Scientific American has a dilemma (Extra!, 2/11): It takes advertising from oil companies whose profits depend on denying the most important scientific fact of our era, the reality of human-caused climate change. The magazine would lose its whole brand identity if it pretended global warming wasn't happening, but there are things short of that that will make its fossil-fuel-selling advertisers a little happier.
Such as running blog posts like "It's Not About Tar Sands–It's About Us" by Melissa C. Lott and Scott McNally (5/23/12). Lott and McNally–both of whom have worked for the energy industry when they aren't science blogging–dispute the idea that people concerned with climate change ought to discourage Canada from extracting and burning its tar sands, because:
Stopping Canada from producing tar sands will not curb the world's oil demand, reduce fossil fuel consumption or significantly reduce our total greenhouse gas footprint. In truth, if President Obama were to convince Canada to stop producing their own resources, as Hansen suggests, this would not discourage Americans from driving their SUVs to the mall.
If we want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, we have to reduce demand.
Oh, come on. Surely folks from the business world have heard about supply and demand? The Canadian tar sands account for about 12 percent of proven global oil reserves–more than enough to have a major impact on world oil prices, which is the surest way to affect demand.
But not only don't Lott and McNally want to restrict the supply of oil to reduce demand, they don't think it's a good idea to reduce demand by taxing it, either.
Taxing oil producers, and then distributing those tax revenues to oil consumers makes little sense in the context of our nation's energy markets. Here’s why:
If you impose a tax on an energy company, instead of becoming less profitable by absorbing the tax, the energy companies will pass on the expense to the consumer…. So ultimately, energy will be more expensive, and the consumer will pay more. From an environmental perspective, this is good, because incentivizing consumers to use less can lead to demand reductions. But, giving those taxes back to the consumer nullifies the incentive.
You really have to wonder if they're trying hard not to understand the proposal they're criticizing. As they quote, the suggestion is that a tax on carbon be returned to the public "on a per-capita basis"–meaning that people who use less carbon than average would get a bonus, and people who use more would face a penalty. Where's the incentive nullification in that?
Sloganeering for the energy interests that have employed them, Lott and McNally conclude: "A tax that would punish producers and reward consumers is not going to help." Writing like this is only going to help Scientific American assure its oil industry advertisers that it sometimes has their back.
About Jim Naureckas
michael e: I have pointed out that Monkton has offered to debate them in a world forum anytime ,anywhere.They simply turn their noses up…
_____________________________________________
Yep. And, shockingly, Albert Pujols refused my invitation to play on my beer-league slow pitch softball team. Guess he's scared he'll get shown up.
Any clown who gets a congressional subpoena is good enough to testify before Congress. Monckton was called because some Congressmen like what he has to say, not because his body of work on climate science is well-regarded in the scientific community– it most certainly is not.
As I've said, we await published review of your findings. Perhaps we'll read all about it in "Science" or "Scientific American."
John he has been called 3x by congress and listed as an expert witness.You say that is shabby.We will agree to disagree.To say he is not qualified to discuss the pertinent data is to say Obama is not qualified to discuss anything except certain areas of the law in his job as president.Certainly that would extend to military and economic matters.This type of elitist ,snobbery ,and good old boy peer group nonsense would if fact disqualify Obama from making decisions on any of this.The left often uses this closed door approach to open discussions(sic).Certainly his body of work is not well regarded in that part of the scientific community selling global warming.As would be expected.Elaine acts as if the only people who believe it is a hoax is Rush Limbaugh …a mad scientist trained in Aruba,plus six guys waiting for a bus in Cleveland.You do see that there are a few more people than that dragging their heels with the lefts agenda on this i hope.You can't believe this is a slam dunk.I was a Dem once- so i know the poison in the veins.You believe people are too stupid or hoodwinked to see the light right?That is why not everyone is onboard.
Nasa has just released data that announced that the world has NOT cooled in the last 15 years.They call this cycle 24.They say cycle 25 will be careening into a mini ice age,with temps cooling.Hope global warming can counter some of those effects …don't you?
We still await published review of your findings in journals such as the above. Als0–cc to NASA.
@michael e: Monckton's degrees are in journalism and classics. He has never conducted a single climate or other scientific study that I know of. He has never been employed as an applied or research scientist of any kind. His career has been in journalism, politics, and business. How exactly does he meet any reasonable criteria for being an expert on climate science? Being glib, humourous, and persuasive should not make up for a lack of technical scientific acumen.
About 99% of legitimate climate scientists– guys and girls who make a living day in and day out studying the climate– think human-driven climate change is happening and is an issue that needs to or will need to be addressed. Like I said before, when placing bets between the two, I'll take the professional scientists and give points to the politician/journalist with the classics degree and a small business.
Politicians– like Monckton and the rest of Congress– can discuss climate change on whatever level they want and spin whatever facts they wanna spin however they wanna spin it. It's not just a matter reserved for snobs, as you suggest I would have it. But you need to understand that the politicians are absolutely not the experts on the issue.
The answer john is simple.I practice medicine.I do not do the research that gives me the tools to do my job.I am the end result of years of research, and study by people better versed in that application..Similarily to Monkton and the understanding of climate research, president Obama is unable to explain anything militarily…or economically……or historically.He is educated in one thing….law.Would you say that leaves him unable to make any decisions on global warming?On the military?On anything outside of law?There is a simple right and wrong.Not right only if that is where your education background lies.
A scientist will dig into the side of a hill and study the soil deposits to garner information that at one time far below this glacier,during the iron age, was a copper mine use by our ancestors.Monkton takes that information and points out the simple fact that although the glacier has shrunk……in the past it was much smaller.Without any man made effects.He is like any of us taking the facts and pointing out obvious conclusions.He has made it a point to assimilate information on the subject and draw conclusions.The Congress thought him expert enough at this to call him before them 3 times.To say only the scientist who work in the field can interpret the scientific facts is nonsense.As far as what i believe….i believe the scientific research up till 2009 was very flawed in its application.It has gotten better and will continue to get better.There is good research that man will have effect on the weather.And even that that may result in warming.But if the world cools as Nasa is now reporting it will- according to their data.Well then it is a sticky wicket.Either there is a dependable model or there is not.As i say we go on.Far to early for us to give government the keys to yet another car.
@michael e: Your answer is indeed quite simple; it's also way off-base. Taking your example of you practicing medicine as a result of all the research that's gone before you: that certainly makes you qualified to practice medicine, but it doesn't make you qualified to barge into a world-renowned endocrinologist's lecture and take over. Sure, you can criticise that endocrinologist's work and dispute his conclusions on any number of basis– and you may even be correct. But that doesn't change the fact that he's an expert in endocrinology and you're not.
Look at it this way… Remember that trial about teaching intelligent design in that school district in PA several years ago? Well, the creationist side of the case called an expert witness: a biologist who taught at a university and published books and everything. Well the opposing counsel made him look pretty bad and pointed out a lot of flaws in his work. But that doesn't mean that the scientist's university fired him and hired the lawyer in his place, and the lawyer from then on got the biologist's book royalties. The lawyer was just a lawyer and will never be scientist. Monckton is just a journalist and politician and will never be a scientist. And I see no reason why his opinion oughta be weighed so strongly against the vast majority of climate scientists who are far more qualified to talk about the climate.
Any politician or thier appointee or columnist or whatever is "qualified" to make a decision or talk or advocate about any issue they dang-well please. But that qualification comes from the fact that they were elected or appointed or hired or whatever– not necessarily because they have the underlying education and training. The Secretary of Defense is qualified to make decisions about fuel-use policy in helicopter operations in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean he's qualified to climb behind the controls of Chinook and fly it to Kandahar.