Coda Automotive, an electric car company, brags that its not-yet-existent sedan, once it exists, will be “An all-electric car to let you drive your way out from under the thumb of big oil. To help steer us away from climate change, polluted skies…”

It is true that electric motors do not emit CO2, and electric cars don’t have tailpipes that emit CO2 or anything else. But ask yourself (or Coda): Where does the electricity that charges the “zero emissions” car come from? Answer: It almost certainly comes from burning coal or natural gas, by far the leading sources of electricity production in America, because they produce the cheapest, most abundant power. Another question: What happens when you burn coal or natural gas to produce electricity? CO2 is emitted.

To call a car “zero emissions” because it generates CO2 at the power plant instead of the engine is intellectually indefensible–and dishonest. And it is a particularly dangerous form of dishonesty, because it promotes the idea that oil and other fossil fuels are dispensable to our standard of living. They are not.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Following the Climategate scandal, I commented that on the climate issue “there has been a consistent pattern of exaggeration and deception, of context-dropping claims, and of distortion of the facts and the scientific process”—and that this has been driven by “a widespread commitment to environmentalist ideology.”

Well since Climategate, there have been so many other scientific scandals that have emerged it’s hard to keep up with them all. As the Wall Street Journal put it:

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the “settled science” of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Here’s a round-up of the growing list of scientific distortions from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum.  So much for “The debate is over.”

Photo credit: flickr/azrainman

Thankfully, no binding agreement was reached on the global economic suicide pact that delegates were trying to craft at the climate conference in Copenhagen. Despite President Obama’s personal intervention—which apparently does not have magical agreement-forging powers (who knew?)—all that emerged from the meeting was a toothless “accord” and an agreement to keep talking.

But even though the provisions of the accord are legally non-binding, they do represent small steps toward actual commitments. The accord includes pledges to “enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change,” to “hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius,” to “cooperate to achieve the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible,” and to provide undeveloped countries with “adequate funding” to adapt to climate change.

This last item was a major theme of the conference. The fact that poor countries are much more vulnerable to severe climate events than industrialized nations is widely recognized, and it is used to argue that developed nations have a duty to dole out massive amounts of foreign aid to help undeveloped countries adapt.

What’s not widely acknowledged is the fact that preindustrial countries have always been vulnerable to drought and hurricanes and heat waves and so on—and they always will be so long as they remain preindustrial. What keeps them at risk is not the possibility of large-scale changes to the climate, but their poverty and lack of technology. Their climate vulnerability is primarily a result of their lack of industrialization and political freedom.  Read the rest of this entry »

The Climategate documents—the hundreds of emails and other data hacked from the Climatic Research Unit of England’s East Anglia University—have exposed serious breaches of scientific integrity. They contain evidence of collusion among a small but highly influential group of climate researchers to suppress and even delete key data, to manipulate the scientific peer-review process, to exclude the work of dissenting scientists, and allegedly to evade Freedom of Information requests by destroying requested materials.

Climate alarmists have responded by trying desperately to make the issue go away. They argue that the bad behavior of a few individuals doesn’t invalidate the entire edifice of global warming science. Surely, they ask, you’re not suggesting that the whole theory is just one big massive fraud, are you?

Some are even trying to ridicule the legitimate concerns the documents raise by invoking the specter of some sort of nefarious global conspiracy. At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) sarcastically put the question to a number of testifying scientists:

“I just wanted to ask you if you’re part of that massive international conspiracy,” he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, “Are either one of you members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer.”

Read the rest of this entry »

One argument sometimes heard in favor of green energy is that sources such as wind and solar are “free, forever.”  Al Gore, in particular, has said repeatedly that to end our “overdependence on outdated, heavily polluting carbon-based technologies . . . we need sources that are free forever, like the sun, wind and earth.” (See also here, here and here.)

On a superficial glance, this might seem to have a certain ring of plausibility. To use the energy in oil, coal and natural gas takes a lot of work and resources: the fuels have to be discovered, extracted, transported, processed, refined, and distributed—all at great effort and expense.

By contrast, sunlight and wind are flows of energy that already occur all by themselves in nature. Sunshine is, literally, a stream of electromagnetic energy flowing onto the earth. Similarly with wind, which consists of air particles that carry kinetic energy by the very fact of their being in motion. We can feel the effects of such energy without effort, just by sitting in the sun and enjoying the breeze.

But if you give this even a tiny amount of additional thought, you should quickly realize that the “free forever” argument is just plain silly.

Read the rest of this entry »

I sometimes receive questions from readers such as the following:

Q: I consider myself a strong free-market advocate and a fan of Ayn Rand’s writings. However, I find your denial of rising global temperatures to be contradictory to Rand’s view that we should follow the facts of reality based on reason and objective knowledge. You are not a climate scientist (your bio says “PhD in theoretical physics”), so how are you qualified to draw conclusions about global warming? If the only fact we have on which to base a conclusion is that many experts support the existence of global warming, then isn’t it only rational, under Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, to conclude that global warming is, in fact, a problem?

Here’s my answer:

A: First of all, let me clarify that I am not in “denial of rising global temperatures.” There is no question that the earth is warmer today than it has been since the start of systematic thermometer records. But it is also true that the start of that record happens to coincide with the end of a relatively cold period in recent climate history—one characterized by a little ice age. The issue is not whether temperatures are warmer today than they were a century ago, but whether the increase in global temperature can be solidly attributed to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. Read the rest of this entry »