If you want a piece of Nordhaus to go with your Stern

Nordhaus and Shellenberger will be on line at TPM Cafe discussing their new book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Joseph Romm has already cut a slice.

What do Michael Crichton, Bjørn Lomborg, Frank Luntz, George W Bush (and his climate/energy advisors) have in common with Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus? They all believe 1) new “breakthrough” technologies are needed to solve the global warming problem and 2) investing in such technology is far more important than regulating carbon. . .

Why two people who say they care about the environment, Shellenberger & Nordhaus (S&N), embrace it, I don’t understand. Their instant new bestseller, unhelpfully titled Break Through — has already been endorsed by Roger Pielke, Jr. and Gregg Easterbrook and The National Review — ’nuff said. You can read all the misinformation you want from them online in their landmark essay, "The Death of Environmentalism” and recent articles in The New Republic (subs. req’d) and Gristmill (here and here).

S&N simply don’t know what they’re talking about. Worse, their message plays right into the hands of those who counsel delay. For that reason, I will spend some time debunking them. Here is the most dangerous S&N falsehood, from TNR:

"Over the last ten years, a consensus has emerged among energy policy experts–one no less important than the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions are warming the earth. What’s needed, they say, are disruptive clean-energy technologies that achieve non-incremental breakthroughs in both price and performance."

Uhh, no. Energy policy is my field, and I have talked to virtually all of the leading energy policy experts over the past few years. A few believe as S&N do (mostly academics), but the majority do not – especially those who are actual energy practitioners or who have taken the time to educate themselves on climate science. Yes, they all want much higher funding for clean energy R&D — who doesn’t??? (other than the phantom “pain- and-sacrifice-loving” environmentalists that only S&N seem to have met).

But the energy practioners know that meaningful breakthroughs rarely if ever happen in energy (a key point I will return to in the next post). I can say that with very high confidence since I ran the federal office responsible for doing the vast majority of the research into new carbon-free technologies.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger get their pony.

Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

The bunnies at the bar (Eli has discovered a nice new one within walking distance of the lab, with Hoegaarden, Guiness and Pilsner Urquell) were wondering why the Robinsons have once again taken pen in hand. The Robinsons, as you may recall, together with Sallie Balliunas and Willie Soon are the major authors in the genre of climate fiction and fantasy. Their mangnum faux pas was the center piece of the Oregon Deception Project. As we mentioned yesterday they have done it again, without Sallie, who may have some limits. Mark Chopping brings word in the comments to Eli's post on the Oregon Deception Project .

They are still at it! I received a packge today (October 5, 2007). You would think that they might do a little research before mailing -- clearly they have $$ to waste. I will have to spend some time thinking about what to return in the postage-paid envelope.

So, debunking this thing with as much publicity as possible becomes an urgent matter. Into the scribitorium young mice. Eli is going to have another beer

Before there was E&E there was JPANDS

The mice have spotted an undated version of the Soon Baliunas, Robinson and Robinson paper the Fred Seitz had mailed to accompany the OISM petition. This treasure appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons under the name of the Robinsons, Art and Zach, father and son. How Idso of them. Sally and Willie are not on the paper, which leaves us with the hope that there was not enough money to pay them this time. If you miss them you can find the original at the Document Hotel a service of VulnerabilityNet.org

Eli has downloaded the paper and is reading the thing (for this you should pay me big time), but here he just wants to point out that before Energy and Environment took over the title of Journal of Denial, JPANDS was there. It is open source, because they have to give the thing away.

JPANDS is the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, an outfit founded in 1943 to fight the evil of socialism and especially anything that threatened the income of US physicians, the older brother of the John Birch Society as it were. The executive director, Jane Orient, is a Clinical Lecturer in Medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and (hold on tight) Professor of Medicine for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It appears from the description on their site, that like the Robinsons she bats from both sides for the wingnuts that hide in Arthur and Zachary's barn:

Professor Orient serves as medical advisor for the Institute's projects involving human health and disease. She is author of numerous books, including Sapira's Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis, a widely used primary physician's diagnostic reference work.

Dr. Orient is President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and of Physicians for Civil Defense. In those capacities, she has worked extensively on Institute projects on civil defense. She is also author of two books on grammar and spelling included in the Robinson home school curriculum and of several sections of the curriculum's course of study, especially examinations in reading comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary.

BTW she pulls down $150,000 per year from the AAPS for 25 hours/week of work according to their tax returns, teaches at the University Medical School and is Professor of Medicine at OISM. Good work if you can get it.

FWIW, the version of the OISM SBRR (Stoat Syndrome warning) at VN appears to actually have been published in an Inter-Research journal called Climate Research. Inter-Research is another odd little group, but at least on its face serious. Have to grep the sucker against the uroriginal.

The sparrow brings word. .

Aethon and his friend the sparrow (thanks Jack) took a day trip to NYC and came back looking ashen. The bunnies are taking over.

Some new textbooks on-line

The folks at ODU who brought you the Stratospheric Ozone Textbook are busy little bunnies and have three additional offerings,

• the Global Land Vegetation Textbook, all about land veggies and and the carbon cycle. Eli likes the chapter on carrots.
• a couple of lectures on determining Sea Circulation and Surface Temperature from Space,
• and two lectures on Polar Sea Ice Processes: the basic processes and how sea ice is measured from space).

Bankruptcy

Jennifer Marohasy sheds the usual climate croc** tears for Pat Michaels, no longer UVa Climatologist and Eli gets mixed into the middle of it. He tried to post over there, but the guardians are chewing over his entrails and it was such a good thing that it bears repeating

Just to be clear, Eli has always been in favor of the State Climatologist Program, and has always said that it should be a fully funded program run by NOAA. What we got now is a bunch of folk jackassing a different program in each state by scratching up support when and where they could find it. When UVa was forced to pony up the funding, they said no thanks, see you later. This has a lot more to do with the sorry state of base science funding in the US than with Pat Michaels.

If you want to see Eli's views on State Climatologists you can in comments 14, 24, 29, 34, 47, 52, 60 and 64 on RP Sr.'s blog (now just an archive). You will be impressed by the non support the program has among the climate croc denialist crowd. As the Rabett said:

However, there are many places where the State Climatologist was simply appointed by a university Department Chair, often someone who managed to scare up the funding. Very often there are ad hoc arrangements. To the extent that State Climatologists represent themselves as speaking for an agency of the state on a policy matter they are bound by the policy of the state.

and, among other things

As for the State Climatology program IEHO it was a bad mistake for NOAA to have defunded it in the seventies. AASC would be a very good thing if, together with NOAA, it results in a unified data reporting system leaving enough room for special state interests.

Lord the kid can write. You know, practically no one, including RPSr. was at all interested in fully funding the State Climatology offices except yours truly. NONE of the regulars, including RP hisself cared about putting the State Climatology Offices onto a permanent safe footing, which made it crystal clear that they wanted the issue and not the solution. Fast forward to the surface sites harrumphing and you see the same thing. These are climate crocs** folks.


**To paraphrase Steve Pastis about our crocs, they are proud members of Mora Fora Meea, a fraternity dedicated to the destruction of every one but them, the crocodiles are our blogging neighbors. Stupid, slow and barely articulate, these particular crocodiles are a disgrace to their species.

Aethon has a new name and a new food source

That's all folks

From ufobreakfast a remarkable description of dinner (ok breakfast) with Eli's favorite denialists. Since you really should go there and read the whole thing (it is only a riotous paragraph long), Rabett Run will tease you with the last two sentences

Pielke Jr. and Sr. took the opportunity to note that politicizing science was a bad idea and Ebell asked Komanoff why he hated poor people. Crichton urged Ebell to “lambast the son of a bitch”, which woke Peiser, who agreed that Tim Lambert was indeed a son of a bitch. The debate went downhill from there.

Jaw droppers

Part of the current art of journalism is to get others to say what you mean. Stoat's beloved Gruniad said

The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved.

A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December.

"It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."

The London Times put it this way

Speaking at his own climate-change conference in Washington, which European diplomats dismissed as a cynical attempt by the White House to derail UN efforts on a new global-warming accord, Mr Bush called on polluters to cut emissions, but only through voluntary steps.

Before Mr Bush spoke, John Ashton, the special representative on climate change for David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, expressed Britain’s growing dismay at Washington’s refusal to sign on to mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

And saying it with applause (Sudwest Radio Germany)

During his twenty minute long speech the US President received a round of spontaneous applause only once: when he mentioned the United Nations. "Today we have a new beginning to reduce greenhouse gases, strengthen out energy security, promote economic development and that we continue the climatic negotiations under the roof of the United Nations.”

The applause was a clear sign from the other participants. Even when President Bush was planning to sideline the United Nations with this conference - the representatives of the developing and industrialized countries obviously want no part of that.

Listen to the bunny (Part XIV)

A couple of years ago, when Tim Kaine did the two step about Pat Michaels' being the VA State Climatologist, and said, well a) this ain't any authorized state office and b) if UVa want Michaels they can have him , Eli remarked

Now it gets amusing. First, is UVa a state agency? Commonly state agencies are directly under the control of the executive. UVa is a state university, but recently it has become essentially independent under the Virginia Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act

Second, and most important, is the clear implication that the position of State Climatologist ain't no more gonna be a line in the STATE budget, and that if UVa wants Michaels to continue in the position, they are going to have to come up with the $.

Well, pretty clearly UVa has decided not at any price. Steve Bloom in a comment at Real Climate points to an article in the Daily Press

Michaels, 57, called his resignation a sad result of the fact that his state climatologist funding had become politicized, compromising his academic freedom.

The Rabett also explained

If someone is called a Research Professor or an Adjunct Professor, you can bet that the University is not paying his or her salary. In many cases the person works at a research institution/national lab, etc. and has the title so that he or she can supervise student research. In many other cases the person brings grants and contracts into the University from which his or her salary is paid. Since Research Professors of the later type occupy lab/office space there is not much of a margin when their grants run out. The rule is that when the support goes so does the Research Professor (I know you can find the occasional counterexample, but these are the general rules).

Pat knows very well that he was in a soft money position, and when the external funding goes the clock runs very fast. And, oh yes, live by political funding decisions and die by them

In 1994, Allen restored a cut of more than $100,000 to Michaels' office that had been proposed by former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder. Eight years later, as a senator, Allen rescued Michaels' office from other proposed cuts that Michaels said would have wiped out his entire funding.

Better a good Czech than a bad one

Bloggers know that Lubos Motl has lip locked to the current President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who knows not very much about climate, but does know what he thinks about it. Everyone know about Vaclav Havel, former President of Czechia and someone who by example has acquired great moral authority. Havel writes today in the NY Times under the headline, Our Moral Footprint:

OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.

It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?

Havel's views on climate change are that of someone who worries about the future, but is not sure of the scope or the solutions to the challenges of global climate change

I’m skeptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and ethics — a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility.

This is a complex and rich statement which everyone should read and think about. Of those who blog on climate, perhaps it is closest to Michael Tobis' point of view, the moral case Havel sets forth for action approaches that of the Stern Report.

Stealing Michaels Cheese: In the comments (and this is somewhat truncated) Michael Tobis summarizes his view on this:

So what do I think? I thank you for what amounts to a challenge to summarize it. This is what I have managed.

A long view and a better capacity to identify real expertise are skills that to a great extent we in the economically dominant societies once had, but have lost. That is sad but it offers a way out without new cultural innovation. We simply need to recover declining skills.

We need to work on restoring the collective intellectual capacity, and the respect for the future, that we recently had, that has been in precipitous decline over my lifetime. This is nowhere near the innovation that a widespread ecological ethic would be.

Restoring the network of trust from those who think to those who decide is no small order. The deciders (pardon the expression) need better skills in whom to trust, and the thinkers need to be more trustworthy.

Unfortunately, substantial amounts of decay and corruption have set in
on both sides. This is a tall order, but it seems to me at the core of our decline and the best hope of our recovery.

So I don't mean to disagree with Havel, but I don't want that represented as the core of what I am trying to advocate.

I think the crucial social component of avoiding calamity is about competence and trust, about those offering advice reliably deserving trust and about those needing advice reliably awarding trust to those that deserve it.

Thanks for the mention, though. I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same sentence as Vaclav Havel.