“Forget global warming — it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again): Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years”

The Met Office itself, Discover magazine, Think Progress (and again), Mother Jones, and Newser have responded and criticized the piece.  (I’m not assuming they’re the best criticisms liberals have to offer, but they’re the ones my Internet search turned up.)  I’m no scientist, but I’m trying to sift through and understand what’s going on.  

It appears to me that they’re right that the Mail piece is at least occasionally misleading.  E.g., the text of the article does not support the statement “if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again”.  (It does say that “Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona . . . suggest” that “solar output” “will be a great deal weaker still” than 2011-2012 levels, and says from other sources that “it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as . . . between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.”  The Discovery rebuttal argues that that Little Ice Age was a result of many factors, not solar output alone, and that even then it affected only Europe, not the rest of the world.)

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, these rebuttals are pretty misleading, too.  Even the Discovery rebuttal (which seems the most informative) agrees with the others in acting as if the Mail author were doing something patently ridiculous, even dishonest, when he quotes from two Met Office releases but comes to conclusions contrary to theirs.  (Discovery:  “Again, that release states in the first paragraph the exact opposite of what Rose claims: . . . Amazing, isn’t it?”)  Unless I’m getting confused (and impatient) from reading and trying to keep track of all these pieces, that’s not true at all:  The Mail author is straightforward about what the Met Office says, and where it disagrees with his implied thesis.  Where it does, he quotes other sources arguing for his thesis and/or against the Met Office.

All of the rebuttals (except that of the Met Office itself), even the one from Discovery, seem pretty smug and dismissive.  I think that looks extra bad when, as far as I can tell, they’re partly wrong.

Can anyone else shed any light on this or help me sort this out?  Alternatively, does anyone want to assure me that it’s not worth knowing and I’m wasting my time?

Hat tip to Eternity Matters.
 

Related entries:

• “Re Global Warming, Be Reasonable”

• “On Conservatism and Global Warming”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. . . .

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. . . .

. . . Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

. . .

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. . . .

. . . Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

Can we really know what costs and benefits any policy will have fifty years down the road?  Maybe not, but then, that’s another argument against restrictive environmentalist laws:  They would certainly restrict liberty now, but only possibly—to some unknowable degree—help the environment in the future.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

I’m no scientist, or economist, but I pass this piece on as one more piece of information, as we sift through everything being said out there and try to figure out what’s true.  It seemed helpful toward that end.

Of course, these sixteen scientists advocate a balanced economic inquiry, weighing the economic costs and benefits of any policy—which I agree would be a big improvement over a lot of the discussion of global warming these days—but in my framework for thinking about this, liberty is a good in itself, and (with qualifications, no doubt) more important than either economic or scientific considerations.

Update (January 30th, 2012): The New York Times quotes economist William Nordhaus saying the WSJ piece misrepresented his work:

The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings.

 
Related entry: “On Conservatism and Global Warming”

They’re protesting, and trying to “raise awareness” of, SOPA and PIPA, two bills currently being considered in the House and Senate, respectively.  Unfortunately, the protesting Web sites’ in-house explanations of what all this means tend to be short—something like Congress is trying to censor the Internet, help us stop them!—which leaves you almost no better informed than before.  (Wikipedia is a notable exception, making some effort to offer a real explanation and linking to other articles on the subject.)  WordPress invites its users to let their own blogs help compound the lack of information (in an instance of what Snopes.com and others might call “slacktivism”):

There are two options: a “Stop Censorship” ribbon and a full blackout. . . . That’s it! Easy-peasy activism right at your fingertips.

(Caveat: I admit that I haven’t watched WordPress’s embedded video on the subject.)

So I thought I would link to some articles I’ve read to try to understand it, in case you wanted to learn more, too.  (I’m still not sure I understand it well enough even to know whether I would be for or against any one of these bills; at times like this, I’m glad I’m not a legislator, who had better know enough to have an opinion.)  Note that these pieces focus on different aspects of the controversy, and that they may not even all be talking about the same versions of the bills, which are still under negotiation in the House and Senate.  In order from least to most technical:

“Is It a Good Idea to Wash Foreign Pirates’ Mouths Out with SOPA?”, Nick Schulz, National Review Online’s the Corner:

There’s a lot of cynicism about democracy today, much of it deserved. But the OPEN Act compromise indicates that despite the noisy clang of politics that’s so off-putting to some, our democracy still works pretty well sometimes.

“SOPA vs. PIPA: Anti-piracy bills, uproar explained”, Andrew Couts, Digital Trends:

Finally, critics argue that SOPA and PIPA could severely stifle free speech online.

“Online Piracy and Internet Security: Congress Asks the Right Question but Offers the Wrong Answers”, Paul Rosenzweig, Heritage Foundation:

. . . [SOPA and PIPA] violate the fundamental principle of universality that makes the Internet function as a global communications system.

Older pieces:

“Don’t Break the Internet”, three law professors as joint authors, Stanford Law Review:

Although the bills differ in certain respects, they share an underlying approach and an enforcement philosophy that pose grave constitutional problems and that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, for the principle of interconnectivity that has helped drive the Internet’s extraordinary growth, and for free expression.

“Stopping the Stop Online Piracy Act”, David Post, the Volokh Conspiracy, even a month and a half ago, already saw the public outcry over PIPA and SOPA as unusually great, perhaps even unique.  Post characterized the part of the law that compels private businesses to help enforce the law as (or as likely to lead to) “a kind of thuggery”.  (Note that this part of the law bears some resemblance to part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been law since 1998.  Supporters of PIPA or SOPA say that means we shouldn’t be alarmed about this, either; critics say that the DMCA has been abused and this will be, too.)

“SOPA-Rope-a-dope”, Stewart Baker, the Volokh Conspiracy:

. . . browser code can’t tell the Attorney General from a hijacker, so it will end up treating them both the same.

I had heard some conservatives suggest that this might represent something more sinister than mere incompetence in the Obama Justice Department:  High-level officials might have actually intended the program to go awry, in order to create an argument for increased gun control.  In effect, the government would have intentionally created more crime (including murder) to justify an expansion of its own power.

I was skeptical of such speculation.  I’m generally against assuming bad motives of one’s opponents, and this perhaps sounded worse than the usual such assumptions, more like a paranoid conspiracy theory.  So I was very interested to hear that it’s apparently true.

Via Eternity Matters, Wintery Knight, and Investor’s Business Daily, CBS (which I’m sure I don’t have to tell you is not exactly a bunch of conservatives) reports,

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

. . .

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”.

. . .

Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 “disappointing and ironic.” Keane says it’s “deeply troubling” if sales made by gun dealers “voluntarily cooperating with ATF’s flawed ‘Operation Fast & Furious’ were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles.”

. . .

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts.

One gun dealer even wrote to the ATF with serious concerns:

I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands…I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents safety that protect our country.

As we now know, his concerns were well-founded:  The guns ended up south of the border, in the wrong hands, and at least one Border Patrol agent has been killed with guns from this government program.

The problem with a multiverse is that anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, and that makes calculating probabilities . . . seemingly impossible.

. . .

Physicists have been circumventing this problem using a mathematical approach called geometric cutoffs, which involves taking a finite swath of the multiverse and calculating probabilities based on that limited sample.

. . .

What a real-world cutoff would look like and what form the end of time would take are unclear, the team says. If it happens, it would probably be sudden and unexpected.

Actual dream I had last night:  The country had somehow decided that, after narrowing the field down to two candidates, the final Republican nominee for president would be determined by a boxing match between them.

It came down to (don’t ask me to explain it; it was a dream!) Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.  Although the latter was conspicuously older and fatter, he landed some solid blows (in the third round).  He punched hard.

The first two rounds were over almost before they began, when Santorum left the ring under his own power—not out of fear, but because he was bouncing around a little bit as he and Gingrich descended the stairs into the elongated ring from their opposite ends, and Santorum sort of overshot the ropes.

In the third round, he left the ring out of fear.

I remember thinking, as I was watching the bout, that it was much shorter than a debate.  That was it: three rounds, and Gingrich was the nominee!

After that, there was going to be another match between their vice-presidential picks—Dick Cheney and either Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, I’m not sure which—but no one was going to be forced to run with the other guy’s running mate; the outcome of this match would be strictly advisory.  I woke up before it came on TV, while replays of the first fight were still playing.

His brother, Peter Hitchens, author of The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, has written a first eulogy for his brother.

Christopher Hitchens, reflecting on his approaching death, observed (in a fascinating and sometimes moving two-day interview for The Telegraph) that one day the newspapers would come out, like any other day, but he wouldn’t be there to read them:

And on that day, I’ve realised recently, I’ll probably be in the newspapers, or quite a lot of them. And etiquette being what it is, generally speaking, rather nice things being said about me. Just typical that will be the edition I miss. But it’s not so much that; it’s more that you’re at the party and you’re tapped on the shoulder and told you have to leave. The party is still going on, but it’s going on without you.

God rest him.

Other obituaries:

New York Times (2,100 words)

The Guardian (2,400)

Vanity Fair, where he was a contributing editor (250)

Washington Post (1,800)

The Telegraph (450)

I’m normally very skeptical about—and opposed to—ascribing motives or intentions to one’s opponents.  The Frontier Lab is admittedly pro-liberty, pro-small-“r”-republicanism, and pro-America—i.e., if you like, conservative.  That said, there’s a difference between carelessly assuming bad motives of anyone who disagrees with one—e.g., assuming that a liberal who favors legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” must be motivated by anti-religious bigotry, or assuming that a conservative who favors lower spending and lower taxes must be motivated by “pro-rich” or “anti-poor” prejudice—and a study of Occupiers’ motivations themselves, based on hour-long interviews and marketing-research principles.  Make of it what you will.

At National Review Online, Charles Cooke (who has covered the Occupy protests many times over the past few months) summarizes and discusses the Frontier Lab’s findings.  (Alternate summary: Rebel Pundit.)  Read the full report yourself at the Frontier Lab’s Web site.

According to the report’s introduction, responses to the Occupy protests, particularly among pro-liberty types, have so far fallen into two categories: “(1) vilify or ridicule their message, or (2) embrace the anti-collusion rhetoric and rally around common ground.”  The report suggests that neither response is apt, and later adds,

Those that would place the Occupy protesters, . . . on a Left-Right spectrum are attempting to overlay a dimension that simply cannot capture their entire essence. . . .

It is important to note that in the mental maps of [protesters], there was no representation of Marxism, Anarchy, or any other political justice outcome at the value level (see appendices).

Instead, the report concludes that many, perhaps the vast majority, of protesters are driven in significant part by a need for community; in effect, the Occupy protests fill a void left by the breakdown of community in modern America and by the protesters’ lack of religious upbringing.  As Cooke puts it,

What did Frontier Lab discover? First, that many of the rank-and-file occupiers feel isolated in their lives, and appear to lack basic community ties such as are provided by participation in clubs, churches, and strong families. Indeed, much of the report could have come from the early chapters of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. They thus attach to their political causes with something like a religious fervor. . . . Crucially, involvement with others who agree with them provides an “overwhelming feeling of being part of a family.” I noticed this on my first trip down to Zuccotti Park, when I saw a telling sign adorning the entrance to the tent city: “For the first time in my life, I feel at home.” On subsequent visits I was struck by the importance of the commune to the project.

Related entry: “‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protesters Couldn’t Be More Different from Tea Party Movement, or from Rest of Country”

The idea is simple:  Congress would enact a limit on the annual federal budget, similar to the total limit on national debt (the “debt ceiling”).  Any time Congress wants to spend more money than it did the previous year (or rather, more than the existing statutory limit), it has to pass a law (duly agreed by both houses and signed by the president) raising the spending limit.  

In a way, it would be no more difficult to increase spending (which the federal government reliably does every year) than it is now—either way, it is done by an act of Congress, signed by the president (or with an override of his veto).  In important other ways, however, it would be more difficult to increase spending:  The target federal budget would be a fixed number, visible to the public, subject to debate, and thus politically more difficult to change—think of the debt-ceiling fight earlier this year, or the fight (continuing to this day) over the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Thoughts?