On behalf of most Canadians, allow me to publicly apologise for the fact that nearly all Canadian media is owned by a single family, the Aspers.

Allow me also to apologise to Americans for any crack that a Canadian may have made about how much better our education system is than yours...

Not a big fan of AEI myself (see "Iraq, War on"), but as a member of another ideological movement that's largely clung to global warming "skepticism" until recently (the libertarian movement), it's nice to see "left" environmentalists defending those who start seeing some light instead of lcoking them out.

The two leading candidates for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination (Steve Kubby and George Phillies) take climate change issues seriously, despite hits from the entrenched "skeptic" faction for doing so. It's too early to say that the battle is won, but it does look like the tide is turning.

For publishing such a fair article.  In the past I'd  bought into the skepticism over anthropogenic climate change, though I fully supported other environmental concerns.  But the evidence is too strong now. I just hope you'll let all of us green dittoheads in the boat!

Kudos for explaining the how and why of when the story popped

That's from tying yourself into a fairness knot.

I think it's wonderful that Dessler and Roberts tried to sort it all out, but I think you're both more than a little naive and definitely lacking Beltway sophistication.

Groups like the AEI claim to be think tanks, but they have a very aggressive agenda. Brookings may be seen as a little to the left, but to compare the two is like saying CNN and MSNBC are liberal, while Fox is conservative.

So let's call it a wash.

In the words of William Greider, groups like AEI function as "deep lobbyists"--groups that are not specifically lobbyists in the ways that people might expect, but who are part of the crowd trying to set a legislative agenda. And they have been far too ideological in their approach.

What makes this whole episode so disappointing is that the only newspaper to point this out is all the way across the Atlantic. What's going on with the American media? Why have the lost their courage?

You guys give AEI way more credit than they deserve.

AEI lobbies at the policy level.  Notwithstanding that it's a critical distinction as far as the IRS is concerned, meaning that DeMuth's "heated" response should be seen as being for the benefit of government tax lawyers, in the real world it means nothing.  Probably it would even make an outfit like AEI less effective in their lobbying if they tied themselves too closely to particular pieces of legislation.  

By the way, I'm sure that every one of AEI's fossil fuel industry funders could join EM in claiming no specific advance knowledge of this campaign.  Based on that, should we conclude that the campaign is something that AEI did because it wanted to for reasons having nothing to do with the perceived interests of those funders?

AEI quite consciously shifts its position on climate change in accordance with their perception of which approach will be most effective in advancing the interests of their funders, and those interests are to delay serious action for as long as possible and then to ensure that the process of responding to climate change is as industry-friendly as possible.  Any other approach would dilute the effectiveness of their lobbying.

One last point on the carbon tax:  AEI knows that such a tax is a non-starter in Congress for the forseeable future.  So their new-found advocacy for such a tax vs. cap-and-trade is likely to have what practical effect on legislation over the next few years?

You claimed that in 2003, I was still "downplaying the problem" and cite a Source Watch page, rather than actually going out and reading my work. If you did so, you'd find that I have acknowledged the IPCC's baseline conclusions as being likely to be correct since I started writing about climate policy in 1997. You keep whacking away at what you claim you want: a discussion of policy with people who accept the science, and want to discuss meaningful policy. It has to make a person wonder if you really want that, or if it's only a line you drop to make yourself look more moderate.

I'll make this simple and unambiguous:

I agree, and have always agreed, that we have seen a warming of the atmosphere since 1850, as noted in the IPCC reports.

I agree, and have always agreed, that the warming is causing secondary climate effects, some of them negative.

I agree, and have always agreed that SOME of the observed warming was likely due to human GHG emissions. How MUCH we contributed at which point, and through which activity is still an open question, as is clearly evidenced from the fact that the IPCC itself keeps changing that assessment. That is policy-relevant data to question, as it bears on how effective a given action will be.

I agree, and have always agreed that the risks of climate change, whether human or natural, are serious, and warrant a firm policy response. When uncertainty was higher, I proposed adaptation actions and more funding for sequestration research. As the information has improved, I've recently also argued for congestion pricing, and a revenue-neutral carbon tax as an efficient and non-distorting policy approach.

I do not put much faith in the IPCC's predictive modeling, (nor anyone's predictive models!) and I'm far from alone on that. Many economists have taken exception with the input assumptions dreamed up in the SRES "Storylines and Scenarios." In that regard, I believe it is more intellectually honest to extrapolate forward from observed rates of warming, and develop policy proposals based on that level of warming, sea-level rise, and so on.

Ken Green

A favorite of AEI scholars

Steve - Thanks for linking to the American article...but where's the downplaying? I said it's warming, citing the IPCC mean value, and I projected warming by straight extrapolation. I then admitted that the warming will pose risks, and advocated a policy response. Is that what you object to, using a straight extrapolation from observed change?

Ken

"Some scientists, including those on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, conclude that since 1975, human activity has been the dominant factor influencing climate. This conclusion is based on computer models that forecast future trends based on a complex mix of factors that influence the climate. On the surface, this conclusion seems plausible as basic physics suggests that increased emissions of greenhouse gasesâ€"mainly carbon dioxideâ€"by humans would trap more heat in the Earthâ€TMs atmosphere, a process called the â€oegreenhouse effect.”"

Why do you claim that the IPCC reports ONLY rely on computer models?  There are many other threads to the argument, including but not limited to paleoclimate studies, which I note, you do your best to trash in #2 as unreliable.  I could also quibble about some scientists, more accurate would be the vast majority of those who study climate, but that would not convey the image you are trying to create..

Fairness is good, but we can already see the shape of the new counter argument.

The projections are too uncertain to be cause for concern.

Climate change is real but actually isn't that big a deal.

It costs too much to effectively mitigate.

There are so many better ways to spend our money. HIV/AIDS, malaria, and a new yacht for the CEO.

We could do something, but we'd be paying more than __ which would be unfair to __ because of __(fill in the blanks & accompany with lots of fearmongering, blaming, finger-pointing, and "You first! No, you first!")

We should just continue the status quo and adapt to the changing climate.

Climate change is good for you!

The climate change train has already left the station, it's too late/too difficult to do anything major about it anyway.

You ask why I say that the IPCC relies only on computer models in attributing observed climate change to human activity.

The answer is simple: Because they do. I would encourage you to call up a climate modeler (such as Gerald North) and ask him exactly what climate scientists are referring to when they attribute observed warmth to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Go on, Gerry is an approachable guy. Ask him. I did, which is where I got that information.

Oh, and, if you weren't paying attention, the NAS pointed out that paleoclimate reconstructions are not primary evidence of human causation of observed climate change. The Chairman of that effort? Gerald North.

Ken

There's no AEI fault in supporting the interests of AEI members.  Are those interests shifting towards a carbon constrained economy?  Support for a carbon tax is interesting.  How much tax, and when?

Confident attribution based on the models (but not just on the models, as Eli notes) is an IPCC baseline conclusion.  You say (in point 3) that attribution "is based on computer models that forecast future trends based on a complex mix of factors that influence the climate."  That's not quite what the models are doing when they're used for attribution, is it?  But putting it that way sure does make them sound wacky.

Climate projections based on the models are an IPCC baseline conclusion, and are implicitly in conflict with the Pat Michaels linear approach you prefer (from point 6).  In point 7, you rely on an MIT study to criticize the IPCC projection range, but oddly that study itself relies on IPCC models.  Make up your mind.

In point 4, you say:

"In fact, some of the potential cooling forces and climate feedback mechanisms that are poorly understood may be large enough to offset the warming influence of the greenhouse gases. For example, research published in the August 4, 2006, issue of Science found that human-caused emissions of aerosol particles may increase cloud cover by up to 5 percent and that clouds have a cooling effect that may neutralize the warming that is caused by human-induced greenhouse gases. If that is true, then natural variation could be the best explanation for surface warming."

(I'll pause for a moment here to give Andrew a chance to stop choking.)

This too conflicts with a baseline IPCC conclusion, but worse than that it's completely wrong within its own terms.

I'll leave the hockey stick discussion for now since I don't have time to re-read the NAS report.  

So other than that you agree with the IPCC that the world is warming, I don't see that you're at all in agreement with their baseline conclusions.

Ken-

I have to agree with Steve, Eli, etc. that you still sound like a skeptic.  In my opinion, the most important conclusion of the IPCC is: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.If you do not accept that statement (which it appears you don't), then (in my opinion) you do not accept the IPCC.

What you've done here is take a few uncontroversial parts (e.g., the Earth is warming), accept them, and then claim to have science on your side.  That's what George Bush does, and it doesn't work for him, either.

You still don't seem to get the point of the article.  If you want both sides of the climate debate to take your policy views seriously, then just stop arguing about the science (and that includes trying to claim that you've been on-board with the science all along).  

Regards

"mainstream climate science"

I thought science was advanced by skepticism, not consensus. The suggestion that Green and Hayward must agree to the "facts" of the IPCC report before debate can commence appears not so different from an earlier period where skeptics were branded as heretics. Claims of authority don't much advance debate, either.

(It seems to me, it is not the facts that are in doubt, but the conclusions drawn therefrom that are in question.)

If the scientific evidence is so overwhelming, why all the pixels expended to personally denigrate Green and Hayward as motivated to mislead and obfuscate? If Green and Hayward are so wrongheaded, why engage them in debate at all? There can't possibly be any merit to their arguments, can there?

The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

"A story about a right-wing think tank funding attacks on science is credulously accepted precisely because it conforms to recent history. Most people expect it to be true."

So skepticism is now defined as an attack on science, and a canard repeated ad nausium is recent history. But Dan Rather would be proud: a story too good to check, i.e. fake but accurate.

And "questioning authority" and "speaking truth to power" is strictly the province of the political left.

Something comes to mind about stones and glass houses...

The question of whether the AEI's view of climate science is consistent with the IPCC's "baseline conclusions" came up because Ken Green made the following claim above:

"Still mis-representing my views...

"You claimed that in 2003, I was still "downplaying the problem" and cite a Source Watch page, rather than actually going out and reading my work. If you did so, you'd find that I have acknowledged the IPCC's baseline conclusions as being likely to be correct since I started writing about climate policy in 1997."

As was amply demonstrated above, this claim was itself a misrepresentation in that Ken was still downplaying the IPCC's baseline conclusions as of October 2006.

Of course Ken and the AEI are entitled to express their views.  It's Ken's job to figure out what the minimum credible denialist position on climate science is at any given time and to promote policy based on that view.  That's what he's paid to do (largely by the fossil fuel industry) and that's fine.  It's equally fine for others to make it widely known that the AEI's work on this subject lacks even a shred of credibility.

Of course, just because someone doesn't believe in all aspects of every bit published about global warming doesn't make them a skeptic.  But, gotta say, Ken, that it seems like you waffle a bit around the points.

What's your position on energy conservation policies?