By JOHN NORTH

Two men billed as experts in their respective fields of climatology and economics last Wednesday lambasted proposed policies for North Carolina and South Carolina fueled by public fears of global warming.

Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist with a reputation as a contrarian, did not dispute that there is some evidence that global warming may be occurring, but he said the jury is still out on whether today’s weather change is cyclical or permanent and whether any changes that may occur will imperil humanity. He said he remains skeptical.

Dr. David Tuerck, an economist, also charged that certain political interest groups are using the global-warming battle as a smokescreen for their real purposes — to gain power and wealth through their interests in the mitigation projects they would mandate to make energy consumption more expensive for everyone.

Their comments were made during a John Locke Foundation Headliner Luncheon titled “State Global-Warming Policy,” which drew about 100 people to the Grove Park Inn in Asheville.

The program’s sponsor, the JLF, is a Raleigh-based free-market think tank that advocates lowering taxes, decreasing spending on social-support programs and encouraging free markets. The JLF is named after the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), who was a primary contributor to what now is considered the theory of classical liberalism.

The speakers included Dr. David Tuerck, an economist, who discussed the economics of global warming in general and the state studies in particular, and Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist, who focused his talk on the science of global warming cited in the proposals.

Roy Lordato, vice president of research for the JLF, opened the programming by introducting the first speaker, Tuerck, noting that the holder of a Ph.D. in economics is the executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a market-oriented think tank based at Suffolk University in Boston. He also is the chairman of — and a professor in — the SU Economics Department. Tuerck’s specialty is cost-benefit analysis.

Tuerck’s 25-minute address began on a light note, poking fun at his status in his Asheville appearance as a Yankee interloper in the South. He prompted laughter from the audience when he deadpanned, “I’m from Massachussetts — and I’m sorry about that!”

Taking a playful slap at himself and his fellow economists, who are reputed to be gloomy and pessimistic, he joked that “if you laid all the economists from end to end — it would be a good thing!”

Turning more serious, Tuerck said he was laden with “harsh comment on research in North Carolina” on the potential impact of global warming on the state’s economy. He based his critique on two reports that he referred to as CAPAG,  an acronym for Climate Action Plan Advisory Group; and NC-ESEIM, for the Appalachian State University Energy Scenario Economic Impact Model.

“On the subject of climate change, I must admit I am an agnostic,” Tuerck said. “I have no idea whether the climate is warming or cooling — I’m an economist and I am addressing the part where there is talk of economic effects.”

Thus, he titled his talk, “Not So Hot: The Economics of State Global Warming Policy.”

Regarding the two state research studies, he said, “The trouble with all this stuff is it’s just pure nonsense.”

He termed the global warming projections and consequent economic impact and recommendations as “an inversion of the economic policy that ‘There is no free lunch ‘ This all is based off, ‘There is a free lunch.’”

He listed the seven CAPAG recommendations as follows:

• Assess vehicle surcharge on high-emission vehicles.
• Consider following the California Emission Standard.
• Bio-Fuels Bundle — replace 10 percent of gasoline and 5 percent of diesely by 2010, 25 percent and 20 percent by 2025.
• Dedicate 1 percent of utility revenues to public benefits programs (energy efficiency funds).
• Environmental Portfolio Standard of 10 percent by 2017 and 20 percent by 2020.
• Dedicate 1.5 percent of utility revenues to demand management programs.

Tuerck said it is absurd to think that “the global warming advocates are going to figure it out and find creative ways to save the businesses money.” Moreover, he asserted, the alleged savings from the studies “are based on people being pushed out of energy and finding other ways to get the job done.”

Caveman-cartoon-(good-version).jpg

This Alex Gregory cartoon, which appeared in the May 22, 2006 edition of The New Yorker magazine, also served as the last slide shown at the global warming policy program in Asheville last Wednesday.

As for the BHI critique, he said, there has been “no attempt at a cost-benefit analysis ... I’m sure I sound like an economist on this.

The author of the study pretends one can shift a good part of these savings....

“None of this makes sense,” Tuerck noted.

He then turned his focus to the ASU claims, which included 350,000 new jobs being added via the expansion of the green economy.

Shaking his head, Tuerck said, “All these new jobs would get created by 2020 ... Why not create a million new jobs, so I could move down here from Massachussets?

“In fact, you don’t create new jobs. Instead, you create less productive jobs.”

One ASU study error is that “high energy prices are good for the economy,” Tuerck said.

Moreover, he said, “if greener energy saves money, the private section will figure that out.”

The bottom line is that “the alleged benefits of climate change policies amount to happy talk, coated with a veneer of academic respectability.’

In truth, he said, “There are no benefits, only costs, in terms of lost jobs, income,

He noted that the ASU study was done by a person with a master’s degree in engeineering and a graduate student in political science. Tuerck said it was ironic that a report on economics included no specialist in economics, much less a Ph.D. in economics.

CHECK HANDOUT ON TUERCK TALK

Next, the JLF’s Lordato introduced Christy, who is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville . He was appointed Alabama’s State Climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s “Special Award.” In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Lordato concluded his introduction of Christy by noting that “people say there’s a consensus of climate scientists on global warming. That’s not true. There are many climate scientists who have not taken that oath on global warming.”

Looking at his watch, Christy warned the audience, “Put your seatbelts on — I want to be through by 1 p.m.!”

A decided contrarian, Christy began his 20-minute talk by quoting several writer-thinkers who spoke of the importance of ignoring the beliefs of the majority to get to the truth, including author-doctor Michael Crichton, who said, “Consensus is not science.”

Christy said he would start his presentation with “basic numbers,” noting that carbon dioxide has increased 38 percent.

To put that number into perspective, he said that if carbon dioxide were doubled, the Earth would heat up 1 degree.

Carbon dioxide is increase 1/16 percent per year, Christy noted. He termed CO2 as “essential for all life.” He also said “plant food” is the best definition of the term.

Next, he asked the audience “if you want to be in a world where glaciers are retreating or advancing, which would you choose?”
In response, the crowd laughed.

Christy said glaciers are receding in California, “but not because of global warming.” He added that “glaciers, it turns out, are very unreliable measures” of heating and cooling trends.

Instead, he said “the best place to look is the tropics.” Models there “suggest there is a big disconnect between climate models for global warming and the reality of surface temparatures.”

In North Alabama, where he is based, Christy said, “Our temperatures actually have been falling for the last 100 years.”

Thus, he contended, “An apples-to-apples comparison between greenhouse-effect models and reality shows significant differences.”

In essence, Christy said, “Water vapor and clouds dominate the greenhouse effect.”

He then said it is a myth that “cold regions are getting warmer and warmer,” although “sure enough, in the last 30 years Arctic regions have lost much of their ice shelf.”

However, he added, “Let’s go back 1,500 years — the point is, what we’re seeing in the Arctic, we’ve seen before.”

To emphasize his point, Christy said, “Let’s go back to the 10,000-year to 4,000-year period,” when, he claimed, the Earth “had much warmer temperatures and the ice did not melt.”

He pointed to Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya, where, he said, “the temperatures are not rising.”

Christy also said of the sea ice in the Antarctica Sea, “It’s growing, but it’s not reported in the (mass) media, of course.”

He added, “We’re not losing sea ice folks. You just have to know” where to look for it. The sea ice is melting in some areas and growing in others, Christy stressed.

Another “myth,” he said, is that the polar bears are becoming extinct because of the melting of sea ice in their habitat resulting from global warming.

In the 1960s, there were 6,000 to 10,000 polar bears on Earth, Christy said, citing research data. Today, there are an estimated 24,000 polar bears, despite an 800-bear kill limit per year.

“The main reason” for any decline in the polar bear population was the result of native hunters using “snowmobiles and high-powered rifles” to increase their efficiency, over the customary bow-and arrow.

Another “myth,” he said, is that “the sea levels will rise.” At most, Christy said the sea level is rising an inch per decade, which he termed not a problem.

“To get the sea level to rise seriously, we’d have to melt Greenland,” he said. “And Greenland’s not melting.”

In rapidly running through his slide presentation, Christy said, “Please don’t demonize energy because without energy life is brutal and harsh.”

As for the dilemma about “doing something about global warming,” he suggested the following:

• Meet sipfiest growth in energy demand
• California seeks through AB1493.

“Business as usual.”

“At the most, it would .001 percent hotter by 2100 (A.D.), if everyone adhered to California’s AB-1493. Christy was called in to testify as a weather expert in the court case challenging AB 1493, but he said the judge decided to ignore the science he presented and allowed it to pass.

Meanwhile, he said energy demand in the U.S. — and the world — is surging. “If we build 1,000 nuclear power plants, it would just make a dent in demand.”

As for the two studies with recommendations for global warming policies in North and South Carolina, Christy said, “Making energy more expensive (as he said they would) is a regressive tax and an economic development inhibitor.

“In my state (Alabama), we still have a sign that says, ‘Alabama is open for business.’” Christy then quipped, “If North Carolina goes this way — thank you from Alabama!”

Instead of following the two reports, Christy said North Carolina, as well as other states, should do the following:

• Measure (global warming) very well and adapt to what’s happening.
• Do not worry too much now because mankind is inventive. “In 50 years, other energy alternatives will be discovered,” he said, noting that the internal combustion engine and “this carbon-burning is very 19th century” technology.”

Christy then read aloud a slide of a cartoon that he showed on a large wall screen. It showed one cavemen saying to the other: “Something’s just not right — our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and

free-range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”

In closing, Christy reiterated his contention that “making energy more expensive takes us backward and not forward.