Comments (27)

• fundamentalist

  Thanks for another great article, Sean. Personally, I hope the Swiss and all of Europe raise the price of gasoline to $14/gallon, or even higher. That leaves more for us.

  Boone Pickens is an interesting guy. He’s from Oklahoma and graduate of OK State, so I have followed his career for many years. He knows how to make money and he is going to make a lot off this windmill thing. The curious thing to me is that he is planting his windmills in the Texas panhandle. That’s good because the panhandle has a lot of wind. Oklahoma Gas and Electric has some mills in western Oklahoma for the same reason. The problem is where is his market for the electricity? The nearest markets of any size are Denver and Dallas which are hundreds of miles away. To prevent huge losses in energy over the transmission lines he’ll have to convert the electricity to DC and reconvert it at the other end, which is very expensive. Unless he gets huge subsidies from the state, I don’t see how it will pay. But I have read that he has incorporated his windmills into towns so that he can issue tax-free bonds.
  

  Published: August 27, 2008 8:35 AM

• Patrick Barron

  Wonderful piece! Many thanks. Most economic "problems" and "market failures" that the tyrannical class seek to cure are nothing more than recognitions of the fact that resources are scarce. I have noticed that the "green" argument for everything is to forbid our enjoyment of life so that unnamed future generations may enjoy these benefits. OK, then what? So future generations enjoy these benefits and deprive the following generations of them? This makes no sense, even if one admits--which I do not--that the world is running out of resources. Eric Hoffer called people who succumb to such idiocy as "True Believers" in his post WWII book of that title. The misfits (Hoffer's description) of the world MUST believe in something beyond themselves in order to give their lives meaning. That "something" changes all the time, of course, from fascism to communism to environmentalism. All would deny us our freedoms.

  Published: August 27, 2008 9:42 AM

• Mike Tabony

  I agree whole-heartedly with the Swiss proposal. Gasoline should be much higher than it is at present. For generations we have been sweeping the waste products of fossil fuel use under the rug but nature has been keeping score. The carbon that we have transferred from deep underground to the atmosphere will probably already push the Earth into a much warmer regime. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for the 1/2 million years before the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 never got above 300 ppm. During that time period an ice age coincided with about 190 ppm of CO2 and a period of warmth about 290 ppm. Today CO2 is about 388 ppm. How the Earth adjusts to that change remains to be seen? I doubt it will be something we would want for our descendents or the rest of the Earth's inhabitants.

  Part of living a life of freedom is to take responsibility of our actions including our waste products. With regards to fossil fuel use, we have not, as yet, done that. Maybe we need an incentive.

  Published: August 27, 2008 10:37 AM

• N. Joseph Potts

  The "incoming Hitler regime" in 1928? That Farben WAS prescient, at least about Hitler's rise to power! Hitler didn't become Chancellor until 1933, and he didn't acquire full power until 1936, eight years after Farben started his liquification plant. Maybe Farben thought it would happen sooner. Or maybe this text just SOUNDS anti-historical.

  Of course, for coal-rich, petroleum-poor Germany, liquification fit well into the destructive program of autarky, and Farben might have been inclined that way, or to make a bet on it as the forerunner of today's "energy independence."

  And Pickens is coming right behind him. Wonder if he's aware of the very close precedent for what he's doing.

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:00 PM

• Marcello

  Maybe we should just let the market figure things out. That's what the government wants to do. The government isn't some omniscient god that will find the panacea to 'climate change' if only there were "incentives".

  This is the same Government that wants to ban oil speculation, which conserves oil, no less and steal more oil profits.
  It is the one that funds a sprawling and decaying international highway system that encourages inefficient forms of transportation.

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:26 PM

• Ohhh Henry

  Excellent article.

  IG Farben embarked on the construction of the world's first facility for coal hydrogenation, the alchemical process through which coal was transformed into petrol… The RM330 million investment … would pay off when the oil wells ran dry and fuel prices rocketed.

  I believe that this is the same justification which is applied by the Canuckian govt to the massive subsidies it has paid for the exploitation of tar sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Explain to anyone that these subsidies represent the Nazzification of the energy industry, and you will probably get one of 2 responses:

  - "Godwin's Law, end of argument, you lose"

  - (spluttering) "But ... but ... what do YOU think YOU'RE going to do when your gas guzzling car runs out of cheap fuel? It's good thing that someone in Ottawa is planning this for you, not that you would ever thank them!"

  Published: August 27, 2008 12:48 PM

• Curt Howland

  This is all just a continuation of the old and completely discredited theory that there is a limited quantity of "resources", and in order for our children to have _any_, then we can't use it now.

  The absurdity of this argument is too great, its continued believers too many, for it to be anything other than deliberate disinformation.

  Published: August 27, 2008 1:17 PM

• Seth King

  Being a student of the Austrian school, I naturally abhor any plans to raise taxes under auspices of economic stability. My problem lies, though, in the fact that so many other Austrians have belligerent contempt for those who point out problems that may very well seem to throw a wrench in the cogs of an otherwise flawless philosophy: free-market capitalism.

  The fact is, the earth is finite. Resources, despite many being renewable, are also finite. Our population cannot simply continue to expand exponentially unless we are willing to accept an inversely proportional standard of living. We, as a species, have been eating our seed grain for quite some time and it is going to come to an end. "Peak Oil" is real, and if our overly erudite author can lose his braggadocio and research the matter, he might actually realize the sort of problems we face and then show how free-market capitalism is, in fact, the only viable solution, instead of dismissing the problem outright, and thus turning off a substantial percentage of possible newcomers.

  Please, consider visiting http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/
  and perhaps reading Plan B 2.0 as well. I tend not to agree with the solutions offered by most environmentalists, but I am often in agreement with their diagnosis of the problems(except for global warming, that's almost certainly a sham, though I don't think anybody truly knows).

  We are destroying our quality of life with increased abuse to our planet, however, I do strongly believe that freedom and free-markets are the solution, and tyranny will only make matters worse. The sooner we address the environmental issue, the sooner we will convert the green-socialists into green-libertarians, which I proudly proclaim myself as being.

  Published: August 27, 2008 3:39 PM

• Seth King

  Being a student of the Austrian school, I naturally abhor any plans to raise taxes under auspices of economic stability. My problem lies, though, in the fact that so many other Austrians have belligerent contempt for those who point out problems that may very well seem to throw a wrench in the cogs of an otherwise flawless philosophy: free-market capitalism.

  The fact is, the earth is finite. Resources, despite many being renewable, are also finite. Our population cannot simply continue to expand exponentially unless we are willing to accept an inversely proportional standard of living. We, as a species, have been eating our seed grain for quite some time and it is going to come to an end. "Peak Oil" is real, and if our overly erudite author can lose his braggadocio and research the matter, he might actually realize the sort of problems we face and then show how free-market capitalism is, in fact, the only viable solution, instead of dismissing the problem outright, and thus turning off a substantial percentage of possible newcomers.

  Please, consider visiting http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/
  and perhaps reading Plan B 2.0 as well. I tend not to agree with the solutions offered by most environmentalists, but I am often in agreement with their diagnosis of the problems(except for global warming, that's almost certainly a sham, though I don't think anybody truly knows).

  We are destroying our quality of life with increased abuse to our planet, however, I do strongly believe that freedom and free-markets are the solution, and tyranny will only make matters worse. The sooner we address the environmental issue, the sooner we will convert the green-socialists into green-libertarians, which I proudly proclaim myself as being.

  Published: August 27, 2008 3:43 PM

• Carlos

  I may be alone in this: I do not care much about global warming, wasting of resources, etc. But I do care very much about the quality of the air and water.
  To me disregard of the quality of air and water is the ultimately proof of human idiocy.
  As a good Libertarian I believe in right of people in making their own hell for them and their families -in the privacy of their own, well sealed, home. Outside they must respect other peoples common property beginning with air and water.
  

  Published: August 27, 2008 4:29 PM

• Brad

  ***The absurdity of this argument is too great, its continued believers too many, for it to be anything other than deliberate disinformation.***

  Or simply proof that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I daresay every generation's Puritans come into existence with only tangential knowledge of the previous incarnations. Each new generation breeds its own group of people who start from ignorance and have some sort of epiphany that THEY'VE figured everything out and are eager to share with everyone else their profound understanding, and Force is a nice ally to have in the process.

  ------------------------------------------------
  I rather like the fascist/nazi parallels. It provides nuts and bolts examples of the organic nature of naziism and its infestation of the civil society. It wasn't simply a group of boogey men who dropped from the sky like vampires or Frankenstein. Naziism was an economic and cultural philosophy, part of which was racial purity, the rest centralized control over everyone and everything, steeped in the idea that gains could only be made by a blood struggle. It was the logical conclustion drawn from an anti-capitalist, anti-entreprenuerial mindset. Progress could only be made by the State and only if Providence showered her grace on the correct minded.

  Published: August 27, 2008 4:46 PM

• newson

  to n joseph potts:
  whilst i think corrigan's "incoming" term is perhaps less clear than it could have been, the touze piece seemed unambiguous. in 1928, bosch received "government subsidies" - no mention of the nazi party. the subsidies were continued during the fascist era.

  
  

  Published: August 27, 2008 9:30 PM

• Peter R. Zidek

  As an ex-patriate Swiss, I am absolutely appalled at the insanity expressed in the SATW report. So much for the Bürgerlich level-headedness that most all of us Swiss pride ourselves in.

  Thanks for bringing this to our attention Sean! I for one couldn't agree with you more. Well done.

  Published: August 28, 2008 12:51 AM

• Ireland

  Seth King seems to have it reversed: because earth is finite, it asks for a just and efficient system to split these finite resources among the (also finite) number of human beings.

  So far the best know kit is "The Capitalist Bundle": private property, liberty, free markets, sound money, real savings, investment, innovation, rule of law, small and competing governments.

  It's known that people in general have problems accepting parts or all of the above, mostly due to misunderstanding of the cause-effect ties in the complex relationships of a society.
  

  Published: August 28, 2008 3:18 AM

• TokyoTom

  Well-written and perceptive, Sean, particularly this:

  "the honeyed words of today's politicians and the blandishments of their corporatist allies when they twist the commendable desire to avoid the wanton destruction of our environment into an instrument of imperial expansion, state control, and undue self-enrichment."

  However, a little perspective is helpful:

  - The current administration, a great fan of the fossil fuel industry and staunch opponent of the enviros, has probalbly done more than any other administration to advance "imperial expansion, state control, and undue self-enrichment". Why no attention to the honeyed tongues of the current dominant batch of rent-seekers, who continue to generate risks and costs that are shifted to others? There's a small a question of balance.

  - While public choice/Austrian perspectives make the rent-seeking relating to statism very clear, Austrian principles also tell us that society devises mechanisms such as property rights and tort doctrines to maximize the efficiency of resource exploitation while forcing users to take responsibilities for side effects. Austrians should not be denying that there are side effects to economic or that there are unowned/unmanaged/undefended resources, but should be suggesting ways to more effectively balance a need for improved resource management against the costs of using the state.

  - You refer to an "unholy trinity setting aside their supposed ideological differences for no higher purpose than to be better able to shear the flock of credulous sheep they have frightened with their intertwined tales of killer storms, melting ice sheets, and maniacal terrorist oil sheikhs."

  There's no small amount of (self-)deception here. Much of the civilized world and our business establishment agree that climate change is a serious concern - you own smooth talking or wishful thinking doesn't make them anyone's "flock of credulous sheep", much less this trio"s.

  Moreover, people get to have their preferences, and many, like Branson are putting their money where their mouth is. Your disagreement is over policy, not preferences.

  Fundamentalist, I've summarized what I understand about what Pickens is up to at the post linked to my name above
  *********************
  Regards,

  Tom

  Published: August 28, 2008 8:53 AM

• Philemon

  Tom

  Could you help me to get your perspective straight? I thought your view was that the oil companies "finally" getting on board with the "climate change must be stopped at all costs" program was a sign that the UN-IPCC science of AGW was correct. But now being a "fan of the fossil fuel industry" makes one a "staunch opponent of the enviros?"

  The fact that the AGW hypothesis has been promoted from the start by those with major oil and energy interests would be a case of their superior understanding of science and their altruism for the rest of mankind? The Rockefellers have been funding "environmental conservation" causes from the earliest days, and John D.III was a big supporter of any Malthusian scenarios involving "overpopulation."

  http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/gwhoaxborn.pdf

  Then of course a major proponent of the hype over the IPCC reports has been the former Senator from Likud, Al Gore of Occidental Petroleum, proud owner of Teapot Dome, purchased when oil was $14 a barrel.

  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/npr.htm

  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein

  http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

  Interestingly Ray Irani, Oxy-Pete's CEO is also connected with another presidential candidate, good old Sen. Keating Five McCain.

  http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3817/McCain_s_Big_Oil_Ties

  The whole story is reminiscent of the Indianapolis Currency Commission claiming they were backed by small businessmen and the latest economic science - no large banks. Nope. Of course it was nothing more nor less than a propaganda effort sustained over many years to lay the ground for the Federal Reserve.

  Published: August 28, 2008 6:51 PM

• TokyoTom

  Philemon, thanks for the Qs. Happy to shed a little light with my dim bulb, if I can.

  1. "I thought your view was that the oil companies "finally" getting on board with the "climate change must be stopped at all costs" program was a sign that the UN-IPCC science of AGW was correct. But now being a "fan of the fossil fuel industry" makes one a "staunch opponent of the enviros?""

  First, let's dispatch the strawman: I think the oil companies, in word and other deeds, are on board with a "climate change is a serious and legitimate global concern, so let's do something - in the way of creating relatively efficient GHG emission pricing (low administration/low bureaucracy/low pork) - to incentivize private actors to move away from GHG-heavy energy/construction technologies" program. NOT an "at all costs" program; everyone realizes there are tradeoffs.

  Second, fossil fuels of course include not only O&G but coal. Exxon and Peabody/Massey etc. are not the same.

  Third, now and then are not the same. The Bush administration clearly ran political cover for the fossil fuels/GHG emissions industry and pilloried the misanthropic environazi carbophobes. Just as clearly, there has been movement in the fossil fuels industry, particularly O&G, towards acknowledging a climate change threat and supporting policy changes.

  2. "The fact that the AGW hypothesis has been promoted from the start by those with major oil and energy interests would be a case of their superior understanding of science and their altruism for the rest of mankind?"

  Maybe, but certainly not particularly persuasive or dispositive evidence of either. It probably is good evidence, however, that "those with major oil and energy interests" these and other relatively wealthy folks (Sierra Club's members on average have twice the average American income) are not out to destroy civilization as we know it.

  Thanks for bringing it up though - many tend to forget that the backbone of the enviros are intelligent people who are actively involved and invested in modern society. This, of course, may be the Environmental Kuznets Curve at work - those with greater wealth have greater ability and information to demand a cleaner environment. They can do so directly by purchasing and husbanding resources, or indirectly by (1) funding others who do (like TNC, Audubon, Ducks Unlimited, NWF) or by (2) pushing for adaptive institutional changes that cut back on destructive open-access resource exploitation, as Mises and Yandle have observed:
  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/11/draft.aspx
  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/15/reason-congratulations-to-al-gore.aspx

  3. Thanks for your various links; they are interesting. In particular the Oxy examples show us how oil cos work with kleptocractic governments/politicians to take resources from natives and citizens.

  However, the "GW Hoax was Born" piece can't be taken for anything other than the proposition that various scientists and their supporters have been concerned about how to respond to problems involving resources outside the control of the developed nations (and hence much more subject to abuse by kleptocractic governments and to tragedy of the commons-type situtations due to lack of clear property rights or an ability of natives to protect them against depredation that is in part driven by Western markets and technological advances). That there are many such sticky problems is hardly a subject of dispute. http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/27/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx

  Perhaps the approaches taken by various enviros/scientists are counterproductive and/or naive, but legitimate preferences couple with possible stupidity can hardly be taken for a conspiracy to destroy the world - and much less for the premise that very, very widespread GW concerns are all a "hoax" propagated by a tight cabal of scientists, businessmen, analysts, political and religious leaders and citizens worldwide. Surely that's not your view, is it?
  ******************************
  TT

  Published: August 29, 2008 12:54 AM

• Philemon

  Sorry, my post a above should have read Indianapolis Monetary Commission. The National Monetary Commission was next. Then came the National Citizens’ League for the Creation of a Sound Banking System. Read all about it:.

  http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_3_1.pdf.

  Excerpt:.

  "Two enthusiastic comments on the Monetary Commission were particularly perceptive and prophetic. One was that of Sereno S. Pratt of the Wall Street Journal. Pratt virtually conceded that the purpose of the commission was to swamp the public with supposed expertise and thereby “educate” them into supporting banking reform:

  'Reform can only be brought about by educating the people up to it, and such education must necessarily take much time. In no other way can such education be effected more thoroughly and rapidly than by means of a commission . . . [that] would make an international study of the subject and present an exhaustive report, which could be made the basis for an intelligent agitation.'

  "The results of the “study” were of course predetermined, as would be the membership of the allegedly impartial study commission.

  "Another function of the commission, as stated by Festus J. Wade, St. Louis banker and member of the currency commission of the American Bankers Association, was to “keep the financial issue out of politics” and put it squarely in the safe custody of carefully selected “experts” (Livingston 1986, pp. 182–83). Thus the National Monetary Commission was the apotheosis of the clever commission concept, launched in Indianapolis a decade earlier."

  And, Tom, speaking of strawmen: "conspiracy to destroy the world?" Gee, and there I was thinking you thought Climate Change was supposed to do that...

  Published: August 30, 2008 4:38 PM

• Philemon

  Sorry, period crept into URL when I wasn't looking:

  http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_3_1.pdf

  Published: August 30, 2008 4:47 PM

• Rod Campbell-Ross

  This article is garbage from top to bottom and it demonstrates a breathtaking level of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

  Both peak oil and AGW are risk management problems. There is good science and solid evidence supporting AGW. That much is self evident and beyond argument. Choosing to ignore or disblieve it does not mean that it could be true. The same is true of peak oil which simply means oil production cannot increase. It has almost nothing to do with "resources" (what ever that means) or "reserves". In fact, in a discussion about Peak Oil, if the sceptic mentions either of these two words it is almost certain they have very little comprehension of the problem or what it means.

  Lets preach a little Austrian religion. No one can know what will happen in the future. It is sensible (no more, no less) to view both Peak Oil and AGW as risks that should be taken into account in making our various financial and living arrangements. It is like paying for insurance.

  Published: September 2, 2008 5:16 AM

• fundamentalist

  Rod: "It is sensible (no more, no less) to view both Peak Oil and AGW as risks that should be taken into account in making our various financial and living arrangements."

  I doubt Sean would disagree with you that both are risks. He might disagree on the level of risk. But what Sean is arguing for is to let the market take care of the risk, not the state. The market has proven to be far more effective at pricing and insuring against risk than has the state.

  Published: September 2, 2008 7:53 AM

• Rod Campbell-Ross

  Hi Fundamentalist. Nice to break out for a bit more sparring.

  I favour the market in all situations, if the choice is government or the markets. Nevertheless AGW is a significant market failure. The reasons are not hard to discern: the very air we breathe is a commons and therefore abused. I see no possibility that private property rights can ever be extended over it.

  The market also cannot successfully allocate a vital finite natural resource such as oil once the supply curve becomes close to completely inelastic. The simple conclusion would be that prices rise and so the commodity is allocated accordingly. However in the case of oil a number of significant behavioural feed back loops set in: war (e.g. Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran potentially), oil is left in the ground (Saudi Arabia), rioting and civil strife ensues (EU truck drivers), non-sensical subsidies for no hope energy programs (US corn ethanol) that drive up global food prices. These feedback loops all either are not market responses, or they impact the market negatively.

  That is why the Swiss proposal is sensible. Oil is being priced to encourage migration to other energy sources. However it is not clear what those sources may be. It is part of what I call mans thermodynamic challenge.

  Published: September 2, 2008 11:16 PM

• newson

  to rod campbell-ross:
  i find it strange you concur with the swiss. perhaps you feel that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching.
  if we can only cripple our legs, surely we'll all grow wings, all then flying will solve our transport problems.

  Published: September 3, 2008 3:38 AM

• newson

  also, the labor party in australia has carefully moved away from agw, and now rigorously sticks to "climate change" terminology. more defensible in light of the decade-old cooling trend.

  Published: September 3, 2008 3:44 AM

• Rod Campbell-Ross

  I have read this nonsense about the so-called decade long cooling trend. It is garbage. On what data is this statement based? What is it? An average? Of what? What altitude were these readings taken? How consistent were the methodologies? etc etc etc. There will be times that are cooler in some places, maybe even globally for short periods.

  You need to understand some climate basics like what the current value and trend is for the Southern Oscillation index, the precise state of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, what is happening in the Southern Annular Mode and many other of the globes climate sub-systems. You need to understand thesystem, the data, the trends in the data and only then can you begin to interpret what it may mean.

  Also, as I have alluded to above, global temperature changes are not uniform. The sub-polar regions are substantially warmer (by up to 6 deg C). The staccato sound of collapsing ice shelves and dissipating sea ice cannot be ignored. All it takes is a little research.

  You can choose to believe oil is infinite and can be pumped at any speed we like. It is not a belief that is rational, or based on knowledge, but you can still choose to believe it.

  You can also choose to ignore what is known about the earths climate. Personally I don't. I have chosen to understand the issues. In fact I recently finished a Masters degree covering these subjects. Climate Science, Resource Economics, The role of energy in modern Society, Ecology - it was fascinating.

  People on this site and elsewhere can choose to believe what they like. It would be better if their beliefs were better founded, as a statement like "decade long cooling period" is as meaningless as it is shallow.

  Published: September 3, 2008 6:27 AM

• fundamentalist

  Rod: “. I see no possibility that private property rights can ever be extended over it.”

  I don’t see why property rights to land can’t be extended into the air just as they are extended below ground in mineral rights, but even that is not necessary. People have always had the right to sue for damages to themselves from the activities of another. Since AGW is a global issue, just send the cases to the International Court.

  Rob: “The market also cannot successfully allocate a vital finite natural resource such as oil once the supply curve becomes close to completely inelastic.”

  But there is no reason to believe the state or any state body can do a better job. The US was running out of whale oil in the mid-1800’s and made the transition to pertroleum with few problems and no state intervention. The state fails at almost everything it tries outside of its natural duties of police and defense work. Look at the “war on poverty” and the “war on drugs.” If the US government decides to declare a “war on oil”, we should expect the results to be as disastrous as its other wars. The market will not please everyone in the way it handles peak oil, but it will do a far, far better job than any state agency.

  Rod: “These feedback loops all either are not market responses, or they impact the market negatively.”

  I don’t see any evidence that these feedbacks will happen. That’s a worst case scenario and very unlikely.

  Rod: “Oil is being priced to encourage migration to other energy sources. However it is not clear what those sources may be. It is part of what I call mans thermodynamic challenge.”

  The price of oil also encourages migration to other energy sources. The difference between the market encouraging the switch to other products and the state doing it has to do with information, as Hayek loved to point out. No bureacrat has all of the information necessary to set an appropriate price. No bureacrat has the knowledge of the millions of people who vote with their dollars ever day on how valuable oil products are to them compared to the alternatives.

  You advocate central planning for oil, but as Mises pointed out, the market plans as well. The difference is that when the state plans, a handful of people make all of the decisions, while when the market plans, millions make the important decisions.
  Then closest alternative to oil are coal and natural gas. So our next source of fuel will probably be gasoline made from those. Next would be electric vehicles powered by nuclear generators. Eventually hydrogen will come into its own as cheaper ways of producing it are discovered. As oil products become more expensive due to scarcity, each of these alternatives will become more likely as their price relative to oil products falls.
  

  Published: September 3, 2008 8:31 AM

• newson

  to rod campbell-ross:
  well, my background ain't science, but i can cut and paste with the best of them:

  "Ocean temperatures are these days measured by 3,000 automated Argos buoys deployed in the seas. These buoys present a challenge to global warmers. “The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for nasa in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, ‘there has been a very slight cooling’ over the buoys’ five years of observation, but that drop was ‘not anything really significant.’ Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream”

  Added to this challenge to the global warming theorists is the evidence produced by nasa’s eight weather satellites. “In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14 degrees Celsius—well within the range of normal variations”

  i'm totally unconvinced by the arguments for government action in respect of generalized climate change. hurricane katrina was a window into how efficient the state is in meeting major natural disasters. governments have been unable to combat rising salinity in many parts of australia; i have no faith in their ability to understand or tackle far more complex systems like climate.

  whether peak oil is a function of geology or politics is a moot point for me, i'm a believer right up to the minute they spud the next ghawar. but individuals will solve the problems of pricey oil in least painful manner possible, if only allowed space to manoevre.

  Published: September 3, 2008 11:26 AM