For the Record, I Get No Money In Exchange for My Opposition to “Climate Change” Legislation

Hope your readers also look at this
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/30/climategate-a...

"By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication." -Eduardo Zorita

How messed up is that! Since when does writing a dissenting opinion make you pariah?
More and more scientists are coming out against AGW. I wonder how many other emails and data files are being deleted right now at UK Met, GISS, NOAA so "hackers" or whistle blowers won't expose the rest of them.

"In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research. "
I wonder how many papers have never seen the light of day thanks to the bias in the journals. Or how much of the data has been "tweaked" over the years to conform the the PC picture? Anyone with an appreciation of the Market will know how much of an affect those little tweaks can have over the entire body of knowledge.

Richard Lindzen is making way too much sense.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploa...

That's why the greenies try to discredit him, they don't want people to listen to common sense....instead they rather use scare tactics and fear mongering to get their way.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/only-10-will...
"MOST of the world’s population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK’s most senior climate scientists has warned.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C."

No doubt our resident alarmists would agree with the good Professor.

Wow, Will nails it w/ this!

"WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?"

The entire Department of Energy Budget for 2009 is $26.4 billion.

And here is a 2008 headline;

Exxon Mobil Reports Record $45.2 Billion Profit For 2008

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/exxon-...


I don't consider Will as to have "nailed it" but rather showed a lack of perspective.

mmmmwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhh,

Exxon's pay out ration is only 38%. Quarterly rev growth is only -41% and profit margins grew by a whopping -68%. Evil Exxon who controls less than 5% of the world's oil market is gauging at the pump. muir says we are "peak oil" and exxon is the reason for the price rise.

Muir is awesome. You have convinced me that over the last few decades, more billionaires were churned out in Houston, TX than in Silicon Valley. Very unfair.

Income inequality and housing affordability in Houston, TX is a lot worse than in Berkeley, CA. effectiveness of government planning should be very evident just from this example.

Mmmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhhhh

Quote from muirgeo: "Exxon Mobil Reports Record $45.2 Billion Profit For 2008"

And they didn't have to threaten or incarcerate one person in order to earn those profits.

Yes, but do you know what the profit margin was? Roughly about 8 cents per dollar of gas at the pump. Tiny. Do you know how much government collected in gas taxes? About 45 cents per dollar of gas. You are the one who needs some perspective.

Is Will joking?

Will cites the billions of dollars the DOE pours into "green energy". DOE appropriations for FY2009 were a little under $34 billion. Let's ignore the fact that almost a third of that goes to nuclear reactors for the military (ie - for subs, essentially a defense appropriation), and that other pieces of that budget actually go to fossil fuels. Let's ignore all of that, round up, and pretend the whole $34 billion goes to "green energy speculation".

That is less then ONE TENTH the revenue of ExxonMobil alone. Forget all the other oil and gas companies based in the U.S. - Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Marathon, Sunoco. Forget all the oil and gas companies that aren't based in the U.S. but sure as hell have an interest in U.S. climate change legislation. And that's just oil and gas - there's also the coal industry. Forget all of that. Just pay attention to ExxonMobil alone. Revenues that are ten times the budget of the DOE, even before we take the time to parse out exactly how much of the DOE's budget goes to "green energy speculation".

I'll repeat a point I made in the last post - it is absolutely inconceivable to me that two George Mason economists have no words of caution on the potentially distortionary rent seeking behavior of these companies in their opposition to climate change legislation. What is the point of being a world-renowned center for the study of Public Choice Theory if you turn a blind eye to that? What is the point? Buchanan seems to only be invoked when the rent seekers are in opposition to the libertarian ideal. Or even worse - minor rent seekers (but rent seekers nonetheless) like people who want to jump-start wind-power, or scientists going after research grants - get emphasized but other rent seekers involved in the debate don't even merit a mention. What is the point of public choice theory if that's how you approach the issue? What have we really inherited from Buchanan and Tullock if they are selectively applied like that? Does it hurt your case to say "the oil, gas, and coal industry are enormous rent seekers in this climate change legislation"? If your case is good, it should be able to stand up to that very basic observation. It doesn't involve demonizing oil, gas, and coal. It's just a matter of recognizing incentives for what they are.

And I realize you just posted the link - you didn't really "discuss the issue". But that's largely the point. I would think true admirers of Buchanan and Tullock would be very concerned about all facets of rent seeking behavior in the climate change debate, and perhaps wouldn't applaud every article by Will that is linked to, and disparage every article by Krugman that is linked to.

Daniel Kuehn,

Since when did the oil or coal companies oppose climate change legislation? I am fairly certain that both of them favor some form or another of it.

I'll repeat a point I made in the last post - it is absolutely inconceivable to me that two George Mason economists have no words of caution on the potentially distortionary rent seeking behavior of these companies in their opposition to climate change legislation.

And why would you read anything like that into it?

Yes, thank you for correcting me - not a universal opposition. But I think there is certainly resistance, or even if there is acceptance they want to put their stamp on it. That's only natural.

I'm not necessarily saying they oppose climate change legislation. I'm saying they're rent seekers. For one thing, a lot of these companies recognize what George Will won't - that this is an enormous concern, and that private decision making is imposing serious social costs because of an incomplete property rights regime. They're not dumb - they recognize that, and many are concerned about that.

But that's not their only concern or incentive. They're rent seekers - and they're much more significant rent seekers than scientists pursuing grant money. It seems to me that would be both extremely obvious and extremely important for someone with any knowledge of public choice theory.

Climate scientists are also rent seekers.

It seems to me that would be both extremely obvious and extremely important for someone with any knowledge of public choice theory.

Actually, what seems obvious to me is that the two aforementioned economists are noting that climate scientists are rent seekers, and that's what annoys Democrats.

Re: "Climate scientists are also rent seekers."

I agree completely and I've said that twice now. All I'm suggesting is a sense of proportion.

There is no "proportion" to be concerned with here.

Score one for Mommsen1625. To go from "opposition" to "resistance" is a big step.

This isn't a contest :) It's about getting down to the truth. Score truth and mommsen1625 for pointing out the energy isn't monolithic. It doesn't change the fact that it's an important factor that public choice theory proponents are suspiciously ignoring.

This isn't a contest? I get the grin, but ...

The contest isn't the truth, it's the
proposition. Climate change advocates keep moving the goal posts -- they now have them positioned so that skeptics need to prove a negative.

Daniel - I don't doubt that energy companies or scientists are rent seekers. I'd much rather the rent seeking occur in a market where the source of funds are voluntary, economic based transactions of individuals rather than one where funds are sourced through coercion (taxes) and spent by bureaucrats to meet political agendas.

In the former, the market negatively reinforces rent seeking. In the latter, rent seeking is positively reinforced and grows until it reaches such a state of crossing a boundary that it shocks voters.

I'm not sure current proportions of each type of rent seeking matters nearly as much as the incentives around each.

Daniel Kuehn,

Let's ignore all of that, round up, and pretend the whole $34 billion goes to "green energy speculation".

And let's just pretend that all dollars are equal as far as publicity, etc. are concerned. In other words, let's not live in the real world.

It hurts my case to ignore the dollars that go to defense, and round up. It doesn't help my case. And yet my case is still made quite clearly. That's the whole point of rounding up and ignoring the peripheral expenditures.

Again, let's just pretend sheer dollar amounts are all that counts in these sort of affairs. What your comment reads like is the facile argument we often hear out of Democrats that money alone determines the outcome of elections.

Just to add some actual figures on who spends what on climate change research and propaganda here are some links. A taste:

"Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion. That’s the headline from Climate Money, a report published last month by the Science and Public Policy Institute."

And . . .

" Nova’s report reveals that while Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics, climate alarmism was funded to the tune of $2 billion by the US Government." That's just direct government spending.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/storie...

Also, back in April, '06, David Mastio of RealClearPolitics outlined which side the MSM is on and how much they've donated to the cause. Link and a taste:

"U.S. media companies, including Time Warner, donate more to the environmental movement than any other industry. Companies like The New York Times, Gannett, Tribune, ABC, CBS and NBC have donated more than a half-billion worth of ad space since the 1990s to raise money for some of the nation's most extreme environmental groups. And yes, that was billion with a B.

To put that number in perspective, America's media companies donate more to environmental groups every year than the much-feared Olin Foundation's spent annually in its effort to build the institutional foundation of the conservative movement."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/...

Now ask me why I should believe anything I read or hear about climate change, or whatever they're calling it this week.

I believe the number of people with vested interests in this, rent seekers of every stripe, is so vast as to be almost incalculable.

Daniel, if you're going to cite Exxon-Mobil's revenue figure in this argument, you may as well cite the government's entire budget and compare apples to apples. The Federal Government spent ~$2.9 trillion in 2008 according to Wikipedia. Exxon-Mobil's revenues were $442.9 billion in 2008. Now we can assume that Exxon-Mobil spends 100% of its revenues on denying human-caused global warming and funding related industries. We can also assume, similarly, that the government of the US spends 100% of its money on promoting theories of man-made global warming and funding related industries. Who do you think wins?

That seems to be the implication when citing a company's revenue figure as some sort of argument one way or another for how well-funded global warming public policy is.

Who do I think wins?

What do you suppose I was quoting figures for - to see who's tossing around the most cash? The whole point is that energy policy brings a lot of interested parties to the table. Will cites the DOE in the role of venture capitalist as a distortionary force in climate change specifically. And indeed it is. But there are other parties with much bigger interests at stake. What is the relevance of the rest of the federal budget? The federal government spends considerably more money than ExxonMobil. So? No one said that ExxonMobil spends all it's money on skeptic research. The point is that if Will were really concerned about market forces influencing climate policy, his mention of green energy initiatives is extremely curious.

I find it repugnant that you believe Exxon-Mobil is, by running its business, is simply "tossing around cash". Exxon-Mobil provides products and services with that revenue! I think the fact that you would consider a company's revenue as something "tossed around" says a lot about your mindset.

Wow... there's no talking casually with you is there?

If you want to try to divine something about this AC-using, car-driving guy's mindset instead of focusing on the relevant rent-seeking behavior in the debate, be my guest. I personally don't put much stock in that sort of word-choice-psychoanalysis. If that's all you've got - after all my comment history actually attempting to paint me as somehow anti-corporate - I'm not sure what else to tell you. You're grasping at straws.

I was fine talking casually about the government's total expenditures in FY2008, but you took offense as apparently the government does not toss money around like Exxon-Mobil. My whole point is that comparing a company's revenue to money spent directly on some sort of research/public policy is completely invalid. If you're going to do so, you may as well talk about the corresponding government figure, which is its budget. Why is one ok, even "casual", and the other off limits?

I wasn't offended - I just pointed out that it sounded irrelevant. If you count the whole federal budget, why not count the whole private economy? The point is - who has a stake in this. A very rough calculation focusing on DOE puts the wind farm and scientist stake on the order of tens of billions of dollars resting on climate policy. The industry stake is hundreds of billions. That's the point. In light of that point, consideration of the federal budget isn't offensive at all - it just seems entirely irrelevant, just like dragging in the rest of the private sector seems irrelevant. Who has a stake in this? That's what Buchanan and Tullock were often concerned about. For some reason the presumed champions of Buchanan and Tullock keep bringing up the small fries and show no interest in talking about the stake that industry has.

And by all means - if you want to have a go at a better accounting of what's at stake - the concentrated interests - on either side be my guest.

I personally don't have the time to add it all up, so I was just working off of an example that George Will seemed to think was significant. If you want to add up everything climate scientists and renewable energy producers get from private sources as well and compare that to oil, gas, and coal I'm perfectly happy to entertain your alternative estimate. I'm under no illusion that DOE captures it all.

Who has what at stake, and how does that influence policy making. Now that's a question worthy of a George Mason economist.

Apparently someone has already done that work and found that Exxon-Mobil gave $23 million over a decade to climate skeptics. That was in the text of the linked article. Now, let's compare that to the $34 billion in FY 2009. It's at least a little bit more precise.

What is your obsession with the research expenditures specifically? More goes into what's at stake than the research grants.

ExxonMobil has hundreds of billions of dollars on the line if climate policy doesn't go their way. That stake in the policy outcome dwarfs the stake of renewable producers or climate scientists or Al Gore's book sales or anything else you want to tally. It's a recipe for rent-seeking.

I thought that was what you were talking about earlier when you said: "Will cites the billions of dollars the DOE pours into "green energy". DOE appropriations for FY2009 were a little under $34 billion. Let's ignore the fact that almost a third of that goes to nuclear reactors for the military (ie - for subs, essentially a defense appropriation), and that other pieces of that budget actually go to fossil fuels. Let's ignore all of that, round up, and pretend the whole $34 billion goes to "green energy speculation"."

I would say that Exxon-Mobil has infinite dollars on the line, as corporations can live forever. I'm fine with saying that Exxon-Mobil has an infinitely large stake in this debate, since I honestly don't care about who funds what or whom. I care about the truth, and it has always bothered me that people attempt to discredit a position by attacking its sources of funding.

Discredit a position by attacking it's sources of funding? I'm just saying that it's silly to pretend that the billions gobbled up by the renewables industry and climate scientists is likely to be the prime distorter of the policy process. I'm talking from a strictly public choice theory perspective. I haven't said anything about how this reflects on the reliability of the skeptics' research - have I? I don't think I have.

I'm just saying that you'd think the champions of Buchanan and Tullock would have more to say about the energy lobby, and less fascination with the renewables lobby.

danny is always right, and it is his right to get the last word in. You can't win an argument with Danny, and it is by design.

Love you danny.

I would expect them to focus primarily on whatever lobby they feel threatens their position or interests. I think it's silly to pretend that there even is a "prime distorter" of the public policy process. I believe the entire process is essentially one big distortion. Washington is a tangled web of special interests which pull in all directions. The way to stop this rent seeking behavior is to eliminate the rent.

Re: "The way to stop this rent seeking behavior is to eliminate the rent."

What is your idea of eliminating rent? Perpetuating a property rights regime that allows certain companies to externalize their costs?

We don't need to get into an externalities discussion here - but you're just assuming that you can "eliminate the rent", and "eliminating the rent" conveniently happens to coincide with your policy preference. That's another discussion - I'm just saying that as long as we can't agree on that yet, at least acknowledge who the relevant rent seekers are.

That is awfully convenient for me, though I don't think I've ever had a problem acknowledging who's paying whom and for what. I will say that I believe there is more money for scientists whose research supports AGW theories than there is for those who don't, and I believe that is what Will was referring to. I'm not sure about Krugman.

I'm really interested in what you think of the relationship of the current congress with oil, gas, and coal. Do you think it's adversarial? Do you think US law really affects OGC much? Do you think the demand for OGC will diminish in any period that affects a current corporate timeline?

It's sort of like poker -- if you can't tell who the fish is at the table, then it's you. So far, who I see sitting at the table is Oil, Gas, Coal, the Government, and the Tree Huggers.

Any guess on who's the fish?

I imagine at times it's adversarial and at times it's cooperative. Kinda depends on the Congressman, doesn't it?

"If you want to try to divine something about this AC-using, car-driving guy's mindset instead of focusing on the relevant rent-seeking behavior in the debate, be my guest...You're grasping at straws."

I think the fact that you have resorted to ad-hominem attacks means that you are having to grasp at straws.

Ohh, can't wait to see Count Danku slip out of this one. He's a master of the dark side of the FORCE!

Wait a minute - what ad hominem attack? David suggested that he had insight into my "mindset" because of my word choice and I assured him he didn't if that was where he was going with it. Where's the ad hominem exactly? Ad hominem is if I attacked David's person. I don't see where I did that.

Oh, crap, I misunderstood to whom you were referring; mea culpa :-).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government delivered more than twice as many federal dollars to research initiatives, tax incentives and other programs benefiting fossil fuels than it supplied to renewable energy from 2002 to 2008, according to a report released Friday by two public policy groups.


http://tinyurl.com/yjszhds

Kaching! mmmmmwwwwaaaaahhhhhh,

Of course the solution is obvious, not to stop the funding for fossil fuels, but to send more money our way - I mean me & my buddies - Al Gore, Jeff Immelt, other hedge fund managers.

Eagerly waiting for your climate math wizardry.

mmmmwwwwwwaaaaahhhhhh

Do you support the spending on research for the renewable energy?

To be fair - I'm sure a lot of that was to make fossil fuels cleaner, and to make products that use fossil fuels more energy efficient.

To be fair, I'm sure that that was the intention. But to be realistic, I'll bet that some campaign contributors benefitted from the research funding and not in the more efficient, cleaner-buring ways you might think.

Duplicitous Disingenuous Kuehn,

Oh you are rich on this one, in high form, as such you earn two stars in your label of deceit.

"The federal government spends considerably more money than ExxonMobil. So? No one said that ExxonMobil spends all it's money on skeptic research."

Oh oh yeah DDK, no one said that ExxonMobil spends all it's money on skeptic research; but oh did you imply it with your post above.

Thanks to David for this post because it made exactly the same point I was going to make.

And, of course it drew your usual duck and run around the mulberry bush tactics.

What a freaking pinhead, I saw more intellectual honesty in the Craisins I had in my oatmeal for breakfast.

Your Gods have been mortally wounded because we found their lies and deception. May they enjoy a swift and painful death.

To suggest that the oil companies have more of a vested interest than do the socialists already in government that seek an expansion of it [and all the new power-grabbing future regulation that entails] is, I believe, missing a pretty big portion of the picture.

Yeah, I thought your revenue comparison was quite bogus, Daniel; citing a component of revenue specifically devoted to such research or citing profits would have been more meaningful. And, really, government "revenue" is something of a misnomer, if you ask me; government revenue is more akin to pure profit, since the government acquires its funding by simply stealing it from those who have actually produced and not by investing capital that it has created and accumulated.

Hey, you're misunderestimating there, pardner! It costs a lot of money to take in all that...money. They work hard at it, so it's rightfully theirs! They offer a lot in services too, there, bud, so lighten up on 'em, ok, hombre? Bein' a revenooer sure beats punchin' dogies!

Yeeeehawwww!

lol

That is less then ONE TENTH the revenue of ExxonMobil alone.

Revenue is not profits.

I bet ExxonMobile can extract plenty of money in either scenario.

Many environmental groups get money from the same industries as do their contraries.

You know why the greens will never get rid of fossil fuel usage? Because if there are no cars, it's not easy for them to enforce their police state on us. Of course they might horde the gasoline for their police state and keep it away from us.

Personal vehicles are a form of freedom that a lot on the left despise.

There is little more irrelevant than a conversation revenues.

You can't eat revenues. Typically, the left focuses on numbers in the absence of context. What did it cost to get those revenues?

If Revenues are large and costs are even larger, then revenue means nothing.

An excellent point - probably better to compare the profits of the energy industry to the profits of the climate research and renewables industry. That is definitely a better way of talking about what stake everybody has in this, in order to forecast likely rent-seeking behavior.

[I hope you don't mind the rule of thumb breaking again... this seemed like a reasonable point to respond to, and since I'm agreeing revenues aren't the best thing to look at I'm sure you won't mind at all].

To Daniel Kuehn,

Exxon Mobile obtains its revenue by voluntary trade, whereas the government steals its revenue from taxpayers.
Btw, I suspect that virtually all the climate scientists on the "pro" side have their salaries paid from tax money, or are getting taxpayer-financed research grants. Many probably are in both camps.

Michael Mann, for instance, is at Penn STATE University. I think that Lawrence Livermore, where that jerk who threatened Patrick Michaels is "employed," is a ward of the Tax State.

Right - how does that voluntary trade change the point? I'm not begrudging them their revenue - I'm just saying it gives them a stake in the policy discussion - something that Buchanan always found to be a particularly important point to make.

And let's be clear about what's implicit in your statement about "voluntary exchange". You're implicitly declaring a priori that ExxonMobil and it's customers don't involuntarily impose costs on others. That is a contentious point to just assume.

So does the government involuntarily impose other costs on the rest of us who work in the real world, i.e. the private sector. Last time I checked Exxon hadn't killed anyone, unlike the Ojunta-regime.

Well I've never accepted this taxes=stealing line, but I'm not complaining about Exxon. I'm just saying we have to recognize they have a stake in the policy and they're going to act on it.

Like what, Dorku? Holes in the ground where they drill? Get real you wonky wanker!

DK,

I added some actual info re: who spends what above in response to Mommsen 1625 if you are interested.

Great - thanks. I just looked over it quickly - I'll look in more detail later. This seems to be just research expenditures though, right? A lot more is at stake here than just research expenditures. I have no doubt climate change "non-skeptics" (I hate calling them "believers" - it sounds so faith-based) rake in most of the money. That seems obvious. I think we oughta consider multiple reasons for that - including that their research is simply better and that there are more of them (you don't see much money going towards "intelligent design" research, do you? Would you believe that's becasue of bias against Christians?).

But even if you chalk all that up to patronage - every cent of it - that's only the tip of the ice-berg of what kind of money is at stake in this debate. It is dwarfed by other vested interests.

It's not the money, it's the control, you dolt.

Danny, you can respond to my comments all you want. I don't care. Just don't preface your comments with crap about pretending I'm someone else so that you can save face while breaking your own hard rules which you foolishly declared for all to read. The lesson about optionality was real.

That said, I agree with Bill Stepp's first comment.

Petroleum companies' interest in policy exists solely because policy always creates rents and punishments. They can and do exist without an energy policy. There is nothing natural about a marriage of petroleum companies and government.

"Green" companies are not competitive and can only exist if they collect government created rents created through "energy policy" or "energy central planning".

Since everyone uses petroleum, the companies and customers impose any costs on themselves and since green energy is inefficient, the cost clearly outweighs the benefit, but the cost is also imposed on everyone via energy policy.

Excellent points. Thank you.

They can and do exist without an energy policy. They would have more trouble competing with renewables if it weren't for the property rights regime that the state supports that allows them to impose costs without compensation. That's not a mark against the oil and gas companies, it's just the way things are structured. I just would caution againt working off of the assumption that the absence of an explicit policy means that there is no rent-granting policy in place.

Actually, the main problem with so-called "renewables" is thermodynamics. Which is why, despite all the talk of them being replacements by year "XXXX," we will be using oil, natural gas and coal for the bulk of our energy use for many years to come. "Non-renewables" will - barring some major advancement that the government will certainly not be able to foresee - continue to be our main source of transportation fuels and electricity production* well into next century. This is something that Democrats need to get used to.

*Barring some sort of heavy adoption of nuclear power, but that isn't on the agenda of many Western nations (though it is on the agenda of a number of Asian nations).

Exactly. I'm not suggesting we can just close our eyes, wish on a star, and get rid of all those nasty fossil fuels. All I'm saying is that fossil fuels have a stake in this policy making, and that I personally think fossil fuel producers and users should pay for the costs that they impose on others involuntarily. There's a vast gulf between saying that and desiring that by year XXXX we drop carbon. As far as I can tell nobody commenting here yet has suggested we drop fossil fuels.

All I'm saying is that fossil fuels have a stake in this policy making, and that I personally think fossil fuel producers and users should pay for the costs that they impose on others involuntarily.

Whenever government involves itself in the operations of a company, the company has an interest in the policy of the state. These "costs" you speak of are highly subjective and create ample opportunity for competitors to fossil fuels and the anti-capitalist groups posing as environmentalists to concoct whatever scare tactic they wish, back it with crap science and then impose the cost of their anti-free market ideology on everyone else. Let's not pretend that doesn't happen and we're just trying to contain some easily defined neighbourhood effect.

What costs would those be exactly? And - if we assume that these costs actually exist - since the majority of the planet consumes fossil fuels - and those that don't generally want to - these "others" are a very dwindling few. And while we're at it, why aren't we discussing the many positive externalities of fossil fuel use? If the latter outweighs the former, and it surely does, then I'm not quite sure why we should be fretting so much about negative externalities. In other words, fossil fuels aren't nasty, they are beautiful.

As far as I can tell nobody commenting here yet has suggested we drop fossil fuels.

No one here is certainly.

They would have more trouble competing with renewables if it weren't for the property rights regime that the state supports that allows them to impose costs without compensation.

How do you reckon?

I just would caution againt working off of the assumption that the absence of an explicit policy means that there is no rent-granting policy in place.

There are rents. Nobody disputes that. There are rents because there actually is a ton of state meddling and onerous restrictions in energy production. I'm pointing out that energy production existed just fine without rents and can do so. There is no natural relationship between government and petroleum companies. "Renewables" can't compete. Renewable energy just isn't efficient and can only exist with a government subsidy. This has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with how much energy is extracted per unit.

I don't have any problem at all with people choosing to heat their houses with solar energy if the choose. I do have a problem with subsidizing this activity. I also have a problem with petroleum subsidies, but I also know from years of covering U.S. upstream companies that the tax breaks exist to encourage production which was discouraged by expensive state restrictions and regulations.

RE: "I'm pointing out that energy production existed just fine without rents and can do so."

But your version of "without rents" conveniently neglects the property rights regime that the state actively supports. I know I'm not going to budge you on externalities - but at least do everybody the favor of stating your foundational assumptions more explicitly. I'm up front about how my assumptions about externalities shape my views on the issue.

I can't address your property rights argument without an explanation of what you mean by "property rights regime".

Sorry - I just mean a regime where we don't have rights to the air we breath or the environment we live in. That understanding of property rights is supported by the state. It's an implicit policy that provides rents to fossil fuel producers and users. It's an involuntary imposition on everyone else.

I've always been amazed that libertarians in general (this goes beyond you - not making a comment on you at this point) aren't more interested or accepting of the idea of externalities. It seems like someone concerned with coercion would be very concerned about externalities, but for some reason they're not! At least you can resist or have a say in the state. You can't do that at all when it comes to things like pollution. I don't expect them to completely be on board with externality concerns, but the outright rejection of coercion like that has always struck me as very strange and inconsistent with a classical liberal understanding of human freedom.

It's an implicit policy that provides rents to fossil fuel producers and users. It's an involuntary imposition on everyone else.

Who is everyone else?

Not a single person living in the vast majority of the world DOESN'T use petroleum. Not one.

Further, it is not practical to have the property rights you describe. Such property rights would have neigbours suing each other over barbecues, smoking on an adjacent property, wearing perfume and farting in public.

I don't reject the concept of externalities or the concept of market failure in general. But the vast majority of the anti-fossil fuel crowd isn't interested in fixing externalities. Rather it's in search of its own rents and liberally proclaims all and sundry to be an "externality" that only they can ride to the rescue and fix with horribly inefficient solution funded by resources forcibly extracted from you, of course. For the vast majority of that movement, it's the first step to totalitarian control of the population, not the first step to a better environment. I know some of these people personally and they are scary. Al Gore is the poster child.

That a humourous supposition - "renewables can't compete". Thomas Edison said "the electric car is dead" 110 years ago and seems to right on track as most modern electric cars don't have much more range than the early ones. But oh what a shame oil is limited. Oh course human engineering could make new and better revamps of the horse and buggy as well as the pushbike to replace automobiles as they become more cost-effective relative to internal combustion engine.

I agree that it was typical Count Danku to go on a wild eyed, foaming at the mouth diatribe about ExMo revenue. Now if we could get him just as frantic about Obama's trillions...

"I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’ That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are."

I don't know why anyone would be appalled at Krugman's behavior. Krugman has long ago sold his soul to become a shill for the Left and any Leftist advocacy groups. The fact that Krugman purposely gets his facts wrong just show how low he has become.

The fact that Krugman tries to completely ignore the implications of the emails, just goes to show how duplicitous he is. He does not want to talk about the science but instead goes on a red herring quest trying to discredit the Skeptics buy using the tried and true method of "who is funding who."
Krugman purposely lied when he said the skeptics make more money. Then he lied again by saying they get equal face time in the Media. There is not denying it this time, Krugman is a liar.

Agreed. This guy's credibility is at an all time low and approaching the depth of the Sovietologists' credibility!

But dannykoo sure defends him well, doesn't he?

If only he were alone in his efforts. I swear I've tried to understand people like Krugman - so jealous, so filled with envy and hunger for power - and I've never been able to wrap my mind around it. Not when I was poor. Not now.

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
07/22/09 - Science and Technology News

Quip: We don't fund studies critical of our policies.

==============
The US Government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on research and support for climate change studies. Yet, scientific review and criticism is left to unpaid volunteers, who have repeatedly exposed major errors.

Dedicated, uncoordinated scientists around the globe test the integrity of global warming theory. They compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized, centralized purchaser of climate research.

The government pours money into a single, scientifically baseless agenda. It has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an unbiased investigation. Sound science cannot easily survive this grip of politics and finance.
==============

It reminds me of the long standing argument between evolutionists and creationists. One ironically is canonized while the other vilified.

Good point. It amazes me when vilification is accepted, especially in a field such as science.

If you think the other side is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and let me make my own decision.

1. Those peer review volunteers are other scientists who probably have government grants of their own.

2. If they "repeatedly expose major errors" how do the studies keep getting published? This article seems to fundamentally misunderstand the process of peer review.

People win grant money for a research proposal - not for a set of results. The results come AFTER the grant is funded. My company has received lots of research grants from the government and often we don't tell them what they want to hear - and they don't like that. We keep getting them because they know we're objective.

To danielkuehn,

DK said: 1. Those peer review volunteers ...

My comment is not about peer review, but scientific review. Peer review is under the control of the journal. My post refers to the vast inequality in government funding, for global warming supporters but very little to global warming skeptics.

DK said: 2. If they "repeatedly expose major errors" how do the studies keep getting published?

Because the relevant journals are biased, and heavily influenced by the GW establishment. Some of the recently released emails show the manipulation. GW supporters pressure the journals to not publish skeptical studies.

Why should it be so difficult to get the data underlying the CRU studies and results? Because they don't want scientific review of their work. And, the CRU threw out the original data! The new science, from their perspective, is "trust us", we are working for the good of humanity.

Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org reports his struggle to get the release of data and methods from the CRU and others. They delay and refuse. He reports submitting criticisms to the journals. They impose ridiculous limits and also deny by delay. The emails show the bias and collusion of the journals, even Science, in denying "peer reviewed status" to any objections. The game has been "deny the forum" rather than to answer the criticism.

DK said: People win grant money for a research proposal - not for a set of results. The results come AFTER the grant is funded.

The emails now available show that any money given to CRU is going to support GW. They are not objective scientists. Instead, they actively suppress opposing work.

We have been "warming" since the Ice Age. Man has always been obsessed with controlling nature, after all that's where the big money is. So why is that concept so hard to fathom when it's publicly funded scientists at the well. And shouldn't they be criticized for trying to benefit from the lies and misconceptions that they themselves have propagated.

Will masterfully turned Krugman's simpering defense of cap and trade on its head. Krugman believes knuckle-dragging carbon belchers respond to incentives, but enlightened academics don't. "We just don't understand the way they talk." What a joke.

P.S. Did you guys appoint Daniel Kuehn the moderator/Dungeon master of Cafe Hayek?

No but somehow he emerged as the moderator.

Global warming has become so politicized it’s a farce. The governments of the world see a global carbon tax; the scientist’s see major grant money! Now I believe in a clean planet. I was taught in the Boy Scouts to leave a place better than I found it and in Sunday school I was taught that the humans were the caretakers of the planet. Now I say that became a full time job cleaning up after all you bad humans, so I now only clean up after myself.

The way I see this is that world population is increasing at an alarming rate! We as humans are decimating the rain forests of the world and they (The Rainforests) are the co2 eaters. The oceans are being polluted at an alarming rate, with chemicals and trash-debris. The Oceans are like big air conditioners. Once you kill the rain forests and the oceans the planet will become inhospitable for humans and we will become extinct just like dinosaurs. The planet will rid itself of us, the ants and cockroaches will take over and the earth will begin to heal.

I could go on and on, but from the way I see this it is an exercise in futility. To be quite frank with you, global warming is about; Show Me the Money (Cash Cow If You Will)! The corporations of the world are getting richer and richer as we speak; they are the real monetary winners in the self destruction of the environment!

That’s my take on it what’s yours?

SATAN

Except that those rainforests turn on you periodically and contribute to the carbon problem.

12/18/98 the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute released the results of a long running study of the Amazon basin and its performance as the "lungs of the world".

What they found was that during the years of an El Nino the rainforest there does not absorb carbon dioxide, it becomes an emitter of CO2 to the tune of an average massive number of 7 million tons.

I have the news release scanned to my documents but not to any linkable site.

So here is the deal: In normal years the Amazon basin consumes about 9 million tons of CO2, but in El Nino years it emits 7 million tons. Add the CO2 not being consumed during the El Nino to the CO2 now being emitted during the El Nino and that treacherous clump of forest is responsible for 16 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What is funny was how quickly that became a non-topic in the debate over global warming.

If you'd like I can send you the document as an attachment to an e-mail.

The problem for Global Warming proponents is not that Big Oil funds better propaganda than Big Government or that proponents talk shit to each other in their email.

The problem is that their models assume an incredibly unstable climate, so that a degree or two of warming from a CO2 induced greenhouse effect (or any other cause for that matter) leads to a runaway greenhouse effect and catastrophic warming from water evaporation. The problem is that such an unstable climate seems implausible on its face and that simple models of complex, even chaotic systems are notoriously unreliable.

The problem is that the models haven't predicted observed temperature variation between the surface and the upper troposphere. The problem is that a greenhouse effect should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the surface, but this difference is not observed.

The problem is that the alarming models predict a rapid acceleration of warming that hasn't materialized. The problem is that the longer this acceleration fails to appear the less credible catastrophic warming forecasts in the 21st century become.

The problem is that proponents went far out on a limb and predicted a 4-5 fold increase in the rate of warming during the 21st century, because the 20th century warming just wasn't terrifying enough to warrant trillion dollar solutions, but the observed rate thus far in the 21st century is unchanged at best and falling at worst.

The problem is that if temperature measurements don't start rising again soon, if the measurements don't start rising more rapidly than ever in the 20th century, shit talking climatologists on some government payroll and Big Oil's propaganda machine will be irrelevant. The problem for Global Warming proponents is that science is empirical and not ideological.

Martin,

The problem is that measured warming while not quite to the degree predicted seems to have actually greater consequences then expected.

In other words we are seeing faster melting of glaciers and ice sheets. Also we are seeing a faster then predicted rise in sea levels.



The best on the science off climate change can be found here. Most of the deniers mis-information is addressed in the report.>

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/def...

Kaching! Love you muir....

When my buddy muir says "best on the science", please trust him. He will dazzle us with his understanding of climate math soon. Holding my breath

The "faster than predicted rise in sea level" is laughable considering that we're discussing average global sea level measured in millimeters per year and this "faster than predicted" rise occurs over less than a decade. We only need to look back to the early eighties to find a similar period of falling measurements. You're simply cherry picking a glitch from one of countless measures to rationalize your preconceived notion of looming catastrophe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Le...

If I similarly suggest that average global temperature is now falling, based upon measurements over the last eight years, you dismiss me as a "denier", but you just can't apply the same critical logic to your own assumptions.

But even if sea level is rising at 3 mm/year, and not the long term trend of 1.8 mm, even if this sudden increase in the rate is not a statistical blip, even if the rate remains so high throughout the 21st century, we're discussing a 3 decimeter rise over the century, less than a foot, not the Manhattan flooding 20 feet that Al Gore ominously forecasts in An Inconvenient Truth.

The problem is that even 3 mm/year isn't remotely catastrophic, and that's the best you can do at the moment.

"For the Record, I Get No Money In Exchange for My Opposition to “Climate Change” Legislation"


And likewise do you know of professor who pad their pay by publishing politically correct science?

I am tempted to give you a kiss on your cheek. Even as your biggest fan, I still gotta say, what the heck are you talking about?

No professor admits publishing politically correct science, on either side of the AGW debate. This fact is irrelevant.

Billions of tax dollars finance AGW research as a matter of fact. Policy makers finance this research only because catastrophic consequences are a possibility, however remote. If everyone agrees that Global Warming is an interesting but practically inconsequential event, it's just another natural curiosity drawing a small fraction of the research dollars, but everyone never agrees on anything. Catastrophic forecasts and only these forecasts keep global climatologists at the Big Science table, just as the Orwellian Global War on Terror keeps countless "terrorism" experts at the Big Protection Racket table.

Don,

You may have hit on the key reason that this debate is so skewed. When the government is considered a neutral or benign actor, we fail to take into account the bias it introduces. Industry is nearly always identified as an interested party--government rarely so. Yet government's incentive is to grow itself, and one way to do that is to find evidence of something the government needs to "do something" about.

Apocalypse Soon? http://commonsenseliberty.wordpress.com

Terry

Almost everything we do involves the use of energy produced with fossil fuels.
In order to "solve" the "problem" of "climate change", governments will need to limit and control the use of that energy, which means they will need to control almost everything we do.
Giving governments absolute power is the only thing that can save us from ourselves.
That's all, just absolute power.

Yet the naysayers are labeled as being motivated by profits.

Profits pale in comparison to absolute power, yet that motive is dismissed.

I don't get it.