Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Climate Change Squabbles


Climate change squabbles

For those who cannot get enough of climate change debates, here are a couple of skirmishes. An editorial in the July 14 Wall St. Journal cites a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in which three statisticians critique the work of Michael Mann regarding the climate record of the past 2,000 years. Mann is famous for the “hockey stick” graph that indicates that after a long period of relative stability the climate has been warming rapidly in recent years. This report finds statistical errors in Mann’s work and further concludes that climate researchers are a close-knit social network who are not sufficiently rigorous in criticizing one another’s work. The report could be accurate in its specific observations, but the Journal is wrong in concluding that this has any meaning for the larger debate about climate science.

A more thorough discussion of Mann’s work can be found in a new National Research Council report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html).

For more climate change feuding, check out Roger Pielke’s blog about an upcoming Discovery Channel program about global warming:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/07/nbcdiscovery-channel-show/
He makes a good case for including a little more rigor and range of scientific opinion in the show.

Pielke is an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University who maintains a lively science policy blog at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

Monday, March 22, 2010

Gas price pandering


Is there anyone who has been awake at some point during the past 30 years who is surprised that the price of gasoline is going up? Apparently, news about the discovery of the law of supply and demand has not yet reached downtown DC. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be in a state of shock and are spouting barrels of nonsense.

George Bush praised the contribution of ethanol, which he sais is of obvious value to all Americans. Is it possible to say that with a straight face about a fuel that is heavily subsidized by the federal government in a progrtam that is clearly designed to meet the needs of corn growers at the expense of everyone else?

Not to be outdone, there were Democrats on the Hill calling for the suspension of gas taxes. Is this the same party that promoted higher gas taxes as a way to encourage conservation? Is there anylthing more effective than high fossil fuel proces for encouraging energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy?