Who’s the Real Denier?

Climate advocates apply the pejorative term “denier” to anyone who does not genuflect at the altar of climate orthodoxy. This term is intended to discredit, not inform. But, is it a true that those who raise questions about the climate orthodoxy are really deniers?

It is not necessary to get wrapped up in a debate about climate sensitivity, solar impacts, cloud formation or other processes that influence our climate. All that is necessary is to compare predictions that have been made since the start of the climate catastrophe campaign with the empirical evidence we have today on how the climate system has actually performed.

In 1988, then senator Al Gore and NASA scientist James Hansen made a number of alarming predictions about an impending climate apocalypse. Hansen in Congressional hearings asserted, “the greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s” and “the temperature changes are sufficiently large to have major impacts on people and other parts of the biosphere, as shown by computed changes in the frequency of extreme events …” Hansen, based on his climate model, predicted that by 1997 the global temperature would rise by 0.45 degrees C and by 2010 by 2 to 4 degrees. A scientist with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia went so far as to predict that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

Senator Gore used Senate hearings to promote Hansen’s apocalyptic vision and then went on to write Earth in the Balance documenting his view that the world faced an environmental epidemic requiring that “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” He used Earth in the Balance to promote and fund the climate change agenda which lead to predictions about run away global warming. Those included predicting that over the next few decades up to 60 percent of Florida’s population would have to be relocated because of rising sea level. There were also predictions about increasing droughts and extreme weather events like hurricanes.

Now that almost three decades have passed since those predictions took on a life of their own, it is possible to see the extent of their accuracy.

The forecasts made by James Hansen and supported by Al Gore that global temperature would increase 0.45 degrees C by 1997 and 2 to 4 degrees by 2010 were off by a factor of 4 and 10. Indeed, since 1998 there has been no significant increase in temperature. And, while advocates proclaim that each year is one of the warmest on record, recent temperatures are not much different than those of the early decades of the 20th century.

Clearly, Al Gore exaggerated on the need to relocate 60% of Florida’s population. In fact, since 1992, according to the Congressional Research Service, global sea level rise has averaged 0.13 inches per year or about 3 inches in total. Estimates of sea level rise along the Florida coast are higher but not alarming—around 6 inches.

That leaves predictions about increasing droughts and extreme weather—hurricanes. The data tell a much different story. Hurricane frequency has declined slightly and intensity has not changed. As for droughts, Dr. Roger Pielke in Congressional testimony stated, that droughts have “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century. Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

The comedian Groucho Marx once asked, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Climate advocates would have everyone believe them even though empirical data doesn’t support their claims. Climate skeptics deny the faux science that is the foundation of climate orthodoxy while climate advocates deny how the climate system has actually performed. So, who is the real denier? Groucho Marx provided the easiest way to answer that question.





An Act of Petulance

“All of the above” as an energy sound bite gradually morphed into actions to take coal out of the energy mix and now, on his way out the door, President Obama has issued a ban on drilling along the east coast and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas areas of Alaska. This is an early Christmas present to environmental advocates who oppose fossil fuels simply because they exist. Based on actions and not words, President Obama only favors energy that is developed and promoted by generous subsidies.

Since almost no interest has been shown in the areas included in the Obama ban, it takes on the appearance of a poke in the eye to President-elect Trump who seems to recognize that abundant and affordable energy is an essential input to economic growth. While the provision of the OCS Lands Act has not been tested in court, it should be. No president should be able to issue a ban that persists in perpetuity without Congressional approval.

With an outlook for low to moderate crude oil prices for the foreseeable future and Shell Oil’s $7 billion experience finding no oil in the Chukchi Sea, the President’s action can only be interpreted as an act of petulance and slap in the face to the Trump Administration and petroleum industry. Self-imposed moratoria proved harmful during the period from the 1970s to the early 2000s and someday this one will also unless it is reversed. Eventually, technology and economics will make these areas appealing for exploration and production if oil and gas are found but with the ban in place, we would have to once again turn back to imports.

Claims that this action puts “environmental protection over economic uses” as the New York Times asserts is just more environmental hot air. Empirical evidence has no role when ideology drives the news. The record of offshore exploration and production over almost 50 years shows that it is possible to pursue and achieve both.

The President has received gushing praise from environmental groups like Greenpeace, which itself is telling. Although his economic achievements have been anemic at best—the slowest economic growth of any president since President Eisenhower, he goes out an environmental hero.  Quite a legacy!

Unabashed Scientific Bias

Scientific American, which is supposed to be a well respected journal, has published an open letter to President-Elect Trump on climate change. The first sentence of the introduction to the letter shows blatant editorial bias with the following, “and appointed climate deniers with ties to the fossil fuel industry to his transition team and Cabinet.”   The word “denier” is clearly pejorative and completely wrong. Scientific American also implies that the “fossil fuel industry” is a monolith that denies the existence of climate change.

No one who has been involved in first the global warming debate that morphed into climate change denies that climate change is real and is happening and always had. Scientific American is supporting a political agenda that makes its name an oxymoron. It is neither being scientific nor American.

The 800 signatories to the letter urge the President-Elect to take a set of climate related actions. In doing so, they reveal a breathtaking level of ignorance and an addiction to feeding at the federal trough.

They want to make America “ a clean energy leader” by increasing subsidies for wind and solar, ignoring the fact that these subsidies simply breed crony capitalism. EU nations that have bet heavily on wind and solar have paid a heavy economic penalty and still have to rely on coal or natural gas when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

They want to reduce carbon pollution and dependence on fossil fuels. They are blinded by the fact that carbon intensity has been declining for decades and will continue to do so. While Americans might dream of perpetual motion automobiles, their interest in electric vehicles is tied to subsidies, which Elon Musk champions to further enrich himself. As for “pollution”, they just ignore that air quality continues to improve year in and year out.

They call for a public acknowledgement that ‘climate change is real. human caused, and urgent threat.” Human causality and urgency are artifacts of complex computer models that have been built to support a preconceived conclusion. Going back to the late 80s, Al Gore and Jim Hansen predicted a climate apocalypse caused by rapidly rising temperatures. The apocalypse keeps receding as dooms day approaches. And, the temperature increases over recent decades are not much different than those that took place early in the 2oth century. Satellite measurements continue to show that global temperatures are not rapidly rising.

In a display of bold hubris they ask for protection of “scientific integrity in policymaking.” The abuse of the scientific process over the past eight years by the Obama Administration, especially EPA makes it clear that these 800 individuals either don’t know what they are talking about or hold a perverted view of what the scientific process is.

They want to see an enhancement of “America’s climate preparedness and resilience, which clearly makes sense but their justification is the false narrative about increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Improved preparedness and resilience come from investments in science and engineering that lead to innovation. Investment in basic research trumps deductive research.

Over the course of this year, a great deal of attention has been given to the proliferation of fake news. The publication of this letter adds to the inventory of fake news. There is nothing in the Scientific American article or the letter from scientists that can withstand close scrutiny. It is another example of what the late historian Daniel Boorstin documented over 50 years ago in his book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America.

The Resurrection of Peak Oil

For decades there was a widespread belief that peak oil was just around the corner. This belief was based on the work of the world reknown geologist, King Hubbert. Although, there were a large number of skeptics, “Hubbert’s Curve” carried the day in the policy world. That is until horizontal drilling and hydrological fracturing unleashed the potential of shale oil.

While peak oil production can rest in peace, peak oil has returned in the form of a growing view that peak oil demand is just around the corner. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal—November 27—focused on the coming peak in demand. In the 1970s, Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Zaki Yamani made an insightful prediction, “the stone age did not end for lack of stone and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” His prediction was based on economics and a long view of technology. What he did not adequately factor into his analysis was the heavy hand of government.

The Wall Street Journal article draws heavily on the views of European oil companies, Hungary’s MOL Group, BP, and Shell. Shell’s finance chief sees the peak coming in 5-15 years. The views of these companies are not surprising because the EU has been pursuing an aggressive green agenda that has contributed to its economic stagnation and high unemployment and companies in those countries dare not stray too far from government orthodoxy. A more neutral source, the International Energy Agency forecasts that consumption will continue to rise for decades unless governments become even more aggressive in mandating climate change actions, which means technology forcing.

There is little evidence that technology forcing works in the long run because commercialization is achieved at a very high cost. Look no further than the string of failures over the past 8 years in battery technology companies and the subsidies needed for electric vehicles. To illustrate this point, the chief financial officer of BMW recently gave a downbeat outlook for electric cars, according to Bloomberg. He said, “We’ve learned that people aren’t prepared to pay a higher price for an electric vehicle. I don’t see some kind of disruptive element coming from electric cars that would prompt sales to go up quickly in the next five to six years.” The problem is likely worse than that. A 2015 MIT Technology Review article candidly stated the problem with achieving EV goals is that we still don’t understand battery technology.

Economic history suggests that there are limits to how long nations can sacrifice economic growth and better standards of living in pursuit of illusory environmental objectives. Predictions of a climate apocalypse that were supposed to be evident over the last decade have not occurred and the IPCC keeps reducing the effects of doubling CO2. Where it use to give its “best” estimate, it now gives none. Doomsayers may eventually be proven right but right now the climate system is not cooperating and as a result the public is likely to become more skeptical and aware that it has been bamboozled by environmental advocates who have profited from marketing fear.

For the foreseeable future, oil will continue its dominant transportation role because it is abundant, affordable, and has superior energy density. Its competitors maintain their life support through subsidies. Those should be on the hit list of actions to take to stimulate economic growth. The reaction of the stock market since the election is one piece of evidence that consumers and business are fed up with being over governed by the Obama Administration. If the market is allowed to determine oil’s long term future its peak will be like the horizon: it recedes as we approach it.





The Bludgeoning Visible Hand

President-elect Trump’s intervention in the Carrier relocation decision and what might not be a not so subtle threat to Boeing should deeply trouble anyone or any business that believes in the benefits of market forces, small government, freedom, and who opposes crony capitalism.

In the absence of more information on both  incidents, there could be justifiable reasons for extending the benefit of the doubt. In the case of Carrier, and its parent United Technology, the decision not to move its plant to Mexico could have been based on an expectation of prompt action on corporate tax reform, a tax holiday, and regulatory relief. In Boeing’s case, $4 billion for a new Air Force1 fleet is certainly reason to publicly call for its cancellation, although it now turns out that the $4billion figure is bogus. However, it also could have been a warning to Boeing, which has an agreement to build aircraft in China. The president-elect’s use of words such as “consequences” and “retribution” make it harder to suspend disbelief however.

If Mr. Trump is that aggressive in attacking any company that even thinks about relocating outside the US, before his inauguration, what is he likely to do when he can bring the full force of the federal government to bear?

When President Kennedy publicly chastised the US Steel  in 1961, his brother unleashed the power of the Justice Department against steel companies. And, we know how Richard Nixon engaged in a range of abuses against perceived enemies. Since Mr. Trump has given every indication that he intends to be an interventionist when it comes to US manufacturing abroad, what kind of actions is he willing to take to achieve his objective? Words have meaning and his are troubling.

Mr. Trump promised to “drain the swamp” but actions that make the federal government and executive branch more powerful and promote crony capitalism will have just the opposite effect. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their share-holders; not government officials or in this case the president-elect. In recent decades, laws and regulations have been written to benefit the favored and by extension to disadvantage competitors. A smaller and less intrusive government will only come about when crony capitalism and the Bootlegger and Baptist combinations are part of a real swamp draining.

If the business community and the organizations that represent it sit idly by while corporations are threatened and intimidated as Mr. Trump has done, they will encourage more such treatment and that will have wide ranging negative consequences. When the business community was considering whether to oppose President Clinton’s BTU tax early in 1992, a democrat strategist offered this advice: “ if you let them roll you early, they will roll you often”. The business community was unified in opposing the BTU tax and won. If President-elect Trump can roll corporations before he is inaugurated, he will roll them often afterwards. There is a choice to be made and the longer it is delayed, the harder it will be to do the right thing.

The Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and others should take a firm stand against White House intervention in corporate decision making, especially where business investments are concerned. In doing this, they also should stress full support for actions that strengthen the economy and enhance global competitiveness.

The old adage of do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may is sound advice right now.

Charlie Brown, Lucy, and OPEC

The reaction of oil markets, the trade press, and some analysts to last week’s OPEC agreement is reminiscent of the Charlie Brown and Lucy.  Lucy keeps telling Charlie that she won’t pull the football away when he goes to kick it but does repeatedly. And. good old Charlie keeps trusting, when he at a minimum should be skeptical just as the trade press and others should be..

After OPEC agreed to reduce production by 1.2 million barrels per day, prices rose by 10% and the trade press and some analysts wrote that OPEC was reasserting its control and that reports of its demise were premature.   Oil analysts and historian, Daniel Yergin said, “The member countries were faced with a “very deep” abyss of low oil prices, and that won out over politics. …OPEC is back in business … This will rank as one of their historic decisions.”

Well, maybe. History, however, is not reassuring. Since the first oil embargo in 1973, OPEC has mainly been a price taker; not a price maker. Agreements to cap or reduce production have failed because OPEC lacks an enforcement mechanism and members have a strong incentive to cheat. That is likely to be the case with this agreement. Saudi Arabia and Iran came to an agreement, which had eluded them in the past, that allows Iran to increase production by 909,000 barrels a day as it tries to rebuild its economy after the end of Western Sanctions. Why should Iran stop at 90,000 barrels once its oil infrastructure is rebuilt? Why should Venezuela, an economic basket case, or Iraq honor the agreement’s limits? Russia, which produces about 10.32 million barrels a day has agreed to cut production 300,000 barrels. But, Russia’s economy and adventurism needs more hard currency, so if prices rise it too will have an incentive to cheat.

If prices rise above $50 a barrel, OPEC members will see their revenue increase, which is their goal, but that increase will create an incentive to try for more. Hence, more cheating.

As prices go up, more US production, especially shale, will come back on line and that will have the effect of offsetting OPEC production cuts. In 1973, OPEC produced 54% of the world’s production. Today, it is down to 42% and only Saudi Arabia and Iraq are among the top five global producers, according to Statista. If most OPEC members, especially Saudi Arabia honor this agreement, US oil producers will owe them a big thank you.

The Gravy TrainMight Be Ending

Climate advocates and environmental organizations like the Union of Uninformed (Concerned) Scientists are in a high state of dudgeon over the election of Donald Trump. Before appointments are made or any policy decisions are announced, they are claiming that his Administration will be run by climate denialists. It doesn’t matter to them or the media that cites their railing that the word “denial” pejorative. The real sources of anxiety for many perhaps most is the prospect of their funding stream being turned off.

Ever since Vice President Gore increased climate funding to demonstrate that using fossil fuels would create a climate catastrophe, federal funding for so called climate research has increased, with the emphasis on confirming the climate catastrophe described in Earth in the Balance.

It was clear during the Clinton Gore Administration that if researchers wanted funding, their work had to support the Vice President’s beliefs. That remains true today where research funding under the Obama Administration has increased to about $2.7 annually. In addition to that has to be added $8 billon in “clean energy technologies” and $5 billion in subsidies. Since Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has established that the US has been decarbonizing for over a century, spending on fossil duel alternatives is mainly waste, especially the subsidies.

Rationalizing climate related spending could save taxpayers upwards of $16 billion dollar annually. All that the Trump Administration has to do is set objective criteria for reviewing and continuing existing programs.

One place to start is spending on larger and more complex climate models. Given the range of scientific uncertainties that are even acknowledged by climate advocates—climate sensitivity, natural variability, cloud formation, solar affects, aerosols, and oceans for example—it should be obvious that model performance can’t improve until our state of knowledge improves. Federal research should focus on improving our understanding of the climate system by addressing major areas of uncertainty.

One of the pillars of climate orthodoxy is the assertion that CO2 is a pollutant. It is not; it is a nutrient as has been clearly documented by the CO2 Coalition. A better understanding the CO2 and the physics related to it would undermine EPA’s Endangerment Finding and regulations based on it. That would not only eliminate wasteful spending and economically damaging regulations but also would represent an important step in restoring scientific integrity. The corruption of science by the Obama Administration and agency climate advocates can be reversed by appointing as Science Advisor to the President an individual whose integrity is beyond reproach, a person who will take steps to make sure that the best available science is used in the policy process.

None of these actions have anything to do with “denial”. Climate change is real and humans are a contributing force, although there is no compelling evidence that we are the driving force. Instead of wasting resources on trying to prove the contrary, the federal government could invest in developing the capacity to deal with whatever future climates evolve.

We know that sea level is rising. As MIT professor Carl Wunsch has made clear. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue until the next one. Helping states deal with that reality is a legitimate government function. Agricultural research on drought resistant crops is also a legitimate role.

Government decisions on climate should like Lewis and Clark’s expedition of the west should only extend as far as our state of knowledge, which should always be expanding. Prophesies of doom have been the mainstay of charlatans for centuries. We need to stop feeding them and start ignoring them

Political Forecasting Failure: a Broader Lesson in Humility

This year’s election demonstrated very clearly that forecasting is fraught with dangers because it is dependent on assumptions, the quality of data, and the structure of models used. And, the lessons from the failure of most pollsters/forecasters to come close to the actual election results should lead modelers and users of model outputs, independent of the field of study, to show a bit more humility. That is especially true about climate and other environmental models.

For almost three decades, climate models have over predicted the affect of greenhouse gases on global temperatures and weather events. That should surprise no one because the climate system is complex, chaotic, and still not well understood. It should be obvious that if the system being modeled is complex, not well understood and requires a very large number of equations, the models built to represent it cannot be accurate, especially when the forecasters use point estimates instead of ranges that reflect uncertainty. That has been the case with climate models and the forecasts that come from them,in spite of the billions of dollars spent on model development and the super computers to run them.

In spite of a very poor records of predictions, those who make predictions based on these complex models are considered experts who must be listened to. In fact, the cult of climate experts who peddle visions of doom are no better that fortune tellers and seers of the Middle Ages who became well knows by their prophecies of the future. Assertions of expertise is no substitute for being right more than half the time.

Whether forecasting economic growth, elections, or future climates, forecasts are no better than the understanding of the underlying phenomena, the data that reflect those phenomena, and the models that process that data. The uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system as documented by the IPCC should disqualify climate models from being used to drive policy.

Professor John Christy in congressional testimony presented a comparison of a large number of models with actual temperature increases over the past few decades. While that is a short time frame for climate, all of the models over predicted actual temperatures. That fact is evidence of a bias about how the climate system is thought to work and a lack of humility about the inability to model a complex and chaotic system. Instead of expressing humility, climate advocates double down by making their models more complex and providing rationalizations for their inaccurate forecasts. Unfortunately, the political system hasn’t discounted the forecasts, it has embraced them, wasting money on solutions to a contrived problem.

A new Congress and new Administration has the opportunity to change course and demand a higher level of objectivity and real scientific proof.



Mass Delusion in Marrakesh

In 1841, Charles Mackay wrote Extraordinary Popular Delusion and the Madness of Crowds. Ever since then, the world has kept proving that Mackay was right when he wrote, “ In reading the history of nations … we find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit…” Over 10,000 people have descended into the city of Marrakesh to attend COP 22, celebrate the entry into force of the Paris Agreement on climate change and to plan its implementation. This annual ritual is a manifestation of the madness of crowds.

Ever since the Rio Treaty in 199X, annual Conferences of the Parties have been held to plan actions to avoid a climate apocalypse, which is just over the horizon. But, like the horizon, it recedes as it is approached. Prophets of doom have been predicting dramatic climate events for about three decades and for almost that length of time have been explaining why they haven’t yet occurred but soon will.

Under the Paris Agreement, nations are to submit plans for achieving their pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then regular reports on progress made. COP-22 has the responsibility for hammering out the details of reporting, transparency, compliance, capacity building in developing nations, and financing actions. On the surface, this does not appear to be an overwhelming task but in reality it will prove difficult to achieve. Every past COP has ended with delegates floundering to achieve its goals and then scrambling to make failure appear as success.

Many developed nations, if not most, will look for ways to create loopholes so that their reports can show significant progress and to make any shortcomings something that is outside their control. Developing countries will tie their commitments to significant funding from the developed world. There is already a pledge of $100 billion annually by 2020. A review of the last report stated that an “estimated … $62bn was provided in 2014. However, there is some tension about the methodology chosen to produce this report, which might flare up in Marrakech”. At a time when developed nations are struggling with weak economies, excessive debt, and unfulfilled citizen expectations, financing will continue to be the Achilles Heel for this agreement as it was in the past.

The delegates, who are enjoying the good life in Marrakesh, are harboring a vision of how the world works that no longer exists. Our presidential election is not the only sign that the paradigm of the past has changed. It is evident around the globe. Populist unrest is changing the political dynamics and that cannot but influence how nations address the illusion of dangerous climate change. In addition to the problems that the COP-22 delegates had at its beginning, they now have to face the reality that the Obama climate agenda will be brought to an end on January 20, 2017. The climate change table has been reset.


The Tesla Hustle

Tesla Motors, with great fanfare, announced this week that its third quarter profit was $21.9 million. This is the first time in three years that its quarterly earnings were positive. Has Tesla turned the corner or was the third quarter an artifact?

Tesla sales benefit from a generous taxpayer subsidy–$7500 per vehicle—and its ability to sell credits granted because its cars have no emissions. Those credits were worth $139 million, $100 million more than the same quarter last year.   Selling nothing for a profit and relying on government subsidies is not a business model for long term success.

Most financial analysts are highly skeptical of Tesla’s long-term viability. In the fourth quarter of 2015, it was reported that Tesla lost about $18,000 for each Model S sold. That loss is now reported to be $4000 per Model S its high priced vehicle. Whatever the correct number, you don’t make money selling at a loss. None the less, some investors using rose colored glasses keep driving up its share price. Currently its market capitalization is bigger than the combined value of Mazda, Fiat, Ferrari, and Porsche. And, its price/earning ratio is a whopping minus 57 to 1. That is the kind of P/E ratio that led to the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s.

When a sell off in the market occurs, and they always do, companies with stratospheric PEs take a big hit in their share price and their capitalization. Investors who continue to drive up Tesla’s price allow profit taking by those who bought low. It could be that smart investors, like those who made money in the home mortgage melt down, are seeing a case of the “greater fool theory” at work and just hope that no one takes the punch bowl away anytime soon.

Tesla is an attractive vehicle with plenty of pick up. It’s a head turner. But, in the real world it has to compete over time against established manufacturers who actually turn a profit. The best way to test the viability of EVs, and Tesla in particular, is for the government to remove subsidies and other inducements and let manufacturers of EVs compete in the market place. The key to viability, however, is not less maintenance, which EVs have, it is battery cost, range and a reputation for quality.

Lithium-ion batteries represent the current state of technology. Although breakthroughs have been predicted, they have not taken place. One reason according to MIT’s Technology Review is “One difficult thing about developing better batteries is that the technology is still poorly understood”. Battery cost is still about double the target of the US Battery Consortium, range is limited, and lithium-ion batteries are a fire risk. Until those problems are solved, EVs will have a niche market for the wealthy and the ultra green drivers. Former GM and Chrysler executive and icon Bob Lutz told CNBC’s Squawk Box in February that “companies such as General Motors will not be making any money on their “Tesla killer.” They are making these vehicles to appease Washington. … The majors are going to accept the losses on the electric vehicles as a necessary cost of doing business in order to sell the big gasoline stuff that people really want.”

 Elon Musk has proved himself to be a crony capitalist extraordinaire and he is raking in a lot of investor and government dollars but if Washington removes its subsidy gift, Tesla is likely to go the way of the Tucker and De Lorean, out of business.