Just who are the 3% of climate scientists?

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the science of global warming.

One, carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas.

Two, carbon dioxide is created by burning carbon: wood, coal, oil and its by-products.

Three, if wood is used and replanted, we have a virtuous cycle.  Wood is burned and trees take up the carbon dioxide, making more carbon

Four, if coal or oil are burned, they are taking carbon from under the ground, but there seems to be few ways to convert this carbon dioxide into underground carbon.
.
Five, geothermal on a large scale is not an answer.  It may not be adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but it is taking heat from underground that is not put back underground.

Six, nuclear energy is not the answer.  First, it generates a lot of heat that must be dissipated somewhere.  Second, what do you do with the very hazardous waste?

That leaves only with wind, solar and tidal power.  It is bad enough that there are naysayers about global warming, but each of these energy sources has problems with storage for when they are not available.  No wind, no sun, or no nearby tides.

The way technology is changing, the storage problems may be solved in the next ten years or so.  Battery technology is improving in power and cost.  Will dynamos or capacitors be far behind?

Oh, by the way, who employs the three percent who claim not enough evidence has been gathered to confirm global warming.  Could it be polluters?  Even EXXON scientists are saying that global warming exists.

"Eppur si riscalda!” - “And yet it warms”, a variant of “Eppur si muove” - “And yet it moves”, incorrectly attributed to Galileo after he recanted his findings to the Pope.

Quote of the day: Coal vs. Solar

"There are now more than twice as many workers in the fast-growing solar power industry than there are coal miners."
- "Coal Industry Wobbles as Market Forces Slug Away", James B. Stewart, New York Times, 2015-08-06

Are the likes of Sen. Mitch McConnell preventing jobs in solar while protecting jobs in coal?  Also, does he think of the lives destroyed by lax safety standards and the contaminated air and water around towns near coal mines.

Of course not!  Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit over 200 years ago.  They deceive and oppress the public.  See "The Invisible Adam Smith".

Disconnect on subsidies

Why is it bad to subsidize an industry such as wind or solar but it is all right to subsidize a company for locating in a particular spot?

There are many who call for an end to subsidies for alternative energy, but do they complain about subsidies for fossil fuel companies?  For example, Sasol is getting a $2 billion subsidy from Louisiana to build a gas-to-liquid plant.  See "Sasol Betting Big on Gas-to-Liquid Technology",  John M. Broder and Clifford Krauss, New York Times, 2012-12-17.

I wonder if any economist has ever done a long-term study on the value of subsidies.  I know there have been subsidies to get companies to locate in a particular city or state, and many companies abandon that city or state before the locality has even recouped its investment.  I also know that government subsidies have transformed the economy mostly for the benefit of many.  Lincoln called for subsidies to the transcontinental railroad which greatly improved the U.S. economy.  Would we have computers and the Internet without many other government subsidies?

What we really need are some metrics that show whether a government subsidy will provide a huge social benefit or will only be a drain that lines the pockets of a few.

Congress and the Chamber of Commerce gave the Chinese my lunch!

Somewhere Thomas Friedman wrote about other countries are going to be eating our lunch because we are standing pat on education or technology. Here is one way it is happening.

Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been dragging their feet on global warming and clean energy. The Chamber has claimed that doing something and investing in green energy will cost jobs.

Guess what? The foot dragging is costing jobs. China is already outstripping the U.S. in lower and lower cost of producing solar cells, wind turbines, and so on. Not just because of lower labor costs, but because of scale and improving products and techniques. Already several U.S. green energy companies have moved production to China, and the largest Chinese solar company has a large contract with the U.S. government.

See "The new arms race", Robert Kennedy Jr., Huffington Post, 2009-11-19, "The New Sputnik", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2009-09-27, and "Who has the right priorities?", a blog of mine in February.

I think China is putting up a big smoke screen, pardon the pun, about being a developing country that needs the dirty energy to catch up to the developed countries. The Chamber has fallen right into the Chinese trap. The Chinese are going to develop right past us while we hobble ourselves with old technology.

Thanks, Congress and the Chamber, for giving away our lunch.