J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Supposedly, 31,000 outraged scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, which says that a reduction in carbon dioxide “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind”. (1) That is an impressive sounding number of scientists, but considering there are 23 million scientists and engineers in the U.S., that is 0.13% of them – a mere drop in the bucket. Moreover, many of those who signed were misled and many were not scientists at all.

Who circulated the petition? The Petition Project was sponsored by the little known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), founded by Arthur B. Robinson. Dr. Robinson was the author the infamous 1997 Wall Street Journal article headlined “Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth” The article turned out to be a hoax. (2) Dr. Robinson was aided by Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Science. However in the 70’s , Dr Seitz became a consultant to the tobacco industry and in spite of 45 million dollars of tobacco funded research, couldn’t seem to find any link between smoking and cancer. When asked about the moral implication of taking money and shilling for big tobacco, Seitz stated, any money was good ” …as long as it’s green. I’m not quite clear about this moralistic issue.” (3)

Were all the signers scientists? In 1998, the Petition and a packet of materials was sent to thousands of Bachelor of Science students in Universities across the U.S. The packet included a copy of “Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth”, a letter from Dr. Seitz urging action, and a supposedly “peer reviewed scientific article” claiming “increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate”. The mailing collected 17,000 signatures. However, many of the “scientists” who signed were undergraduate students in Bachelor of Science (BS) programs. As well the sciences, one may get a BS degree in fields such as journalism, sociology, education, philosophy …. (4)

Were the material misleading? Dr. Seitz identified himself in his letter as the past president of the NAS but did not mention his stint with the tobacco industry. The “peer reviewed scientific article” had been published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a journal that often publishes articles in conflict with mainstream medical opinion and certainly not a place where one would publish climatology articles. The paper had been “peer reviewed” by a board at the OISM, not by a legitimate science organization. The paper was formatted to look as if it was from the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly responded saying the article did not come from the NAS, it had not been peer reviewed, and that “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

What about the other signatures? After the initial mailing, the Petition gained an additional 14,000 or so signature over the next ten years. The petition was on the OISM website for a time and could be signed without any form of verification. After numerous complaints about the authenticity of signatures, the OISM took the Petition off its website and is now sending the materials and a copy of the petition upon request. The site lists 35 of the signers as climatologists. However, a recent survey of scientists found: ” The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.” (5)

(1) http://www.oism.org
(2) http://que2646.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/30/3334579-the-global-warming-is-a-myth-hoax
(3) http://selections.rockefeller.edu/cms/science-and-society/frederick-seitz.html
(4) http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/climate-skeptic-response.html
(5) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

It is fashionable of late for some columnist and bloggers to call real scientists “alarmists” and to challenge them to a debate. George Will did so in his column, ”Generating heat over global warming” where he blasts “Anonymous scientists’ unspecified claims about the column’s supposedly myriad inaccuracies”. I do know of two scientists who had sent him e-mails pointing out some of his myriad inaccuracies but he keeps saying them. Maybe a debate is needed.

Cal Thomas, in “John McCain has joined the global warming cult”, claims McCain – and most of the world’s scientists – have been brainwashed by the charismatic Al Gore. Al must be good at it as he also mesmerized the Noble Prize Committee. Cal then issued a challenge for Al Gore and his global warming alarmists to debate Cal’s group of dissident scientists.

But, who are those dissident scientists? Years ago, the Wall Street Journal proclaimed “Science has spoken, global warming is a myth”. Wondering who spoke for science, I tracked the authors to a “think tank” where their job was to manufacture “scientific doubt”. The group was a little short on scientific credentials but they probably didn’t have much time for research, anyway. Most of them spent their time moonlighting for energy companies. However, I was amazed to find that they had discovered a number of “little known facts of science” using Lucy’s method:

Lucy: Charlie Brown, do you want to hear some little known facts of science?

Charlie Brown, looking puzzled: Wait a minute, if they are so little known, how do you know them?

Lucy: Because I’m the one who made them up.

Now that we’ve laid the groundwork for the debate, here are the top 10 reasons it won’t happen. Admittedly, some of the fault lies with the real scientists.

10. Real scientist do not want their cult exposed. They have a secret ritual called “research” which they are trying to keep from dissident scientists and columnists.

9. Real scientists don’t like to be labeled as “alarmists”. They are certainly alarmed but they just don’t like the columnists’ tone. They should remember that Paul Revere was an “alarmist”.

8. Real scientists feel outnumbered. Supposedly, 31,000 outraged scientists signed a petition denouncing global warming. The data was collected by a power company lobbyist and was analyzed using Lucy’s method. Many of the ” scientists” were undergraduate students in Bachelor of Science (BS) programs. One may get a BS degree in fields such as journalism, sociology, education, philosophy …. Still, no real scientist wants to debate an outraged philosophy major.

7. Real scientists are miffed. They have to work for years to discover nature’s secrets while think tank scientists can discover “little known facts of science” in minutes by using Lucy’s method.

6. Real scientists are really miffed. Think tank scientists, with their moonlight pay, earn waaay more than real scientists.

5. Dissident scientists won’t share their microphone. A debate almost occurred at a public forum on climate change sponsored by Prosperous Americans for Prosperity for their favorite Congressional candidate. A number of dissident scientists attended but, when a real scientist was discovered there, the moderator took the microphone to the other side of the room and ignored the scientist standing on his chair and waving.

4. Dissident scientists are not punctual The real debate took place in the 1980’s but the dissident scientists are just now showing up.

3. Dissident scientists don’t want real scientists to criticize their ideas. When 60 climate skeptics sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada denouncing global warming alarmists, Canada’s top climatologist pointed out: “by and large the skeptics are not climatologists, they do not come to our meetings, and they do not submit their studies to be peer reviewed”.

2. Dissident scientists won’t follow the normal rules of logic. A Senate hearing by Senator Jim Inhofe, using testimony from dissident scientists, found that the media was biased in reporting climate change. Therefore, it was concluded, global warming was a hoax. Hmmm?

And, number 1. Dissident scientists really want to debate just Al Gore. Al has refused, as he doesn’t think it’s fair to have a battle of facts with a group of unarmed men.

Many of our Legislators have  expressed the idea that cap-and-trade is a tax that would be expensive and hurt the economy, particularly farming.  That isn’t necessarily so. The “true cost”  of a resource includes not only the price but also the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. Cap-and-trade is a way of seeing  that those who  use or profit from a resource pay the “true cost”.  It would require those who increase pollution to buy credits to do so while those who find ways to decrease pollution would receive credits. That encourages entrepreneurship and provides incentives for using our resources wisely. Structured properly, cap-and-trade would actually be good for many sectors of the economy.

 There have been many esimates of the cost of a cap-and-trade bill.  There is one false claim that it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year. That number was arrived at by doing some creative math on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. However, John Reilly, the MIT economist who authored  the study, says that  number is wrong and is a misinterpretation of his work. More recent EPA estimates are that it would cost an average of about $140 per household anually.  Then, there is also the claim that the cost of doing nothing would be much higher in the long run because of resource scarcity and environmental damage. Its hard to put a monetary value on that. Either way, paying the “true cost” of energy use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Claims that cap-and-trade will not work are also in doubt as it has worked successfully in the past. It was used to reduce the U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions that produced acid rain in Canada - and it turned out to be much less expensive than either the industry or the government predicted. Also, after much criticism and a slow start, the European Union may meet or even exceed its Kyoto emission goals by 2012.¹ In Oklahoma, Western Farmer’s Electric Co-op has voluntarily used cap-and-trade to offset its carbon emissions by encouraging farming practices that reduced emission. Under cap-and-trade, those practices would not only save money on energy usage but would earn credits that would add to farm profits.

(1)  http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/europe-really-track-meet-its-kyoto-goals

Petroleum geologist John Brock asks, “Can we really stop climate change?” (1) and concludes we can’t. I agree with him that using geo- engineering to reduce global warming is a bad idea but I strongly disagree with the idea that we can’t do anything about it. The Tulsa World article, “Turn up the Savings.”(2) lists a number of things you can do to cut global warming and also reduce your energy bill.

 Geo-engineering would  have unintended consequences, and it would not address the underlying problem.  Burning fossil fuels puts 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air annually along with mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and radioactive isotopes. Much of those end up in the environment and in the food chain. Like carbonated water, the oceans are now 20% more acidic than a century ago (3) and the mercury level in tuna has gone up 30% since 1990 (4).

 NASA’s data shows that the past decade has been the hottest on record and that the Earth is now 1.2° warmer than it was a century ago. Global warming, like a fever of 99.8, is only a sign that something is wrong. The warming has not been caused by volcanoes, sunspots, changes in solar output, or cosmic rays from the stars, and it is not part of the natural cycle of nature. It’s caused by us and it is up to us to do something about it. 

(1)   http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=65&articleid=20091107_65_A17_Tebgni286922

(2)   http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091109_15_A1_TlaWrd833051&archive=yes

(3)   http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-whats-worse-than-heat.html

(4)   http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/08/

Those who do not believe the Earth is warming have promoted the “Global Cooling” and the “Coming Ice Age” stories to discredit the scientific evidence. George Will in “Can Bears Survive Ice Age and Global Warming?” ¹ champions these stories but his article has a number of flaws- besides the awkward title. How can you trust science, he asks, when in the 1970s the scientists were predicting the coming of a new Ice Age  but now scientists claim that the Earth is warming. To prove his point, George will quoted an article in the February 1973 Science Digest that said “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age”. Case closed. 

 Well, perhaps not.  The Science Digest published excerpts of articles from other sources. Like in the game of “Gossip”, George Will quotes Science Digest who quotes the Christian Science Monitor who quotes ….   Clearly, the world’s climatologists had not agreed  as there is an article in the same issue that quotes  Dr. Cesare Emiliani, a noted American geologist who warned, “If the present climate balance is not maintained, we may soon be confronted by runaway glaciation or runaway deglaciation.”  Why would Mr. Will quote one article and ignore the other?

Mr. Will’s story is “Not true.” also says climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C..  To prove it, he and his colleagues surveyed all major journal papers on climatology published between 1965 and 1979.   They report that in that time period “only seven articles predicted that the global average temperature would continue to cool, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.” ² Mr. Will’s quote is clearly wrong but he has persisted in using it. Ignorance is no excuse as John Fleck, one of the authors of the survey, reported he sent Mr. Will an advance copy of the article in May of 2008.

The bears entered into this story because the Department of Interior had just put the polar bear on the threatened species list. That was simply a decision made by scientists who study bears and climate. The polar bear is uniquely adapted to live and hunt on sea ice and there is ample evidence that the polar sea ice is disappearing.³  But to George Will, this was a conspiracy between scientists, litigious environmentalists, federal judges and government officials to control everything in his life.  Using polar bears as a lever, he claims, the Endangered Species Act could be used to prohibit the building of a power plant in Arizona, driving a SUV, or leaving your cell phone charger plugged in overnight. Well, the bears are a threatened species, not an endangered species, and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne pointed out that the Endangered Species Act could not be used to limit greenhouse gases. However, George Will apparently believes in the power of exaggeration and the “slippery slope” theory.

 (1)  http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2008/Final/W_052308_A_18.

 (2)  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008

 (3)  See, for instance, the before (1979) and after (2003) satellite pictures in National Geographic (September 2004, page 21). The pictures show about a third of the polar sea ice disappeared between 1979 and 2003.

During the last Presidential Election,  John McCain proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. George Will attacked the proposal in his “Questions for McCain”  in Newsweek (5/19/08).  As a preface to the question, George Will states  that “(the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade)”. However, that quote cannot be found anywhere in the World Meteorological Organization’s reports. The Organization’s 2007 Summary Report for Policy Makers (http://www.wmo.ch ) says that the Earth’s mean temperature is rising, that it is causing changes in the environment, and that it is the result of man’s activities. That is just the opposite of George Will’s premise.

When I contacted  George Will for an explanation, he said that the hottest year on record was 1998 and no year since has been hotter; therefore, global temperatures have not risen in a decade. However, the World Meteorological Organization says that eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).  The graph on page six of the report shows a very clear upward trend in the global average temperature from 1997 to 2007. George Will’s clever statement was an attempt to mislead readers. NASA’s data shows that 2005 was the hottest year on record so George Will is clearly wrong. (See graph below.)

           http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/        Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS

 Next, George Will asked McCain about the potential high cost of measures proposed to reduce global warming – which George Will claimed were too great. However, he does not consider that the measures would also alleviate some of our pressing energy problems or that economic growth would certainly occur in sectors of the economy producing energy efficient products. He also does not mention the principles of good stewardship or personal responsibility involved.  Is it responsible to let other countries address the issue while we pretend it does not exist? Should we expect future generations to pay to clean up the pollution we are creating?

 Finally, George Will’s asks McCain  “… what is the Earth’s proper temperature, and how do you know? “ It was a trick  question – a reasonable answer to that question has been known for decades. The graph in the World Meteorological Organization report shows the Earth’s mean temperature was reasonably stable from 1850 to 1925 which is a  proper baseline to measure global temperature increases. More importantly, the proper temperature of the Earth is one at which we can live comfortably. We know that is true now, but will that be true for our children and grandchildren?

The global mean temperature has  now increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit and it is increasing each year. Is that a crisis? That depends on how long you plan to live. Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed a statement that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man’s activities.  John McCain was right. Our nation is in critical need of a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and cooperation with other countries. We all share the same atmosphere.

 The author once attended a retirement seminar sponsored by AG Edwards. The speaker tried to convince the participants that no matter how much money they had saved, they would eventually run out if they lived long enough. That is unless, of course, they let AG Edwards invest their savings. The speaker did not mention Social Security, and fortunately for those who put their money in stocks, Social Security was there as a safety net.

 Social Security was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 in the midst of the Great Depression to provide for retired workers who had lost their life savings. Congresses right to create Social Security was established on the general welfare provisions of the Constitution and by  Article 1, Section 8 which establishes Congresses power to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare of the United States.  It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Several challenges to the Social Security Act of 1935 were decided in its favor by the Supreme Court. The most notable of these was U.S. v. Butler (1936) that held that the Spending Power Clause of the Constitution gave Congress broad power to tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted.¹  Also, in Helvering v. Davis ( 1937), the Supreme Court defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935 requiring only that the welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was constitutional. ²

Social Security is certainly a government manage retirement program but it has not put private retirement funds such as AG Edwards out of business. Social Security provides a safety net so that no matter how fortunate or unfortunate you are in your choices and investments, you will never be destitute. Congress has the authority to create a government managed health care safety net for Americans. It would likely not put private insurers out of business but it would certainly provide a safety net for health care.

We are now in the midst of an economic downturn that has cost millions of Americans their jobs and their health insurance. What better time to enact health care reform.

(1) http://qanda.encyclopedia.com/question/butler-decision-428463.html

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

You may nominate someone who has affected the environment through word or deed for either the Environmental Hall of Shame or the Environmental Hall of Fame. Please send an e-mail through the “Contact” link with a short reason that they should be included. A link or reference to their accomplishments or misaccomplishment  will increase their chance of being included. It will be assumed that your reasons are accurate and may be quoted with proper credit to you, unless you request otherwise.

Nominees will be listed and a  vote will be taken at the end of each year. The  year’s winner in the Environmental Hall Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  George Will might receive a case of CFL bulbs or the Robinson’s might each get embossed copies of  “ The Chemist’s Code of Conduct”.

The  winner in the Environmental Hall of Fame category  will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  John McCain might receive a framed picture of a trout swimming upstream.

You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee

The proper role of government in health care has been the source of many recent arguments on health care reform.  A similar argument has been going on at the state level in Oklahoma. According to a recent Tulsa World article¹, “Workers comp proposal mulled “ , Oklahoma State Rep. Dan Sullivan wants to privatize CompSource Oklahoma because: “It’s a fundamental issue of what is the proper function of government . Is it to compete with private enterprise? We think not.”   According to Sullivan, the incentive behind the privatization is to lower workers’ compensation insurance rates as rates should fall because of increased competition.

 That rationalization seems weak. It would seem that providing workman’s comp to state workers is a proper function of  the state government.  CompSource Oklahoma  has been doing so for 76 years – apparently successfully. Many private businesses use CompSource. Why would they do so if private insurance companies can provide better service and lower rates?

 According to an expert in comp insurance ²: “ CompSourse  is an insurance carrier of last resort when all other insurance companies turn down a company for coverage.  If they privatize, the competing insurance companies cannot just dump the employers over to Compsource. I think there will be an overall price increase. Instead of having CompSource as a safety net, more companies will be put into the risk pool. The risk pool forces carriers to insure the higher risk employers.  This sounds good, except the downside is the rates are 40% -70% higher than the regular insurance market. “

 There you have it. If CompSource is privatized, it will cost the companies it now insures  and the State of Oklahoma more  to provide workman’s comp. That sounds like a bad idea. 

Privatization for ideological reasons often fails as a practical way to lower costs. Privatizing Social Security increased the cost to the government by 14% and created the infamous “donut hole“ that costs seniors an additional $25 billion annually. After the recent economic downturn, we should all be grateful that the plans to privatize Social Security failed.

Finally, Sullivan doesn’t know who would get the proceeds from the sale of CompSource. He says he plans to file a bill that its assets belong to the state in the hope that it will result in a lawsuit which will let the courts decide the matter. That seems like a stange plan from Sullivan, who promoted Tort Reform to end frivolous lawsuits.

(1)Tulsa World , August 7, 2009

(2) James Moore at J&L Risk Management