Seeking Alpha

Robert Wagner's  Instablog

Robert Wagner
Send Message
Professional Credentials: The reports that I write are my personal research and opinions. They are not associated with any firm or organization, and are not intended to be taken as investment recommendations or advice. They combine my passions of economics, finance, writing and education, and... More
  • Climate Change Consensus Bubble Burst By The Facts At Near 95% Confidence Level 10 comments
    May 20, 2013 1:17 PM

    In a recent article about the gold bubble I had a quote from Fortress Investment Group's Michael Novogratz defining what made a bubble "successful."

    Gold was a classic bubble...it had such a compelling story...bubbles come around spectacularly good stories that are believable.

    Well, if gold is a bubble, climate change is the Hindenberg of all bubbles, and just like gold, the climate change bears are finally getting their day in the media. The Wall Street journal recently published an article titled "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide." The article wasn't written by some "flat earther," "denier" or "political hack," it was written by a very mild mannered, well reasoned physicist from Princeton and an engineer/Apollo17 astronaut and former Senator. Hardly the type of people that can be easily dismissed as a kooks or crazies.

    Why I consider climate change a pseudo-science hype bubble is simply because the facts pretty much prove that position. Just like gold, the whole concept was a spectacularly good story built on myths, and as long as people were making money, no one had an incentive to look behind the curtain. Now however the political atmosphere is changing, scientists are becoming bolder and willing to speak the truth, and what they are exposing will likely make the scandals of Benghazi, IRS Gate and the AP phone taps look like picnics. Why this is important to investors, and why the Wall Street journal find it important to run such stories is because there is an entire "green economy" that is almost totally dependent upon the carbon causes global warming myth. If the political atmosphere changes in Washington towards climate change, the political risk to these industries and firms is enormous.

    In this video from CNBC, Joe Kernan interviews author Professor William Happer, and does a great job highlighting what I consider many of the "smoking guns" that expose this climate change movement as a hoax. The most damning of the evidence is how the CO2 model simply violates the most basic of scientific principles; cause and effect. In a cause and effect model by definition the cause must lead the effect. The timeline is critical. People smoke and then they develop lung cancer. The smoking must precede the development of lung cancer. CO2 simply doesn't lead temperature, climate scientists don't even deny that, nor do their data sets demonstrate that. Simple common sense and a basic knowledge of the carbon cycle would lead the CO2 believers to the truth. During an ice age, there is very little life and the cool oceans absorb CO2. As the sun warms the earth, the glaciers melt, things grow, respire, decompose and the oceans warm and release CO2 much like a warm bottle of Champaign.

    The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. "The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,"

    Even after they "adjust" the data, CO2 still lags temperature.

    His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.

    The second most damning bit of evidence is that the computer models on which this entire science is based make the gold models of 2 years ago look accurate. As pointed out in the video the common myth is that 98% of all climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming. The problem is, science relies on science, statistics and mathematics, not a "consensus." Climate science is the only field of "science" I know of where the conclusions are reached in a fashion much like the Miss America pageant, by "consensus." Back in 1492 the "consensus" was that the earth was flat, but as we now know, the "consensus" didn't make it so. The following graphic highlights just how wrong these climate models are, and how close these models are to being proven false by almost any statistical measure.

    (click to enlarge)

    Unfortunately for climate scientists, and fortunately for those seeking the truth, science really does matter. The overconfident climate scientists blinded by their own political agendas were extremely eager to publish plenty of data in a rush to ensure that their funding gravy train remained full and flowing. Like all myths and bubbles, that will only succeed for so long before the truth catches up and exposes the whole thing as an illusion. An elaborate, extremely expensive and disruptive illusion, but an illusion all the same. Why the above chart is so damning for those who seek the truth is that it speaks the language of science, not the social politics of a cocktail party consensus. If in fact there is a 98% consensus in the field of climate science, their "science" is headed for a cataclysmic disaster, and it won't take a meteor from space to cause its extinction, it will only take their published works.

    The above chart shows a model with a 95% confidence interval. Anyone that has even an elementary school knowledge of the scientific method knows that science doesn't prove things, it disproves things. Science experiments establish a "null hypothesis" and then set out to disprove it. The way you disprove a theory is to measure data that falls outside of a certain confidence interval, usually 90 or 95% for the hard sciences. That is why scientists always say things like "with 95% confidence" or "we are confident at the 95% level" when they discuss research and findings. If you look at the above chart, the current temperatures are resting on the extreme lower outside of the 95% confidence band. There own model is already proven invalid at the 75% confidence level, which is the darker orange center band. The problem this creates for the "consensus" scientists that blindly jumped on this global warming bandwagon, it that now the undeniable facts are coming to light, and their own research is buying the rope that will be used to hang them. Already, it is almost safe to say that at 94.9999999% this model has been proven invalid, the null is rejected, but it has yet to cross that magical 95% level that will grab the headlines and more Seeking Alpha articles when it happens.

    With the temperature data resting on the extreme lower edge of the 95% band we are only one short cold spell away from determining this model null and void, rejected with a confidence level of 95%. The question, and congressional investigations that this will or should surely spawn, is how can 98% of "scientists" form a "consensus" on a model that has been proven invalid at the 95% confidence level? How can so many be so completely wrong? This will surely go down in scientific history as one of the greatest examples of the politicization of science, group think and scientific malpractice since Piltdown man. We are teaching this invalid "science" is almost every classroom in America? China is teaching their children engineering so they can build more coal burning power plants, and here in America we are teaching our children an invalid junk science more appropriate for political or social sciences than the hard sciences. The implications of this are extremely broad reaching, and the political risks and consequences are unlikely discounted in the price of green economy stocks such as wind, solar and ethanol yet, but one single congressional investigation piled upon top of the Benghazi, IRS and AP investigations can change all that in the drop of a gavel.

    Some other interesting data provided in the article and videos is that:

    1) Elevated CO2 levels are great for crop yields and agricultural productivity.

    2) Submarines have CO2 levels well in access of those found in the atmosphere today.

    3) Glaciers have been disappearing long before the industrial age, in fact they started receding over 10,000 years ago with the ending of the last ice age.

    4) Very few if any of the hysterical claims of extreme weather and the impact of climate change stand up to scrutiny. By the way, this video created years ago proves the claims haven't held any credibility for quite some time.

    The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been-and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

    5) When primates first walked the earth CO2 levels were 10x where they are today.

    6) CO2 is the element of life. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. The dangers of labeling an element critical to life as a pollutant is an insanely risky action, especially when the Government, sometimes totalitarian in nature, is in charge of enforcement of CO2 regulation. China already claims their infanticidal one child policy is helping the environoment.

    7) Most importantly, CO2 has continued to increase and global temperatures are flat to falling. There has been no material temperature increase in over a decade.

    In conclusion, why investors should be interested in, and the Wall Street Journal and CNBC are giving press coverage to climate change is because of the tremendous political and headline risks that are associated with it. Industries like wind, solar and ethanol are almost 100% dependent upon and manufactured by governmental policies. Without government support, many, if not all firms in those industries are doomed to bankruptcy. Mid-term elections are less than 2 years away and the Republicans have a chance to strengthen their hold on the House and a chance of capturing the Senate. In Washington a week is an eternity, and with two years, there is plenty of time for a cooling spell to push the climate models way beyond the 95% confidence level envelope and the congress to add yet another investigation to their already full dance card. In my opinion a scandal weakened administration is the ideal time to address the politically charged issue of climate change, and now that more and more real scientists are willing to speak up and challenge the "consensus" by writing articles for the Wall Street Journal, appearing on CNBC and refusing to be bullied into silence, the likelihood of a congressional investigation only grows, and the political risk to the "green economy" grows with it. The outlook for coal, natural gas, utilities and petroleum should also improve as well.

    Disclaimer: This article is not an investment recommendation. Any analysis presented in this article is illustrative in nature, is based on an incomplete set of information and has limitations to its accuracy, and is not meant to be relied upon for investment decisions. Please consult a qualified investment advisor. The information upon which this material is based was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee its accuracy. Any opinions or estimates constitute the author's best judgment as of the date of publication, and are subject to change without notice.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Themes: market-outlook
Back To Robert Wagner's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (10)
Track new comments
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » “Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.

     

    The problem for the Met Office is to explain why the rate of increase in global temperatures has declined in recent years while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to accelerate. Sceptics claim that this shows there is not a strong link between the two, whereas climate scientists insist that rising carbon dioxide concentrations are largely responsible for the rise in global temperatures.
    http://ind.pn/11cpStW
    23 Jul 2013, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • nswanberg
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    No one should be commenting on global warming unless they understand that the latent heat of fusion for water is 144 Btu per pound. Do you understand?
    12 Aug 2013, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Care to explain how H2O "fusion" is related to AGW CO2? BTW, H2O isn't formed through "fusion" nor does it decompose through "fusion." Fusion is at the elemental level, H2O is a molecule formed through the combustion of H2. I would be interested in the "fusion" theory, I haven't heard that one yet. One is a chemical reaction, one is an atomic reaction.
    12 Aug 2013, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • Morgan Wright
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Robert Wagner, the heat of fusion refers to the heat required to melt ice. 144 Btu of heat to turn a pound of ice into water. You never took high school chemistry did you
    14 Oct 2013, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I've had chemistry through college organic chemistry. Do you have a point?
    14 Oct 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • Morgan Wright
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Robert, it takes 144 BTUs to melt a pound of ice which is already warmed up to the freezing point. It refers to the heat of the phase change. There is also a thing called heat of vaporization. Care to guess what that means?
    13 Oct 2013, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » It is just what it sounds like, it is "enthalpy" or boiling point. Boiling point drops with altitude. Ironically, melting point also drops with altitude, so even at a lower melting point there is still no evidence of melting. The climategate emails identify sublimation.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • Morgan Wright
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Robert Wagner the heat of fusion means it takes 144 Btu of heat to melt 1 pound of ice into water. There is also a heat of vaporization, let's see if you can guess what that is.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Morgan, what is your point? We have melting, evaporation, boiling and sublimation. What point are you trying to make? If you are trying to make a point, simply make it.
    13 Oct 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2173) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Al Gore "picks a stock out of the air" and then only later discloses that he owns it.
    http://yhoo.it/1fIXMOY

     

    He invests in companies that benefit from higher oil prices, and then promotes policies that result in higher oil prices.
    http://yhoo.it/19XB1CF
    18 Oct 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.