In comments to my post on a review of Guy Pearse’s High and Dry, JC pointed to a dispute between Andrew Norton and Pearse on whether the CIS had promoted denial and delay on greenhouse gasses. Pearse makes his case here (scroll to 25 July 2007), while Norton responds here. Now I think it is a bit much for Pearse to tag the CIS with Jennifer Marohasy’s opinions on global warming when all they did was publish her article on another topic. But it is also a bit much for Norton to argue that the opinions of Roger Bate have nothing to do with the CIS when the CIS list him as one of their Research Staff with expertise in climate change.

Norton wrote:

But given the CIS cannot control any of these people, how can it be responsible for what they say?

The CIS can certainly control what appears in its publications and on its website, so I searched their site for published articles that took a position on the science or the policy related to global warming. The articles I found appeared in CIS publications Executive Highlights, Policy Magazine or Economic Freedom Watch. Without exception, the position was either denial (“its not happening!”) or delay (“we shouldn’t do anything!”), just as Pearse said. Here’s the list, along with quotes from each piece so you can get the flavour:

Bjorn Lomberg 2006:

The really inconvenient truth is that combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol has a social value of less than a dollar for each dollar spent.

Nicholas Kerr 2004:

That it has not signed up to such agreements as the Kyoto Protocol is less a sign of US selfishness and more one of a lack of evidence surrounding the science and economics on which protocol is founded.

Helen Hughes 2003:

The highly tendentious nature of measuring ‘warming’ and its tenuous relation to current, or even medium-term development is ignored.

Wolfgang Kasper 2003:

Green lobbies and litigation lawyers announced in October that they
would sue environmental regulators and carbon energy producers for
weather damages — because the links between Greenhouse emissions,
global warming and weather damage is increasingly proven. Given the
recent flare-ups in sunspot activity and given the well-known
correlation between solar activity and variations in global
temperatures (Graph 4), EFW suggests that the litigators make the Sun
a co-defendant.

Graph 4 is similar to the one that had to be corrected here

Wolfgang Kasper 2002:

A more serious case of foreign governments trying to limit the
economic freedom of Australians is the agitation to induce the
Commonwealth government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. This course of
action is promoted by European Union governments, the UN and
Green-collectivist interest groups. Yet, the evidence that man-made
climate change will be catastrophic is based on a poor understanding
of science and has been contradicted by many leading private climate
experts. The latest findings by the UN-convened Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are controversial.

Denis Dutton and Wolfgang Kasper 2002:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its recent and supposedly conclusive report, was far from unanimous; sceptical minority views could not be fully aired in what became an increasingly political rather than a scientific debate. Leading members of the IPCC denounced the biased and undemocratic manipulation of the deliberations about the latest report. Respected, independent experts are also casting doubts on the IPCC findings. …

One must therefore conclude that Kyoto activism is in reality not about saving the world. It is about exploiting Green sympathies and justified environmental concerns to convince the world that it should accept a new form of European protectionism.

Sarah Tyrell 2002:

The attempted control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions via such initiatives as the Kyoto Protocol has great potential to aggravate hunger, reduce public health services, increase mortality and retard economic growth. Forcing the pace of GHG reductions will not guarantee net benefits to public health, or the environment, nor will it have a positive effect on reducing climate change.

Wolfgang Kasper 2002:

Promise not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which amounts to a protection
policy for EU metal industries, undermines Australian energy-cost advantages
and discriminates against minerals processing in favour of third-world
countries that are given freedom to emit unconstrained amounts of CO2.

Steven Kates 2001:

If global warming is actually happening and whether it is a product of human activity, remains, so far, outside of any demonstrable calculation and proof. No-one can say with any certainty that it is not happening, but neither can they say with any greater certainty that it is.

Richard Stone 2001:

there is little scientific consensus regarding the nature, extent or seriousness of man-made global warming.

Sarah Tyrrell 2001:

the climate models used by most national entities and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are shown to have vastly overestimated predictions of temperature increases, sea level rises and the frequency of storms, flooding and drought due to climate change.

Barry Maley 2000:

The best data and eminent scientific opinion find no real evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. With so much of economic and social importance at stake, it would be the height of scientific, economic and political irrationality for Australia to ratify the Kyoto treaty or to take any steps to reduce emissions. …

The upshot is that the climatic model predictions which formed the basis of the Kyoto recommendations have been invalidated. This is the conclusion reached in January this year by an expert panel of scientific specialists in temperature measurements commissioned by the United States Academy of Sciences. The best data and eminent scientific opinion find no real evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

That is, by the way, as thoroughgoing a misrepresentation of the panel’s conclusions as you ever likely to see. Their actual conclusion:

In the opinion of the panel, the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising.

Geoff Hogbin 1998:

the science of global warming is fraught with uncertainty and it is therefore not clear how serious the problem of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be. The claims of the IPCC notwithstanding, there simply is no consensus amongst scientists that global warming will occur.

Comments

  1. #1 Jc
    August 22, 2007

    Gouldie, you dishonest little trot this is what I said:

    “Central banks cause the instability as a result of uncontolled growth in the money supply. Yes there were periods of instability before central banking but will find that the cause was always the same : manipulation of the specie ratios.”

    …..that sparked your dribble about monetarism

    with this

    “Wow, people still believe in monetarism?

    Even after Friedman admitted it was his greater error?”

    as well as the disgusting comment above about mastabation (SIC)

    Now listen you dishonest prig, i never mentioned anything about monetarism. You did by using that straw man and then trying to paint me into a corner with that abusive comment.

    I aksed for an explantion and so far you have failed to provide one. The reason is obvious why. Becasue it would make you look like the stooge you are.

    Now either provide an explanation

    Here it is again just to remind you:

    No Gouldie, you unhappy trot, every 1/2 way decent economist knows that money is not neutral. You do obviously. So you may wish to explain why? (Please note: I’m strapped into my seat for this explanation)

  2. #2 Jc
    August 22, 2007

    Gouldie says:

    “How about jurisdictions like Hong Kong, which don’t have a central bank?
    Do you grasp the most elementary basics of science well enough to understand that if B occurs in the absence of A, A can’t be the sole cause of B?”

    Oh my lord. This is a guy who says he has an economics degree and infers he’s more knowledgeable than others even making offensive comments like any blowhard would.

    Lesson 101 Monetary Economics … The nature of pegged currencies.
    Hong Kong has a pegged currency to the US Dollar. Without going into the finer details that would bore people silly a clean peg (Hong Kong has a dirty peg of sorts) essentially means the pegged currency abrogates its monetary policy to the country of the nation it has pegged to. It does this by the promise to convert the host currency at a pegged rate. In effect the pegger has no need for a central bank in the traditional sense of the word and maintains what is called a currency board. A currency board performs all the administrative duties of a central bank but does not conduct any monetary policy. Hong Kong uses the giant Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank to perform these duties if I recall correctly. It’s always supposed have a certain amount of the pegged currency in reserve in order to meet immediate obligations.

    The effect of this is that Honk Kong essentially runs the same monetary policy as the US. It will therefore experience instability to an extent that the US does. The level of instability will depend entirely on such things as the level of labor market freedoms compared to the US. Argentina’s peg failed because it tried to maintain a peg to the US but its labor markets were very sticky and unreformed and therefore this part of the economy was unable to act as a shock absorber when the US tightened monetary policy in the late 90′s. Hong kong on the other hand has relatively free labor markets and is therefore more flexible.

    So Guthrie, what Gouldie is telling you is crap, as he doesn’t understand monetary policy in the slightest way. I know he will come back blustering and offending everyone in his wake, but he shows absolutely no understanding of the discipline his professors worked so hard at teaching him. It’s tragic really.

  3. #3 luminous beauty
    August 22, 2007

    Jc,

    It seems I pegged you as a parasite without any intent.

    No apologies.

    Of course you are going to interpret what you do in the best possible light. It is a trivial psychological truth that perception creates reality.

    It isn’t really true, though.

    Good luck!

  4. #4 luminous beauty
    August 22, 2007

    “No it bloody well isn’t. That’s total crap.”

    This is what passes for critical reasoning in JcLand.

    You’re a clown, Jc. A pathetic, narcissistic, solipsistic clown. You have absolutely nothing to offer but axiomatic clinging to vague metaphysical opinion.

    Quite sad, really.

  5. #5 Jc
    August 22, 2007

    LB,
    Come on, enough abuse.

    Did you read the link I left you? It will help you understand economic definitions a little better.

    I’m running a remdial class on economics that you and maybe Ian G. Trotsky may wish to attend.

    Let me know and i’ll reserve a coupla spots. Get in early though as the spots seem to be filling up fast.

  6. #6 luminous beauty
    August 23, 2007

    Jc,

    No abuse intended on my part, just a friendly warning about the pathway to hell.

    Sorry, but I’ve had my fill of Austrian School horseshit, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand to boot. Definitions interpreted to agree with one’s confirmation bias are intellectually honest only in a pathological way, bud. You can believe it if you want, and diddle away with your fellow-travelers as it suits you, but don’t expect anyone with healthy, well developed human reason and empathy to follow your pied piper paean to unmitigated ego gratification.

  7. #7 luminous beauty
    August 23, 2007

    OTOH, if you want some libertarian thought with hair on its balls, I’ve got some reading for you.

    http://tinyurl.com/277e5j

  8. #8 luminous beauty
    August 23, 2007

    It’s been eating at me for a while, but out of my sense of fairness I haven’t indulged in this wee tidbit of abuse, but since you opened the door, here it is:

    I’m sure the average tapeworm finds feeding at the trough in some pig’s gut ‘economically satisfying’, too.

  9. #9 Jc
    August 23, 2007

    “No abuse intended on my part, just a friendly warning about the pathway to hell.”

    Yea right…. “I’m sorry I jsut killed you. it won’t happen again”, says the serial killer.

    “Sorry, but I’ve had my fill of Austrian School horseshit, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand to boot. ”

    I can’t recall the last time I went to one of those sites. I prefer lefty sites myself as they’re so much more informative with intelligently written posts.

    “Definitions interpreted to agree with one’s confirmation bias are intellectually honest only in a pathological way, bud.”

    Huh! So I should use Marx’s captial theory to be fair? lol

    “You can believe it if you want, and diddle away with your fellow-travelers as it suits you, but don’t expect anyone with healthy, well developed human reason and empathy to follow your pied piper paean to unmitigated ego gratification.”

    You think i’actuially trying to convince Ian G Trot to follow my views. Pleaazze,if he became a librtarian I’d join a Marxist sect.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    August 24, 2007

    “But hey, I can’t say i really blame the government on this one”

    “I am happy your tax dollars are wasted. Personally I couldn’t give a toss about your money and what happens to it, but I am concerned mine goes towards funding headkicker central”.

  11. #11 luminous beauty
    August 24, 2007

    Jc,

    I fail to understand how pointing out your solipsistic and narcissistic tendencies is tantamount to serial murder. Methinks you are too sensitive, but what else can one expect from a narcissist?

    I’d suggest judging one’s theoretical belief system against empirical evidence rather than interpreting evidence to comply with one’s beliefs in order to be intellectually honest. Then, maybe, one can begin to entertain some genuine notions of objectivity and fairness. Marxian analysis is sometimes on the money, believe it or not. One would never know it if one assumes a priori it is just crap. Likewise, Hayek made one or two brilliant observations even if his philosophic premises suck big time.

    One final bit of free advice. People are not discrete autonomous individuals. We are social critters. By trolling on ‘lefty’ sites, you are engaging in the social function, no matter how perverse your intent, or how deeply obscured your native humanity is by your ‘ideology’.

    Remember what Poor Richard said, “You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar”.

    Namasté