Credibility Meltdown for Leading Climate Scientists

The recent climate scandal involving the Climate Research Unit hack will likely prove to be a devastating blow to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates. Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun suggests:

"The 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will 'peer review' be used to shout down skeptics."

One of the documents released is a five-page document titled The Rules of the Game. A primer for propagating the AGW message to average people, the document is an abridgment of a longer document contained at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. One of its sections is entitled Blowing Away Myths. The document proposes that AGW supporters should

"forget the climate change detractors - those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change."

I find it risible that they think ignoring their opponents is equivalent to "blowing away myths." This appears to be typical behavior from AGW proponents; it screams intellectual dishonesty.

Corporate Nationalism: A Love Story

Capitalism sure is unpopular these days. When I first saw the preview of Michael Moore's new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, I noticed that Moore is either ignorant of or disingenuous towards what actually constitutes capitalism. Watching just the preview, I saw Moore present our current system of corporate nationalism as if it were capitalism. This is strange coming from someone who supports government control of business.

Conveniently omitting better solutions, Michael Moore's documentaries instead give us plenty of emotionalism, some form of conspiracy, and a lack of real supporting evidence. Michael W. Covel confirms this in his candid movie review Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid. One thing is for certain, our current system has allowed Moore to make millions from his propaganda and enjoy a more opulent lifestyle than most people in all of history. In fact, the movie industry is one of the least regulated industries in our country and more exemplary of a free market arena. Producers create a product and consumers can either take it or leave it. You would think Moore, whose net worth has been estimated to exceed $50 million, might at least acknowledge an economic system that provided the opportunity for such prosperity.

"Stimulus" Not So Stimulating

Remember when the Obama administration was sounding alarms that we have to pass a stimulus package now or unemployment would soar? Check out the following chart that shows actual data plotted next to the unemployment forecasts with and without the stimulus package via Obama's economic team:




Post hoc ergo propter hoc informs us that the chart doesn't prove that the stimulus package caused the rise in unemployment, however, it doesn't bode well for the Keynesians.

Medicare Has Been Bankrupt For Some Time

In March 2008, the U.S. government's Department of Health and Human Services published a press release stating:

This year the HI Trust Fund will spend more than its income, and from 2009 through 2017, about $342 billion will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury to cover beneficiaries' hospital insurance costs.

Medicare's Hospital Program Went Broke in 2008. Nobody Noticed.

In light of this, who in their right mind would want government to get more involved in health care? As one doctor noted, our current system is anything but a free market. Another doctor candidly said the government is the problem in health care.

Paul Krugman thinks that the free market cannot cure health care. Find out why he is dead wrong. We cannot afford to have government screw up our health care system even further than it already has; please write your Senators and Congressmen to voice your opinion.

Why Pay with Two-Dollar Bills?

Today I was browsing through one of my favorite economic sites mises.org and I noticed a title that really grabbed my attention - Why I Pay with Two-Dollar Bills. What on earth could this article be about? After reading the article, I would describe it as creative awareness. Briggs Armstrong, a student at Auburn University, devised an ingenious plan to raise awareness for Austrian economics and the maladies of The Fed's monetary policies. I thought I would throw him a keyword anchored link to solidify his plan by helping move his article to the top of Google's search results for the phrase he is telling curious people to look up. If you have a blog or website, I suggest you help Briggs out and do the same. To learn what Briggs is up to, click why pay with two-dollar bills.

The Keynesian Magic Trick

The key to a good magic trick is the art of misdirection. If I can get you to focus on this hand over here, then I can perform something else over here - a sleight of hand, if you will. A clever Keynesian will give you what seems to be a correct premise and then try to pull the wool over your eyes in the conclusion.

This sleight of hand emerges, for instance, when Paul Krugman argues that consumer spending causes the economy to grow. If you read Krugman for very long, you will notice that consumer (or government) spending is his holy grail. Spending is always in the back of his mind. Keynesians begin their argument with the definition of gross domestic product (GDP), which is in the form of an equation:

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Expenditures + Net Exports

What is the Keynesian conclusion based on this equation? "If you increase consumer consumption or maybe even government expenditures from an 800 billion dollar spending bill, you will increase GDP." That makes sense, right? If you add to one side of the equation, then the other side must increase equally.

So you are probably thinking that Keynesians have discovered the secret to economic prosperity, right? Not so fast. What if one of the variables on the right side (such as investment) decreased in equal proportion to the increase in spending? The equation would still hold true without an increase in GDP on the left side. Here's another scenario: What if investment decreases more than the other variables increase? Then you have negative growth, and a decrease in GDP. That would be counter-productive.

Maybe one day, even in the mainstream, the Keynesian fallacy will be put to rest for good.

Further Reading:

The Second Coming of Keynes

Anthropomorphic Global Warming Supporters Challenge Conservative Economics

We are not exactly sure how a debate like this gets started on Facebook, but somehow Conservative Economics managed to ruffle the feathers of two AGW supporters. It all started when we posted a joke about global warming:

"Caveman Guide to Global Warming - Great ball of fire in sky heat small rock. Smaller creatures on small rock no heat rock."

Within a few hours, Conservative Economics was slammed with ad hominem attacks insulting all skeptics of Anthropomorphic Global Warming not to mention cavemen:

AGW Supporter #1:
Cavemen are notoriously retarded.

AGW Supporter #2:
Sounds like the mentality of people who don't "believe" in global warming. Caveman is perfectly appropriate.

Conservative Economics:
Surely you can do better than argumentum ad hominem.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432&kw=warming

AGW Supporter #2:
From an actual scientific article (not a newspaper): "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

It's hardly worth it to argue this point. Refusing to believe in 20 years of research and evidence because of a few funded studies here and there is a perfectly good basis for an ad hominem comment -- because if you still aren't getting it, facts clearly aren't going to change anything.

As for IBD, it is definitely in the best interest of business for climate change to be out of our hands -- then business doesn't have to account for pollution and poor environmental practices.

Conservative Economics:
Yes, let's move the ad hominem to the news source – because clearly a scientific magazine is more able to link to scientific studies than a news magazine. The IPCC report did not conclusively link greenhouse gases to observed temperature rises. The 2007 report says that there is a 90 percent chance that a one-degree increase in temperature during the 20th century was caused by man's greenhouse gas emissions. That is a large uncertainty in scientific terms, since a 95% confidence interval is usually regarded as convincing. Your article correctly states that, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong."

Of course it is hardly worth arguing the point, when you can successfully preempt the debate with rhetoric. It is especially convenient to do so when the "consensus" is reversing direction: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

There is never a good basis for an ad hominem attack, unless you plan to subvert debate using a fallacy that may go unnoticed.

You discuss the consensus, as if "consensus" were the be-all end-all of scientific debate. What exactly is this scientific consensus? Three main points:

1. We have had some global mean warming – approximately 0.6 degrees centigrade.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming.
3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2.

Richard S. Lindzen says these are all trivial points in his paper Understanding Common Climate Claims, "While these claims may be contested, they are indeed widely accepted. The only problem is that these claims do not suggest alarm."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

I guess this scientific consensus also means that we should simply ignore the 700 International scientists (and growing) that dissent over man-made global warming claims?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Two issues that I have yet to see addressed are (1) why the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001 and (2) how humans are responsible for big increases in greenhouse gases when they only represent 3.4% of the 3.62% of greenhouse gases that are CO2 as was candidly charted at the end of the IBD article. If these points aren't addressed, then "20 years of research and evidence" doesn't mean much.

Actually, carbon trading stands to be great business for big players like Goldman Sachs. Indeed, the big business lobby is in a great position to gain from government-mandated climate control. I know it is easier to create a vacuum or conspiracy theory like "funded" studies or business "interest", but it doesn't hold any real weight for the debate. The economic reality is that small business and the American people will be losers from the higher costs of government intervention – not to mention all the corruption that is likely to surface.

AGW Supporter #2:
1. 700 scientists? Who are they? Do they study climate change? I'm a scientist. Do I count? Learn to recognize propaganda.

2. Carbon dioxide is one of six greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Learn the science.

3. Your original post was insulting and demeaning to the THOUSANDS of scientists world-wide who do believe in climate change, and to people like myself who have read about climate change for years. I am now finished with this discussion.

Conservative Economics:
1. If you weren't emotionally invested in it, you might actually read the report to find out who they are if that concerns you so much. Ever think of the IPCC and EPA being propaganda machines? I mean it is in their "best interest" to have a problem like this to "solve" is it not? This couldn't be why they suppressed the EPA scientist's recent study that had findings contrary to AGW? Regardless, I just assumed they had good intentions and read their findings. By the way, do you know how many scientists participated in the latest IPCC report? 52. Clearly, Tolstoy syndrome has set in fully for the believers. Here are just a few of the comments by skeptical scientists:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

You are free to read the rest of the 700+ in the report I linked.

2. Yes, you are right. The EPA says that motor vehicles contribute to 4 out of the 6 including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. Since you are the expert on science (and clearly I don't know science), perhaps you can answer for me why there is no correlation between hydrocarbon use (gas, oil, and coal) and temperature? Why does solar irradiance correlate well with temperature? How are the AWG supporting scientists addressing the fact that correlation is not causation in their findings? Why do these scientists focus much more on CO2 than the other greenhouse gases? Good science involves welcoming and answering questions – not avoiding them.

3. Right. So, restating your source and pointing out the uncertainty is insulting, but characterizing skeptics as "cavemen" isn't insulting and demeaning? Give me a break.

I agree with Lindzen's conclusion:

"A question rarely asked, but nonetheless important, is whether the promotion of alarmism is really good for science? The situation may not be so remote from the impact of Lysenkoism on Soviet genetics. However, personally, I think the future will view the response of contemporary society to 'global warming' as simply another example of the appropriateness of the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. For the sake of the science, I hope that future arrives soon."

What is Economics?

Lionel Robbins, a British economist, said that "Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." This might be the best definition of economics I have come across. Resources are scarce which means that people want more than is available to them. Another way of saying it is that our wants are unlimited and the resources to fulfill our wants are limited. Scarcity required us to economize, therefore the need for economics was born.

Scarcity has also required us to study trade-offs or the various uses of resources. Thomas Sowell states in his brilliant book Basic Economics:

"Not only scarcity but also "alternative uses" are at the heart of economics. If each resource had only one use, economics would be much simpler. But water can be used to produce ice or steam by itself or innumerable other mixtures and compounds in combination with other things. A virtually limitless number of products can also be produce from wood or from petroleum, iron ore, etc. How much of each resource should be allocated to each of its many uses? Every economy has to answer that question, and each one does, in one way or another, efficiently or inefficiently. Doing so efficiently is what economics is all about."

Fallacy of Economics

You may have heard the saying that an economist thinks he knows more about money than the people who have it. This comes from a misunderstanding of economics and what it entails. Decisions don't even have to involve money to be economic. Economics is not about how to make money or how to run a business. It is about the study of relationships between items such as prices, commerce, wages, and international trade from the viewpoint of how it affects the distribution of scarce resources to society. Even more broadly defined, Economics is the inquiry of praxeology - the study of human action or conduct. Ludwig von Mises championed the inclusion of all human action into the study of economics and anything less was incomplete.

Benefit of Economics

How can we benefit from economics? Economics helps us determine how well the various uses of resources affects our society. More specifically, we can determine what particular actions or policies do to either increase poverty or wealth. This can be very valuable indeed.

Why Does Government Often Fail?

Government often fails not because of the people in it, but because of the nature of government itself. Government takes whatever individual brilliance exists and turns it into collective incompetence. Most activities of the government are to "solve" problems. However, once an agency or program is setup to "solve" the problem, it is in its best interest to simply "manage" the problem. Ronald Reagan said it well,

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

Let's look closer at why government fails. If a government agency solves a "problem", it gets less money as its funds are funneled elsewhere. If a government agency fails to solve its "problem", it complains of underfunding and gets more money.

If a business solves a problem for customers, it gets more customers and more money. If a business fails to help customers solve their problems, the customers go elsewhere and the business loses money.

As you can see, the incentives are backwards with government which explains its high rate of failure.

Can you imagine a business that paid employees more if they did less work and paid them less if they did more work? The idea is clearly foolish; anyone can see that if you pay people more for doing a poor job, it won't be long before all the employees are doing as little work as possible to increase their pay. Doing a good job is challenging, but any boob can do a poor job.

Ron Paul Predicted Housing Crisis

Why am I not surprised that Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis back in September of 2003?

"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

It is too bad government didn't listen to him then, but how often do they really ever take heed to sound advice?

Check out the full text of the hearing at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html