DOCSLIB.ORG

“Conservative” Case for a Carbon Tax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Conservative” Case for a Carbon Tax Observations on the Alliance for Market Solutions’ “Conservative” Case for a Carbon Tax Benjamin Zycher MAY 2019 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Executive Summary he Alliance for Market Solutions (AMS) has pro- or delays of scheduled increases, analyzed under a Tposed a tax on “carbon” (emissions of green- “current law” rather than a “current policy” orienta- house gases, or GHG) as a “market-oriented solution tion. A “current law” perspective is wholly legitimate to one of America’s most pressing economic chal- and applied often in serious analyses, but in the con- lenges: . reducing carbon pollution.” It is among the text of the AMS proposal for a revenue-neutral car- more prominent of the proposals for a carbon tax now bon tax, the “current policy” assumption is far more drawing attention from policymakers and observers. realistic—in my view—because the current tax poli- This proposed carbon tax is described and intended by cies are unlikely actually to be allowed to lapse. AMS to be “revenue neutral” and part of a policy shift In short, the proposed AMS carbon tax is indepen- away from a regulatory regime for reductions in GHG dent of any actual environmental parameters, despite emissions, a shift that AMS argues would improve eco- its central asserted justification as a climate policy. nomic efficiency. Instead, it is a device intended to avoid a large increase Those arguments are problematic. Despite the in the budget deficit in the next10-year budget win- AMS focus on reducing GHG emissions as a pol- dow, as AMS admits more or less explicitly. Because icy addressing a negative environmental (climate) AMS does not ground its carbon tax proposal on a dis- externality and despite the AMS claim to be “moti- cussion of actual climate phenomena, an analysis of vated by our respect for science,” the actual proposal the magnitude of an assumed GHG externality, or a is not based on any references to actual climate phe- quantification of the environmental effects of its pro- nomena, a calculation of the magnitude of a pur- posed carbon tax, the magnitude of its tax to a sig- ported GHG externality, or an analysis of the climate nificant degree would be arbitrary, driven by AMS’s effects of the proposed tax. Instead, AMS references, preferred tax policies and the purported goal of rev- in passing, the dire climate predictions in two recent enue neutrality. reports, respectively from the Intergovernmental In other words, it is clear that AMS is advocating Panel on Climate Change and the federal govern- whatever carbon tax is needed to make its various pre- ment. These reports assume a future path for atmo- ferred policies (e.g., extending the 2017 tax cuts after spheric GHG concentrations that is unrealistic in 2025) “revenue neutral,” while assuming that adop- the extreme, and both are inconsistent with the find- tion of the carbon tax would not be accompanied with ings in the peer-reviewed literature and the actual any new spending in a congressional bargaining equi- evidence on climate phenomena. librium. It is clear also that the AMS “climate” justifi- Instead of being structured as a correction for a cation for its carbon tax is secondary, as the proposed market inefficiency, the AMS carbon tax much more tax would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.015°C centrally can be seen as a financing mechanism for a under assumptions highly favorable toward the AMS series of tax reductions (or extensions) preferred by climate policy stance, a figure smaller than the stan- AMS: “All revenue from a carbon tax should be used dard deviation of the surface temperature record by to reduce other, more distortionary taxes that hinder an order of magnitude. economic growth, including taxes on earnings and That it is revenue rather than any “climate” param- income.” Most of the AMS tax reductions are exten- eters that is the central focus of the AMS proposal is sions of current tax provisions now scheduled to end, illustrated by the AMS “2018 Year-End Report”: 1 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ALLIANCE FOR MARKET SOLUTIONS’ “CONSERVATIVE” CASE FOR A CARBON TAX BENJAMIN ZYCHER Pressure to address our country’s long-term fis- politically viable is problematic, as is the AMS asser- cal issues also grew. The Congressional Budget tion of substantial prospective Republican support Office reported that the deficit during the first two for climate policy generally and a carbon tax in partic- months of fiscal year 2018 was 50% higher than it ular. Moreover, the AMS assumption that a carbon tax was during the same period the previous year. And is needed politically to effect a reduction in the GHG the national debt is expected to reach $22 trillion by regulatory regime has been disproved: The Trump early 2019. Fiscally conservative Republicans, whose administration has begun the process of eliminating concerns about the federal deficit appeared to have the Clean Power Plan, weakening substantially the been lost in recent years, started to seriously evalu- transportation-sector fuel economy regulations, and ate long-term spending and revenue issues. The lack has initiated the process of exiting the international of other politically acceptable, multi-trillion-dollar Paris GHG emissions agreement. revenue options forced some conservatives who are It is possible that the AMS argument for a carbon usually unwilling to consider any new form of taxes tax is based upon alternative assumptions and ratio- to quietly contemplate a carbon tax. nales unstated in the various AMS promotional mate- rials and research efforts. One such argument might The implicit AMS definition of an “efficient” tax is be that enactment of a carbon tax by the US would problematic, in that it assumes that the size and com- facilitate an international effort to reduce GHG emis- position of the government budget are independent sions. The specifics of the international agreement of the tax instruments chosen to fund it. The AMS finally reached in Paris in late 2015—in particular, revenue-neutrality pledge would be difficult to achieve the small temperature effect (0.17°C by 2100) of the because a carbon tax in a congressional bargaining intended national contributions, even if taken at face equilibrium would likely be packaged with significant value—do not inspire confidence in this possible new spending compensating the losers, and with other justification for a carbon tax. Even a highly aggres- spending designed to forge a majority political coali- sive and thus implausible international effort would tion willing to impose the carbon tax. AMS recognizes reduce temperatures by only about half a degree. this explicitly in part. Because a carbon tax—and thus A second argument might be that a carbon tax the intended reduction in GHG emissions—must be would engender an incentive to invest in innova- chosen by government, it is not a “market” policy. tions reducing the cost of limiting GHG emissions. Notwithstanding the view of many economists, it is The small temperature effects of such innovation are likely to prove less efficient economically than a reg- striking: Were US emissions reduced by 60 percent, ulatory approach because the revenue stream from the maximum temperature reduction in 2100 would a tax would provide incentives for policymakers to be less than a tenth of a degree, and a 60 percent choose the tax rate that maximizes the present value reduction by the entire industrialized world would of the revenue stream over some time horizon rather yield less than a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such than the rate that optimizes emissions. This outcome innovation is not costless, and the tax would destroy is made more likely by the prospect that the marginal the economic value of part of the existing resource members of the congressional majority in this con- base and capital stock. Accordingly, the innovation text would be those most threatened in the next elec- argument is not far removed from a standard broken tion. That dynamic would be reinforced by the reality windows fallacy: A reduction in wealth can be wealth that the costs of the carbon tax would be hidden in the enhancing. prices of myriad goods and services. As with the tax/ A third argument might be that enactment now budget nexus, the emissions goal is not independent of a moderate carbon tax would begin the process of of the policy tool chosen to achieve it. implementing a US GHG policy, which then could The AMS assumption that a carbon tax coupled be strengthened over time. This rationale confronts with an elimination of the regulatory regime would be the same benefit/cost problem: Seemingly “strong” 2 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ALLIANCE FOR MARKET SOLUTIONS’ “CONSERVATIVE” CASE FOR A CARBON TAX BENJAMIN ZYCHER policies would have small effects at most. And at a The AMS carbon tax would not achieve its quali- political level, the demonstrated refusal by several tative stated climate goals, would not prove “revenue Congresses to enact policies yielding even small neutral,” and would be unlikely to prove more effi- GHG reductions does not bode well for the realism cient economically than a regulatory regime. It should of this possible justification. be rejected. 3 Observations on the Alliance for Market Solutions’ “Conservative” Case for a Carbon Tax Benjamin Zycher he Alliance for Market Solutions (AMS) describes With respect to “carbon pollution” as “one of Titself as an “organization of conservative leaders America’s most pressing economic challenges,” AMS . educat[ing] conservative policymakers on the ben- makes no reference to the substantial scientific dis- efits of market-oriented solutions to one of America’s putes over the timing, magnitude, and implications of most pressing economic challenges: . reducing car- anthropogenic increases in atmospheric greenhouse bon pollution.”1 And AMS supports “a revenue-neutral gas (GHG) concentrations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission
    Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission on Climate Risk Disclosures Benjamin Zycher Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute June 10, 2021 Estimation of climate “risks” by public companies would be futile, politicized, distorted by an imperative to avoid regulatory and litigation threats, and largely arbitrary, and thus would not serve the traditional goal of the provision of material information to investors. Submitted by webform: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments This comment letter responds to a request for input from Securities and Exchange Commissioner Allison Herren Lee on the topic of climate “risk” disclosures by public companies.1 It is organized as follows: Summary I. Climate Uncertainties and Choices Among Crucial Assumptions. II. The Evidence on Climate Phenomena and the Effects of Climate Policies in the EPA Climate Model. III. Observations on the Materiality of Climate “Risks.” IV. Additional Observations and Conclusions. 1 See https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/lee-climate-change-disclosures#. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author. 2 Summary • No public company and few, if any, government administrative agencies are in a position to evaluate climate phenomena, whether ongoing or prospective, with respect to which the scientific uncertainties are vastly greater than commonly asserted. • The range of alternative assumptions about central parameters is too great to yield clear implications for the climate “risks” facing specific public companies, economic sectors, and geographic regions.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENT to the COMMITTEE on SCIENCE, SPACE and TECHNOLOGY of the UNITED STATES HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on Climate S
    STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method 29 March 2017 Judith A. Curry Climate Forecast Applications Network Georgia Institute of Technology [email protected] Major points: • Scientific progress is driven by the creative tension spurred by disagreement, uncertainty and ignorance. • Progress in understanding the climate system is being hampered by an institutionalized effort to stifle this creative tension, in the name of a ‘consensus’ that humans have caused recent climate change. • Motivated by the mandate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus. • Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. As a result, we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities. • Challenges to climate research have been exacerbated by: o Unreasonable expectations from policy makers o Scientists who are playing power politics with their expertise and trying to silence scientific disagreement through denigrating scientist who do not agree with them o Professional societies that oversee peer review in professional journals are writing policy statements endorsing the consensus and advocating for specific policies • Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. The UNFCCC framed the climate change problem too narrowly and demanded of the IPCC too much precision – where complexity, chaos, disagreement and the level of current understanding resists such precision.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Undisputed Facts
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B v. ) Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. ) NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STEYN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Mark Steyn submits the following Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Mark Steyn’s July 15, 2012 Blog Post 1. On July 15, 2012, Mark Steyn posted a blog titled “Football and Hockey” on National Review’s online blog “The Corner” (“the Steyn Post”) to National Review Online. See Mark Steyn, Football and Hockey, National Review Online, July 15, 2012, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/. 2. The Steyn Post states, in full: In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal: I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred [at Penn State] two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversensitive How the Ipcc Hid the Good News on Global Warming
    OVERSENSITIVE HOW THE IPCC HID THE GOOD NEWS ON GLOBAL WARMING Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok Foreword by Professor Judith Curry The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 12 GWPF REPORTS Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION Director Dr Benny Peiser Assistant Director Philipp Mueller BOARD OF TRUSTEES Lord Lawson (Chairman) Baroness Nicholson Lord Donoughue Lord Turnbull Lord Fellowes Sir James Spooner Rt Rev Peter Forster Bishop of Chester Sir Martin Jacomb ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Professor Richard Lindzen Adrian Berry Professor Ross McKitrick Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Robert Mendelsohn Sir Ian Byatt Professor Sir Alan Peacock Professor Robert Carter Professor Ian Plimer Professor Vincent Courtillot Professor Paul Reiter Professor Freeman Dyson Dr Matt Ridley Christian Gerondeau Sir Alan Rudge Dr Indur Goklany Professor Nir Shaviv Professor William Happer Professor Philip Stott Professor Terence Kealey Professor Henrik Svensmark Professor Anthony Kelly Professor Richard Tol Professor Deepak Lal Dr David Whitehouse OVERSENSITIVE How the IPCC hid the good news on global warming Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok Foreword by Professor Judith Curry ISBN 978-0-9573880-7-9 c Copyright 2014 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents Contents 1 Foreword 3 About the authors 5 Executive summary 7 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Dr
    Nos. 14-CV-101 & 14-CV-126 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, and NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff-Appellee. ________________________________ On Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, No. 2012 CA 008263 B ________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DR. JUDITH A. CURRY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC ________________________________ John J. Vecchione (D.C. Bar. #431764) Counsel of Record R. James Valvo, III CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 499-4232 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae January 25, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. SCIENTIFIC NORMS AND FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BOTH EMBRACE THE VIEW THAT ROBUST DEBATE IS CRUCIAL TO TRUTH, PROGRESS, AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE. ................................................ 3 II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW DR. MANN TO USE LAWSUITS AS ANOTHER WEAPON TO HARASS AND SILENCE HIS
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
    Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process Robert Rohde, Richard Muller (chair), Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Don Groom, Judith Curry, Charlotte Wickham Abstract A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale averages of temperature changes from weather station thermometer data for the purposes of climate analysis. The method allows the inclusion of short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all digitally archived thermometer data can be used. The framework uses the statistical method known as Kriging to interpolate data from stations to arbitrary locations on the Earth. An iterative weighting process is used to reduce the influence of statistical outliers. Statistical uncertainties are calculated by subdividing the data and comparing the results from statistically independent subsamples using the Jackknife method. Spatial uncertainties from periods with sparse geographical sampling are estimated by calculating the error made when we analyze post-1960 data using similarly sparse spatial sampling. Rather than “homogenize” the raw data, an automated procedure identifies discontinuities in the data; the data is then broken into two parts at those times, and the parts treated as separate records. We apply this new framework to the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) monthly land temperature dataset, and obtain a new global land temperature reconstruction from 1800 to the present. In so doing, we find results in close agreement with prior estimates made by the groups at NOAA, NASA, and at the Hadley Center / Climate Research Unit in the UK. We find that the global land mean temperature increased by 0.89 ± 0.06 C in the difference of the Jan 2000-Dec 2009 average from the Jan 1950-Dec 1959 average (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties).
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricanes and Climate Change
    Special Report: Hurricanes and Climate Change Judith Curry Climate Forecast Applications Network Version 2 4 September 2019 Contact information: Judith Curry, President Climate Forecast Applications Network Reno, NV 89519 404 803 2012 [email protected] http://www.cfanclimate.net 1 Hurricanes and Climate Change Judith Curry Climate Forecast Applications Network Executive summary . 4 1. Introduction . 5 2. Hurricane terminology, structure and mechanisms . 6 2.1 Hurricane processes 2.2 Factors contributing to landfall impacts 2.2.1 Wind damage 2.2.2 Storm surge 2.2.3 Rainfall 3. Historical variability and trends . 12 3.1 Global 3.2 Atlantic 3.3 Pacific 3.4 Conclusions 4. Detection and attribution . 26 4.1 Detection 4.2 Sources of variability and change 4.3 Natural multi-decadal climate modes 4.4 Attribution – models 4.5 Attribution – physical understanding 4.6 Conclusions 5. Landfalling hurricanes . 43 5.1 Continental U.S. 5.2 Caribbean 5.3 Global 5.4 Water – rainfall and storm surge 5.5 Hurricane size 5.6 Damage and losses 5.7 Conclusions 6. Attribution: recent U.S. landfalling hurricanes . 58 6.1 Detection and attribution of extreme weather events 6.2 Sandy 6.3 Harvey 6.4 Irma 6.5 Florence 6.6 Michael 6.7. Conclusions 2 7. 21st century projections . 66 7.1 Climate model projections 7.2 2100 – manmade climate change 7.3 2050 – decadal variability 7.3 Landfall impacts 8. Conclusions . 78 References . 80 3 Executive summary This Report assesses the scientific basis for projections of future hurricane activity. The Report evaluates the assessments and projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and recent national assessments regarding hurricanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Motivated Reasoning
    1 Reasoning about climate change Bence Bago1,2*, David G. Rand3,4, & Gordon Pennycook5 1Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, University of Toulouse 1 - Capitole 2Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute 3Sloan School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5Hill/Levene Schools of Business, University of Regina *Corresponding author: Bence Bago, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, University of Toulouse 1 - Capitole, 1 esplanade de l’Université, 31080 Toulouse, France, e-mail: [email protected] 2 Abstract Why is disbelief in anthropogenic climate change common despite broad scientific consensus to the contrary? A widely-held explanation involves politically motivated (“System 2”) reasoning: Rather than helping uncover truth, people use their reasoning abilities to protect their partisan identities and reject beliefs that threaten those identities. Despite the popularity of this account, the evidence supporting it (i) does not account for the fact that partisanship is confounded with prior beliefs about the world, and (ii) is entirely correlational with respect to the effect of reasoning. Here, we address these shortcomings by (i) measuring prior beliefs and (ii) experimentally manipulating participants’ extent of reasoning using cognitive load and time pressure while they evaluate arguments for or against anthropogenic global warming. The results challenge the politically motivated system 2 reasoning account: Rather than exacerbating the impact of partisanship per se, engaging in more reasoning led people to have greater coherence between judgments and their prior beliefs about climate change - a process that can be consistent with rational (unbiased) Bayesian reasoning. Thus, we challenge the dominant cognitive account of climate disbelief, and suggest that interventions aimed at providing accurate information about climate change may be effective in the long run.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: the Defense of CO2 (With Witnesses)
    Climate Change: The Defense of CO2 (With Witnesses) 2-22-20; Revision: 9-1-21 n the Court of Public Opinion Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has already been convicted of being an evil villain. CO2 — more specifically man-made CO2 — has been found guilty of “being the main cause of substantial, unusual, global warming.” But its case was appealed, and a new trial has just been ordered! Basically, there were two legal grounds for the appeal: a) the arguments against CO2 were circumstantial and/or inaccurate, and b) in the first go-around, CO2 was not allowed to put on an adequate legal defense. The new defenders have outlined their case below. You be the judge and jury: carefully assess the arguments and evidence presented here, and then decide whether CO2 is guilty as charged — or has it been framed. (BTW if you want some sound-bite summaries of this case, see a Physicist's View, and/or a Geologist's 32 Bullet Points Proving CO2’s Innocence, and/or a Climate Scientist’s Alarmism Rebuttal and/or a Climate Analyst’s Conclusions.) In this more technical version, each of the fifteen arguments defending CO2 are presented with citations — for a grand total of 250+ witnesses (studies and reports) that vigorously support our contentions. For those interested in the shorter, more simplified version, see this parallel document. 1 - The prosecutor asserted that rising CO2 causes global warming. However, there is considerable empirical evidence (e.g. here) that elevated levels of CO2 follow global warming, not cause it. There is no historical or experimental evidence supporting CO2 as a significant driver of atmospheric warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Heretic Why Can’T We Have a Civil Conversation About Climate?
    © 2010 Scientific American Michael D. Lemonick is senior science writer at Climate Central, a nonprofit, nonpartisan climate change think tank. For 21 years he was a science writer for Time magazine. ENVIRONMENT Climate Heretic Why can’t we have a civil conversation about climate? By Michael D. Lemonick n trying to understand the judith curry phenomenon, tiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, it is tempting to default to one of two comfortable and bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, familiar story lines. climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia In- there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it stitute of Technology, has been known for her work is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate- right, that is time well spent because we have just been too en- related topics. But over the past year or so she has become bet- cumbered by groupthink.” Iter known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of She reserves her harshest criticism for the Intergovernmen- her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For most climate scientists the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating the major reports issued by the United Nations–sponsored on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the body every five years or so constitute the consensus on climate Black board.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project
    Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project Richard Muller Robert Rohde Judith Curry Donald Groom Bob Jacobsen Saul PerlmuAer Arthur Rosenfeld CharloAe Wickham Jonathan Wurtele Elizabeth Muller Novim, U. Calif. Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Georgia Tech, Oregon State preprints and merged data now online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org Wall St. Journal Op-Ed The Case Against Global-Warming SkepOcism There were good reasons for doubt, un2l now. Are you a global warming skepOc? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be…. As submi8ed: Cooling the Warming Debate Are you a global warming skepOc? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be…. I strongly dislike the 2tle they used. I was not no2fied or warned. backwards presentaon • results first (moOvaon) • data selecOon bias, homogenizaon bias, staon quality, urban heat island • Berkeley Earth The Movie • Robert Rohde: data merging, temperature reconstrucOon, spaal and stasOcal uncertainOes Annual Land-Surface Average Temperature 12-month moving average of surface temperature over land Anomalies relative to the Jan 1950 - Dec 1979 mean these are mostly 1 Gray band indicates 95% statistical / spatial uncertainty interval AMO oscillaons 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 NASA GISS Temperature Anomaly ( °C) NOAA -1.5 HadCRU Berkeley 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 RMS = 0.26 RMS = 0.75 RMS = 1.14 RMS = 1.25 cross-correlaons NOAA (a) Tavg x AMO (b) Tavg x ENSO 0.6 GISS HadCRU Berkeley Earth 0.4 0.2 0 Correlation −0. 2 −0. 4 (c) Tavg x PDO (d) Tavg x NAO 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Correlation −0.
    [Show full text]