Why Climate Change Doesn't Matter

Hi:

The disconnect you speak of seems to surprise you..??..

.....Bill

Yes, it definitely surprised me -- especially on the streets of Boston, which is in a more liberal area of the country.

Not that it should be a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, but interest in the topic does sometimes tend to fall along partisan lines. Therefore, one would think that the outcome would be different.

Hi:

My view is a bit different... given the "thinking capacity" of the masses, I find that asking them to go beyond one level deep is allot. That is, they get going RE over conventional is OK... easy to understand... wind and sun are free so given long enough I will get my money back and then some ... or using wind and sun VS chopping off the top of a mountain seems like it is less harmful ... Ok... BUT to ask them to start making causal relationships between our daily energy and lifestyle existence with climate... well.. it may roll off their lips but there is no substance behind it ... you are asking way too much I think....
So to me what you encountered is of no surprise....
Your view, I think, is just a function of singing with the choir too much rather than the general public... an occupational hazard....
...remember most people really can not sing....

.....Bill

Bill:
I agree -- RE versus conventional is easy to understand. There are a number of ways to convey that without getting bogged down in difficult discussions about climate science that people find hard to imagine.

I do, however, think it's important to have these conversations around climate science. In fact, given what we've seen with "Climategate," it shows that we need to be more open about the research in the public domain.

But when it comes to renewables, we have a lot of benefits on our side that should be prominent in the public conversation. That's what I'm getting at in this post....

Very well articulated explanation of the US psyche, Stephen. It always seemed to me that the economic argument held more meaning in the US, and it is especially true now that we are in recession. A political consultant once told me an enviornmental argument only works in the US when the economy is running full tilt.

Why should anyone who has honestly followed the hyping of global warming, name changed to 'hide the decline', be surprised that exposure of the corruption of real science by government employees at NASA/NOAA/GISS and the CRU, government funded academics, scientific ignorant politicians and the media might raise doubts in the common man/woman?
These are some of the views of the cabal of scientists, politicians and environmentalist, excluding the inane ravings of Al Gore and James Hansen as they are well known, that deliberately choose to ignore all scientific findings to push their agenda of absolute control of all energy sources by unneeded, draconian regulations and taxes.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
- Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models."
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Here is the view of a distinguished scientist:
In 1996 Fredrick Seitz,President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
described the 1996 consensus IPCC report as "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report"..."If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned
with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question." ( http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/majordeception.html
A Major Deception on Global Warming by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996"

"Mr. Seitz also cited NAS' own study which states, inter alia, the earth
has been subjected to impressive and abrupt swings in climate during recent
periods covering thousands of years and that mankind's role cannot be
assessed without adequate .... baseline documentation of natural climate
variability"..
So who are you going to believe a noted scientist or no-nothing politicians, government scientists, government funded academics and agenda driven environmentalist?

Since the average person is very ignorant, especially when it comes to science, I am not surprised they do not take climate science seriously. In addition, most people have trouble distinguishing between climate and weather. They can see the weather still gets cold in winter, so they don't understand why scientists keep saying the earth is warming up.

Hi Stephen:

No, I get it.. IE your driving points and agree... what I find funny is the never ending supply of confusion like in the e-patrick post...
Climate change is really common sense... our entire living atmosphere is nothing more than a layer of paint on a beach ball.. There are 6 Billion of us and growing... Looking at the simplest of images like polar time lapse or glacier video time lapse compositions etc... shows a non mistakable very rapid trend... All the ice is getting smaller... and on and on... so why is there such a drive to make the whole issue complex..??.. Simple. The number of excuses available not to act keeping in line with the power interests is directly proportional to the perceived complexity of the issue. The more complex, the more excuses... The less complex, the fewer excuses... Why do sane people not play Russian roulette..??.. Because you have a 1 in 6 chance of blowing your brains out. Simple. The reason is simple and non avoidable as to not engage in the action. However, if we can find a way to complicate the issue, laws, terminal illness due to old age or disease, pubic safety, insurance claim rights, an individuals right to choose, etc., etc... well, maybe we can find a way to excuse it after all...and find reason to have a big and ongoing debate about it...yes..

.....Bill

In 1948, George Orwell warned us of coming intellectual/cultural change in "1984" The media will and has today become the Ministry of Truth.
Marshall McLuhan told us how the change would come. The phrase "the medium is the message" is coined from his 1964 book "Understanding Media" . The book did not predict the internet. TV and other one-way visual delivery systems change the way people think. Not ignorant just non-analytic. Why bother when answers are always delivered within the 60 second production. We no longer need to collect facts.
Paul Simon said it best in "The Boxer" --- "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is enforceable in all nations. Entropy is such a geeky word. A difficult concept for anyone to understand yet is at the core of any discussion which includes the misleading phrases global warming, global cooling or climate change. The continued use of these phrases will continue to link the weather to the issue in the public mind. Just look out your own window, that is all you need to know.

Mr.Fitch,
When the truth is said to be a "never ending supply of confusion" what we have is a real "failure to communicate".(Cool hand Luke). So please highlight your areas of confusion so they can be discussed.
The original driving force supporting renewable energy was the repeated drumbeat that CO2 is an evil compound causing 'global warming. Once the earth stopped warming as CO2 continued to rise, confirmed now by Phil Jones former head of the CRU, the problem was renamed to 'climate change' even though the earth's climate has cycled over hundreds of millions of years between ice ages and extreme warm periods and such extreme changes are not new now or in the future and man's activities had nothing to do with the changes, only Mother Nature and the motions of the earth and its universe. Seems very simple when the agendas are stripped away and only scientific facts are considered.

Stephen, if the climate change debate was about common sense you would have valid points but like Dennis said quoting Paul Simon, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
This is no longer about climate change or if it is man-made or naturally occurring. This is about apathy and money. Change is part of life, the part most people do kicking and screaming, but responsibility wins out in the end. Not This Time. This time its about the economy and jobs, and if it means we burn more coal to create a robust economy Right Now, then the climate be damned.
I do not agree, but the ground gained we tree hugging liberals willing to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas if it means we get away from fossil fuels, has been lost, lost its momentum, because people are losing jobs and change hurts and nobody wants to do it now anymore.

It's sad that CG boils down to weather change (from year to year), and that it's relevant whether it's natural or man-made. And with many people still thinking an upcoming technology will fix everything, many others still clinging to guns and religion, or not making ends meet, and others thinking buying clothes from the Goodwill is all it takes, yep, I'm not surprised CG doesn't matter.

Then it's the argument that 150 millions ago the planet had much higher levels of CO2 and other gases, so it can't be that bad. Sure, just that mammals didn't exist, much less the Homo gene, or for that matter, the modern human being. But then, the planet is not that old, God just made the planet look old.

For those in disbelief of CG, go bathe and drink from the Chesapeake Bay. Hmm, yummy! And yes, that's man-made.

VMH

We may be spending a lot of time and funding on the wrong subjects..

Most people will agree that we are running through our supply of Fossil Fuels faster than they can be replenished. At some point in the future coal, natural gas and petroleum will be depleted. No arguments there. We need to take action now to have a more sustainable energy supply for that reason alone. Perhaps Climate Change should be viewed as the "Canary in the coal mine" that prods the US and the world to change our wasteful ways a bit faster than we would have otherwise.

It took less than a minute for the first moronic argument.

"...the earth's climate has cycled over hundreds of millions of years between ice ages and extreme warm periods and such extreme changes are not new now or in the future and man's activities had nothing to do with the changes..."

Patrick, when you're done counting rocks in the Institution's backyard, please tell us the human population during those millions of years of wild climate change. I'll give you hint: It starts with a zero.

Among others, one reason the Homo gene thrived is the somewhat stable climate trend. The last 10,000 years has been great for Homo sapiens. Not that great for the Neanderthal, which parished, coincidentally, when the climate changed.

VMH

Confusion on the e-patrick post? Who's confused? I thought he hit things on the head quite well. As I sat back and read each of the comments, I was reminded again why I'm well right-of-center in my politics. The elitism, the smugness, the arrogance shown by most of you who talk about the "stupid people" out there that just don't get it. Then your attitude that you know what's best for all of us stupid people out here that disagree with you. My disagreement on climate change is based on my own thorough analysis of as much raw information I can get my hands on, not rehashed politically paid yes-man reporting.

I'm one of the engineers out here that thinks renewable energy should be aggressively developed for all of the reasons stated EXCEPT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. Oh, we should also throw in a few Gw of nuclear too (talk about climate change impact!).

e-patrick, keep up the good posts. This one was well presented. There's at least one professional electrical engineer out here that agrees with your positions.

Stuart

Hi All:

ep.. your whole post... does the phrase "out of context" mean anything to you..??..
The purpose of any language is to communicate a meaning, FIRST.. the exact words by themselves are of little consequence.. a lawyer in a court room saying to the witness... did you not say, "I will kill you".. really has no meaning because the context is missing... it could mean anything from a threat from a crazed sociopath to a funny party joke from the office clown.
But by all means, lets just keep playing their game of complexity and mis-information.. their profits must be maintained...
VMH ... love the sarcasm...

.....Bill

Mr. Fitch,
A convoluted series of meaningless, off topic words do not constitute a response, that is "out of context". If you have a position state it

I really like the picture of the American scrooge. I also agree with the general premise of the article that climate change should take a back seat to economic issues.

But please don't excuse Americans by saying it is hard to visualize global warming. Just look at pictures of polar bears floating on icebergs. People from other countries get it. Certainly Europeans and Chinese. China has become a lab for new renewable energy technologies.

American support for technological progress, entrepreneurship, job creation and citizen empowerment ends at resource-based industries. The right opposes new technologies that threaten the status quo. Union workers are similar. The left hates economic growth, supporting mainly only windpower and conservation. Europe has no venture capital markets.

The world needs free markets (not the monopolies of the right or the big government takeovers of the left). The West is bankrupting and its people are to blame.

Anonymous, VMH,
There were a civilizations during the following period of major climate changes but probably little human generated CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels..
If one actually looks at long term variability which means using common sense and historical records there is overwhelming evidence that major significant climate changes occurred in the past without human input or human driven warming or cooling have occurred. The end of the Last Ice Age,The Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages are examples and another example is in the latest Smithsonian magazine regarding climate change in what is now the Sahara Desert. This is a history of long term variability in which humans and CO2 played no part.

Uncovering Secrets of the Sphinx
"The Sahara has not always been a wilderness of sand dunes. German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, analyzing the radiocarbon dates of archaeological sites, recently concluded that the region's prevailing climate pattern changed around 8,500 B.C., with the monsoon rains that covered the tropics moving north. The desert sands sprouted rolling grasslands punctuated by verdant valleys, prompting people to begin settling the region in 7,000 B.C. Kuper and Kröpelin say this green Sahara came to an end between 3,500 B.C. and 1,500 B.C., when the monsoon belt returned to the tropics and the desert reemerged. That date range is 500 years later than prevailing theories had suggested.
Further studies led by Kröpelin revealed that the return to a desert climate was a gradual process spanning centuries. This transitional period was characterized by cycles of ever-decreasing rains and extended dry spells. Support for this theory can be found in recent research conducted by Judith Bunbury, a geologist at the University of Cambridge. After studying sediment samples in the Nile Valley, she concluded that climate change in the Giza region began early in the Old Kingdom, with desert sands arriving in force late in the era."
Very little in the way of "moronic argument" in factual history

It's not surprising that when faced with a massive long-term trend like climate change (really, global destabilization), many people reject such a scary concept. It's easier to embrace the idea that it's just part of some natural cycle. Polar caps melting? Oh, don't worry, they'll refreeze. And the more Al Gore beats the drums of fear, as he did in a lengthy Op-Ed piece in Sunday's New York Times (2/28), the more some people turn away.

Stephen is absolutely right that climate change does not matter for the deployment of renewables, which most people do believe in. To promote their adoption, we need to appeal to common sense, economic self-interest and patriotism by stressing the value of renewables in saving consumers and organizations money, creating jobs, reducing air pollution, and securing our independence from oil largely produced by despotic regimes.

For people who believe in climate change, they already got the message. For people who don't, let's leave the fear card off the table. Climate change is a macro issue for governments to solve, not a micro issue necessary to drive the renewables business.

Mr. Neisun,
The development of renewables is a worthy goal, however if " the fear card is left off
the table" that must include the fear of CO2. The economics, reliability,energy balance and effect on other environmental issues, e.g.,water requirements, of all energy sources should be the primary considerations. No one energy source should be selected or one or more banned for political or other reasons. Energy independence will depend on using every available resource as Brazil is showing the way in developing their own energy sources.

People understand ugly, loud, pollution, lung disease, and other issues from dirty ways of doing things. The desire to use and promote renewables revolves around outcomes that people want. Asking them to believe things they cannot or will not independently verify distracts from getting efficiency and the installed base that so many want to see. Coaxing out customers' own reasons will take us forward faster.

We must plan and finance a transition to renewable energy because if we don't use the energy we have to build a system that runs on renewable energy, we will not have the energy needed to build that system when exhaustible, non renewable energy supplies become too expensive to extract or are depleted. If we do not make this transition we will revert to a preindustrial society. The longer we wait the more expensive it will become. We will reach a point where there is not enough energy left in the form of fossil fuels to make the transition to renewable energy. Cap and Trade and Climate Change are irrelevant to this discussion. Let's change the argument to "Nothing Lasts Forever". Build a renewable energy economy or be prepared to live in a preindustrial society.

Anybody see the new Britney Spears video? Oh, wait, wrong post.
Okay, let's take a different perspective on this since it's apparent everyone is digging in their heels.
Stephen, the original intention of your article/survey is correct: More people doubt global warming is happening or that it's a byproduct of human interaction. (And I don't mean the human interaction at the bar on Saturday night.) And you're right that it's a complex issue most people can't grasp because of the complexities and back-and-forth debates (as demonstrated above) involved.
Personally, I'm on the fence. I agree humanity probably has had a hand in the climate changes and earth-warming we've seen recently. Hell, we humans have a grand history of turning almost anything we touch into a shitpile.
But at the same time I'm unsure as to the DEGREE our interactions have caused these changes. The fact is there have always been turbulent weather patterns and we simply have not been monitoring the Earth long enough to know the COMPLETE cycle of these patterns. Maybe in another thousand years we will, but right now we're using baby formula to feed Uncle Charley and he's not satisfied.
So, let's try this: Go for renewables and conservation on the precept that, in this New World Economy, it will create jobs locally, reduces dependence on foreign oil, reduces pollution, boosts the economy, and stops the heartbreak of psoriasis. Basically what SteveNelsun said. Good point, Steve.
Now, with THAT in mind, the end result will be a reduction in humanity's interaction in the environment. Use the prompt of RE to promote jobs and industry, and the back-end will be reduction of GHG's, normalized climate, and happy Swedes dancing in the lilies.
Start with the money, end with the honey. (Hmm, this seems to go back to Saturday night at the bar...)
Anyway, that's my two bits. And I think this is what we're seeing in the Obama administration lately. They understand Climate Change, but they've realized most people don't give a hoot in hell about it if they can't put meat on the dinner table.

It must be "post your moronic comment for free" day.

"…I was reminded again why I'm well right-of-center in my politics."

Oh yeah, politics is changing the climate. All the hanging and pregnant chads of the Florida election are now in the Pacific Garbage Patch. But don't worry, all the right-of-center folks, the temperature, sea levels, toxic gases levels, etc, will stay just fine for you. Ask all the right-of-center folks from Grand Island, LA. The water is rising for their pesky left-of-center neighbors, but it's BAU for the righties.


"…all of us stupid people…"
Ad-hominem doesn't belong in these forums, but self-inflict tells you all about the person.

VMH

...you mean the Paris Hilton beer ad don't you.... more recent...LOL...
...and ep... and neither do strung together sound bytes in print and selected article extractions constitute proof or even a working coherent hypothesis...
A result can come from many causes and nowhere in science or logic does it universally DEMAND that the existence of one cause negate the participation of the other in the observed result. So whether or not climate swings in the past, had or had not a human hand in the mix, that in and of itself does not offer proof of denial for our current situation and the human factor...

.....Bill

Oh boy! More?

"There were civilizations during the following period of major climate changes but probably little human generated CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels."

Please do enlighten us. Which civilizations? Let me help you, because you ran out of writing space in your palm. Wiki: "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago." That's me. You may be of another planet. Wiki: "The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago." Wiki: "Estimated world population at various dates (in millions) … 8000 BC .. 5" Wiki: "The Medieval Warm Period … was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China, New Zealand, and other countries, lasting from about AD 800–1300." Wiki: "Estimated world population at various dates (in millions) … 1000 AD … 310 … 1750 AD … 791"

So, Patty, you're telling us that 5 million people worldwide didn't cause an ice age, and that 500 million people worldwide didn't cause a heat wave, neither of which with access to fossil fuels. Bunch of lazy ancestors, I tell ya. You can add one more to your book of awesome common sense assumptions: Americans didn't make Mt St Helens erupt.

Now let's see what 7 billion people with unlimited access to fossil fuel can do.

We got you covered. You can keep on counting rocks.

VMH

"Asking them to believe things they cannot or will not independently verify distracts from getting efficiency and the installed base that so many want to see."

Two awesome human-made destinations: Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. See it, taste it, smell it, bathe it in. It's small scale, and it shouldn't be qualified as CG, but definitely human-made, within the 48, easy access.

Anonymous, thank you for your sarcasm. You made me laugh out loud. You must be an apolitical cynical, I think we would get along well in any raucous bar.

Please read the threads here under to understand that whatever happens at the top, Stephen Lacey is right on the money, and many other things . . . . .

http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2171

http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4/PB4ch5_intro

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/986517/Iberdrola-outlines-renewables-expansion/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

http://www.grist.org/article/chinas-changing-energy-economy/

http://www.flanderstoday.eu/content/enfinity-signs-%E2%82%AC8-billion-contract-china

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2009/09/solar_plant_will_power_3_million_homes_in_china.html?src=rss

a-b, I'm glad I'm a source of relief. The first round is on me, raucous bar or not.

Everytime I hear a link between CG and politics, religion, mankind, what have you, that's a source of comic relief right there. I can't wait for the blogs on the snow in the south and the no-snow in Vancouver. I'm sure that too will be blamed on politics.

Cheers,

VMH

Reply to e-patrick-mosman: CO2 is a pollutant. In saying we should "leave the fear card off the table," I was addressing what the renewables industry should be doing in selling and marketing its products, which as Stephen Lacey said, doesn't require us to push the concept of global warming. That is distinct from what governments should do: regulate the discharge of CO2 into the atmosphere. There must be a cost associated with burning carbon-based products and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, whether through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.

Stephen, to your point, I do believe that there is a common consensus that RE, in all of its forms, are better for the planet and therefore, we can all be on the same page. Then the question becomes paying for getting to our RE friendly World.

I think if fossil fuel companies weren't discrediting and throwing doubt at climate change science, they would be focusing their PR and doubt machines on portraying the costs "unaffordable" without subsidies. (That coal and gas companies are subsidized is never to be mentioned.)

Whether speaking of converting our energy to RE or climate change, I believe the solution is consistent, accurate, transparent communication about RE and its benefits, and consistent, transparent communication about the hazards and hidden cost of fossil fuels and other air and water pollutants.

If we can focus on those two tactics, I do believe progress will be made for the world, whether or not climate change is a reality.

For the record, I do believe climate change is a real and man-made. For skeptics and believers alike, here's a great website that tracks all of the arguments. It shows annotated, scientific responses for each skeptic claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com.

There is also a free, corresponding iPhone App so that you can have all of this information at your iPhone fingertips.

"I do believe climate change is ... man-made"

Did you mean entirely man-made, Fred? Climate has changed on its own many times before man, mammals, and vertebrates even existed. There's nothing new with CG.

However, in this one CG, I believe man has a finger on it. Man has been changing courses of rivers, shaving crests of hills, adding to and extracting substances from the oceans, and digging fossils for over 300 years --which took millions of years to be locked and allowed for the prosperity of man.

If you meant entirely man-made, dunno 'bout that.

The danger about this one CG, is that we, and our mothers and little sisters, live now and will have to endure it. I don't like to see them suffering, but that's just me.

VMH

If CO2 is a pollutant why would Phil Jones, former head of the CRU, state there has been no statistical significant increase in the earth's temperature in the last decade even as CO2 increases? Why would scientists issue a report recently that pinpoints H20 as a major player, 2 1/2 times more potent than CO2? What is the truth about CO2, science and man-made computer generated predictions? Let's consider the latter:
"Let's teach our children the truth about Carbon Dioxide, the life blood of the earth's atmosphere. Until CO2 entered the atmosphere there was no oxygen, life as we know did not exist. CO2 is exhaled with every breath of every human on earth. CO2 is a necessary fact of life just as trees are necessary to convert the CO2 to O2 whcich we inhale in order to live. Teach our children that the local weather man using the most up-to-date climate data and climatalogical computer models cannot forcast next weeks, next months or next years weather and that the computer generated hurricane forecasts for 2005 grossly underestimated their number, strength and location while the 2006 forecast grossly overestimated the number, strength and location of hurricanes. Teach our children that scientists are not able to predict future happenings even using their best assumptions, the best available climate data and the best computer models. Teach our children that consensus science is an oxymoron as many, if not most of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by individual scientists, often ridiculed and even silenced by the consensus crowd. Teach our children about Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Fermi, Carver, Franklin, Bell, Edison,Hawking and other real scientists and not about Al Gore, a politician posing as a scientist and the IPCC cabal.."

What you probably will not see in the MSM or on ABCCBSNBCPBS and their cable news.
A FOIA reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to help cover up two economic studies pointing to the failure of European wind energy programs. March 3, 2010 - by Christopher Horner
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama's assertions regarding the success of Spain's and Denmark's wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.
Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy — specifically the office headed by Al Gore's company's former CEO, Cathy Zoi — turned to George Soros' Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama's wind energy proposals.
The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute "inter-agency memoranda." This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros's Center for American Progress are — for legal purposes — extensions of the government.
This is a defense commonly employed against FOIA requests when seeking to withhold certain communications with, for example, paid consultants.
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" if they wanted to know what successful "green jobs" policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources." The paper concluded that Spain's "green jobs" program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
The president of Spain's renewable energy association — along with a Communist Party affiliated trade federation — decried the paper's lead author as being unpatriotic.
The former wrote in Spain's leading paper, El Mundo, slamming the research paper. However, he did not critique the paper itself — he agreed with its conclusion. He was furious only that the study was publicized. By revealing the truth about Spain's increasingly mythologized "green jobs" and renewable energy experience, the revealed study threatened the prospects for Spain's companies to be bailed out by the U.S. repeating these mistakes.
Incidentally, this became a common refrain. After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted "green jobs" program.
Soon, Denmark produced a study ("Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark") through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama's claim about Denmark's "renewables" experience was also steeped in mythology.
The response from windmill advocates in Denmark was similar: such studies threaten Danish industry by reducing the chances that the U.S. will serve as the hoped-for massive new market to make inefficient energy sources profitable for their foreign manufacturers (Danish Radio TV News, Thursday, February 25, 2010).
Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for "Big Wind" in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper.
Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado.
NREL is an extension of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE is run by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, who, until assuming this post, served as CEO to Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. Zoi is responsible for many millions of the "green jobs" stimulus dollars pushed for and designed by Van Jones (this according to Jones himself).
The Obama administration's criticisms — drafted in often personal terms — distilled to two main points, which we now know were politicized, lobbyist-assisted complaints. These were:

– The Spanish paper suffered from a "lack of rigor."
– The Spanish paper applied "consensus economics."

NREL made the most noise regarding the latter, upset that the Spaniards refused to use the input-output (or Leontief) methodology designed for central planning, in which all is assumed to be knowable, controllable, and static. This method has been discredited outside of social democratic government agencies and select associations. Instead, the Spanish study relied upon methodology employed by real-world businesses in competitive fields when deciding how to deploy resources — which is not "non-traditional," as claimed by NREL.
When the two studies had appeared, I wrote:

In the face of some recent pushback — for example, from the studies out of Spain and Denmark referenced in this space on numerous occasions — the windmill welfare queens over at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) have been cranking up the snivel volume to eleven.
Reading the group's press releases it does seem that they even had a hand in getting the president of the United States to sic a taxpayer-funded agency on a foreign academic study about a foreign country's experience with its own policies, because said academic team and its writings threaten the welfare if the word gets out.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that the assertion was correct. The Obama administration produced this denunciation at the behest of, and with the active participation of, the wind energy's lobby.
The first sign that something improper had occurred came when NREL responded to media inquiries claiming that the paper was entirely the DoE's idea, while the DoE's Office of Congressional Affairs wrote to a Senate oversight office to claim that it was all NREL's doing.
As I noted in my FOIA requests to both DoE and NREL:

We note that one of two co-authors of the above-cited NREL paper, which paper attests that "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government," is on record in an E&E News story announcing of the project, "DOE requested the analysis be performed."
However, DOE Congressional Affairs is on record saying the following:
NREL initiated the report on their own as part of their on-going analytical role to assess emerging issues and monitor external studies and develop internal memos or external documents to address research that is at odds with DOE/EERE scientific understanding.
We therefore seek documents revealing the origins of the effort and clarifying the alternating, mutually exclusive claims of NREL saying DoE told me to do it and DoE telling Congress that it was all NREL's idea, fully aware of of DoE's extant protestations to congressional offices that the above-cited paper is of like kind with other NREL products (noting here that no paper DoE cites is comparable on any level [citations omitted]).

The question "which time are you lying?" came to mind, though it was not at all clear that the answer could not be "both." The FOIA documents — 900 pages, so far — show great internal concern among high level DoE political appointees when this question was pressed, and a resistance to put the answer in writing.
The provided documents conclude with emails citing late-night phone calls to get the story straight, and calling — with "high importance" — a meeting at 9:00 a.m., September 22, 2009, in the office of Ms. Zoi's chief operating officer, Steven Chalk. The meeting was called to "huddle up" face-to-face to put things straight.
Congressman James Sensenbrenner wrote to Ms. Zoi two days later, asking five specific questions about how and by whose instruction this NREL paper was produced. On January 6, 2010, Zoi wrote back with a one-paragraph reply which either failed or refused to provide answers to any of the queries.
We now know that the prospect of such answers seeing the light of day was clearly of great concern to the DoE. This raises the question of whether, by refusing to share information sought by the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Global Warming, Ms. Zoi lied to or misled a member of Congress exercising his legitimate oversight function.
Over the coming days I will produce specifics of these internal emails and emails between the administration and the windmill lobby (think numerous European companies, not merely a few utilities and GE).
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-anti-lobbyist-obama-administration-recruited-left-wing-lobbyists-to-sell-bogus-green-jobs/

The premise of the article is similar to that of Thomas Friedman's 'Hot Flat and Crowded': pursuit of RE is to the long term benefit of mankind regardless of the arguments surrounding man made climate change, for reasons of energy scaricity, security, sustainability etc etc. America needs RE and some serious attempt at being less wasteful of energy because traditional sources will become more expensive and scarcer.

So the article is valid as far as it goes. But it fails to address the bigger issue: if emissions of greenhouse gasses and CO2 in particular are detrimental to the atmosphere then how do we cope with the huge impending emissions from coal fired power stations in China and India? CCS may be pretty much proven science but it is very expensive. I'm afraid to say that Americans may argue till the cows come home about climate science and fossil fuels, but the game will be won and lost in the developing nations of Asia.

What e-pat et al fail to address is the uncertainty around the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate. The greenhouse effect is simple and proven, but climate science as a whole is complex and the climate models are imperfect, and as has been said many times, smart people don't play Russian roulette.

Hi:

Well, if for a moment you take all the above lengthy dialog as fact, again, just for a moment, I conclude the following:
Since it is obvious that ALL of the corruption techniques and money interests that have been refined in the world and are alive and well in the conventional energy industries and government bodies of our planet, have now moved into the RE sectors as well, I think we should abandon RE so as to limit their spread as much as possible. This way at least we know where the problems are and can control the damage. After all, who would have thought that the same ultimate goal (Money) conducted by the same species (Humans) using the same social systems on the same planet would have possibly allowed the same fate to befall RE.... What a surprise.. This revelation changes everything.... LOL...

.....Bill

Bill, today is "post your lengthy non-sense comment for free" day.

Gadzooks, man, did you really read all that non-sense? You've got time in your hands. We need to get you a job at the Institution, pronto, to see if you can tell Patty there's new shipment of rocks fresh from Prince William Sound. Tell him there's extra vanilla pudding if he can tell the difference between the rocks MSM and ABCCBSNBCPBS painted with fake black ink and the ones tainted with Exxon's finest crude.

Cheer-ios,

VMH

When talking with people that hold differing opinions on the issues of climate change, I find that the "Insurance Analogy" is easily understood and often strikes a chord.

Consider this:
Let's say I have a Fire Marshal telling me that the old "fixer-upper" house that I just bought will very likely burn down in the next 5 years, as a result of my new TVs putting too much load on the aged wires.
Let's say I also have a good buddy who is an Electrician telling me that the wiring is fine, and I have nothing to worry about.
Half of my experts are telling me the house will burn. Half of the experts are telling me it will not. To me, that sounds like a 50% chance of a fire.
They don't have to agree, and I don't have to believe one or the other. With a 50% risk of fire, I am still going to buy insurance.

So, back to climate change:
We have some scientists saying that climate change is caused by human actions and will result in negative consequences. We have some scientists saying the opposite.
Policy makers should take the insurance approach. Policy does not have to be based off of a certainty of a known future. When there is a risk of some undesirable event, err on the side of caution, and buy the insurance.

Good analogy... preparing for the worst is always smart....

.....Bill
PS: I wonder if Stephens rate is based on blog responses...LOL
If so, I think this one will allow him to retire....

CNblevins,

That's a really wonderful, simple analogy, and I intend to use it with these personal debates that I have. Thanks so much.

More democracy, less kleptocracy!

BoobsNotBombs.Net

Another analogy might be that a financial consultant approaches you or your company with a financial plan that he has developed using the leading Phd academics in economics, mathematics, business, computer science. The computer generated program is based on the data collected by the economists and corrected using the most sophisticated algorithms to conform to best business practices provided by the business academics. The use of this plan is expensive but the consultant predict that within 50 to 100 years you will be wealthy beyond your imagination. In the short term say, one to twenty or maybe thirty years the actual state of your account might vary considerably from the forecast due to natural occurring business cycles or unforeseen events. In truth, the model's forecasts has been incorrect for the last decade or so, but the consensus is that long range forecasts are absolutely certain.
The raw data, the mathematics supporting the algorithms, the corrected data and the computer programs are secret and will not be available to you and once you sign up and commence contributing to the plan you cannot withdraw ever.

Reading E-P-M comments made me think of this post:

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/a-conversation-at-a-poker-game/

Worth a 2 minute read if you have the time.

disdaniel

The reading was worth the time, but reading Patty's comments make roll on the floor and laugh out loud.

Patty is arguing that 7 billion people playing with fire in the sandbox has zero effect on the sandbox, because he has evidence that when there were 5 million playing without tools, no harm was done then.

Hey, Patty, another question: where were you when common sense was being given away for free?

VMH

Mr. Lacey,
Perhaps you would care to comment on the the following articles. Apparently this is an instance that when the facts from Spain and Denmark don't fit the theory that green industries create jobs the green lobby and investors wield their influence to have the DOE change the facts.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/obama_administration_protectin.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/rep_sensenbrenner_wants_answer.html

Wow, I'm glad that I stumbled across this post! Great conversation!

Here's my .2 cents worth..."Liars figure and figures lie"

The bad news is that the folks who think that global warming is a bunch of huey have a fair amount of ammunition on their side. We really do lack a fundamental base line to compare recent climate changes against, so it makes it difficult to definitively state that Global warming is for real or not.

Also, it's just plain difficult to wrap our heads around a system that is soooo complex as global climate which makes it easy for skeptics to find places that are actually cooling down or where the desert seems to be retreating, etc.

Throw in a bit of misconception funded by big oil/coal and it's no wonder that 70% of the people that you talked to Stephen had their doubts.

The "good" news is that, as you and others pointed out, it doesn't matter. You can take global warming off the table and no matter which way you slice it, renewable energy development is, at this point, inevitable.

The question is how quickly this development will occur. If we delay, it will cost us more, probably much more than if we start now.

This will be especially true if what I've read about "Ocean Acidification" is accurate.

While you can argue with Global warming, it's much more difficult to dismiss the fact that our oceans are becoming much more acidic which is killing the coral reefs where 85% of the oceans creatures spend some part of their life cycle.

The "FACTS" of the matter are that we're killing the oceans, which in turn puts our very survival as a species in doubt. Even if that last statement was a bit over the top, if we don't address this issue, it has the potential to get REALLY ugly!

Damn,that .2 cents worth turned into a nickel's worth!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell