The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released the summary of its latest, forthcoming report on global warming. It’s most trumpeted finding is that the existence of global warming is now “unequivocal.â€
Although such anecdotal evidence as January’s snowfall in Tucson, Arizona and freezing weather in Southern California and February’s more than 100-inch snowfall in upstate New York might suggest otherwise, global warming may indeed be a fact. It may also be a fact that it is a by-product of industrial civilization (despite, according to The New York Times of November 7, 2006, two ice ages having apparently occurred in the face of carbon levels in the atmosphere 16 times greater than that of today, millions of years before mankind’s appearance on earth).
If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them? Does it follow that there is a need to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions and the use of the fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—that gives rise to the emissions? The need for such limitation and/or rollback is the usual assumption.
Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing whatever follows from these facts. Before any implication for action can be present, additional information is required.
One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.
Modern, industrial civilization and its further development are values that we dare not sacrifice if we value our material well-being, our health, and our very lives. It is what has enabled billions more people to survive and to live longer and better. Here in the United States it has enabled the average person to live at a level far surpassing that of kings and emperors of a few generations ago.
The foundation of this civilization has been, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, the use of fossil fuels.
Of course, there are projections of unlikely but nevertheless possible extreme global warming in the face of which conditions would be intolerable. To deal with such a possibility, it is necessary merely to find a different method of cooling the earth than that of curtailing the use of fossil fuels. Such methods are already at hand, as I will explain in an article that will appear shortly.
In fact, if it comes, global warming, in the projected likely range, will bring major benefits to much of the world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time will shorten important shipping routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Strangely, these facts are rarely mentioned. Instead, attention is devoted almost exclusively to the negatives associated with global warming, above all to the prospect of rising sea levels, which the report projects to be between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100, a range, incidentally, that by itself does not entail major coastal flooding. (There are, however, projections of a rise in sea levels of 20 feet or more over the course of the remainder of the present millennium.)
Yes, rising sea levels may cause some islands and coastal areas to become submerged under water and require that large numbers of people settle in other areas. Surely, however, the course of a century, let alone a millennium, should provide ample opportunity for this to occur without any necessary loss of life.
Indeed, a very useful project for the UN’s panel to undertake in preparation for its next report would be a plan by which the portion of the world not threatened with rising sea levels would accept the people who are so threatened. In other words, instead of responding to global warming with government controls, in the form of limitations on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, an alternative response would be devised that would be a solution in terms of greater freedom of migration.
In addition, the process of adaptation here in the United States would be helped by making all areas determined to be likely victims of coastal flooding in the years ahead ineligible for any form of governmental aid, insurance, or disaster relief that is not already in force. Existing government guarantees should be phased out after a reasonable grace period. Such measures would spur relocation to safer areas in advance of any future flooding.
Emissions Caps Mean Impoverishment
The environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life, which it regards merely as one of earth’s “biota,†of no greater value than any other life form, such as spotted owls or snail darters. To it, the loss of industrial civilization is of no great consequence. It is a boon.
But to everyone else, it would be an immeasurable catastrophe: the end of further economic progress and the onset of economic retrogression, with no necessary stopping point. Today’s already widespread economic stagnation is the faintest harbinger of the conditions that would follow.
A regime of limitations on the emission of greenhouse gases means that all technological advances requiring an increase in the total consumption of man-made power would be impossible to implement. At the same time, any increase in population would mean a reduction in the amount of man-made power available per capita. (Greater production of atomic power, which produces no emissions of any kind, would be an exception. But it is opposed by the environmentalists even more fiercely than is additional power derived from fossil fuels.)
To gauge the consequences, simply imagine such limits having been imposed a generation or two ago. If that had happened, where would the power have come from to produce and operate all of the new and additional products we take for granted that have appeared over these years? Products such as color television sets and commercial jets, computers and cell phones, CDs and DVDs, lasers and MRIs, satellites and space ships? Indeed, the increase in population that has taken place over this period would have sharply reduced the standard of living, because the latter would have been forced to rest on the foundation of the much lower per capita man-made power of an earlier generation.
Now add to this the effects of successive reductions in the production of man-made power compelled by the imposition of progressively lower ceilings on greenhouse-gas emissions, ceilings as low as 75 or even 40 percent of today’s levels. (These ceilings have been advocated by Britain’s Stern Report and by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel, respectively.) Inasmuch as these ceilings would be global ceilings, any increase in greenhouse-gas emissions taking place in countries such as China and India would be possible only at the expense of even further reductions in the United States, whose energy consumption is the envy of the world.
All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.
Already, led by French President Jacques Chirac, forces are gathering to make non-compliance with emissions caps an international crime. Given such developments, it is absolutely vital that the United States never enter into any international treaty in which it agrees to caps on greenhouse-gas emissions.
if the economic progress of the last two hundred years or more is to continue, if its existing benefits are to be maintained and enlarged, the people of the United States, and hopefully of the rest of the world as well, must turn their backs on environmentalism. They must recognize it for the profoundly destructive, misanthropic philosophy that it is. They must solve any possible problem of global warming on the foundation of industrial civilization, not on a foundation of its ruins.
This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 130 comments }
← Previous Comments
Vince, give me a break.
I’m not asking you or anyone to assume the sincerity, honesty, or scientific integrity of academic or government science.
I’m just pointing out that, for many of the “skeptics” here for who you are requesting sympathy, their so-called skepticism is simply a cop-out – a rather transparent effort to avoid the hard work of thinking through climate change. So they’ll question merely one side of the science, gobble up all kinds of crackpots, ignore the motives of most by casting aspersions at the motives of a few, and completely ignore fundamental Austrian lessons about the difficult problems with catallaxy in the face of open-access resources and about how elites have hijacked elites – even if the face of the appalling corruption of the past six years.
They’ve got fingers in their ears even when I point to all of the support for climate change science from Exxon and others, and all of the private activity to monitor and cut CO2 emissions, to develop and market new technologies, etc.
Attempts at reasoned discourse are greeted hostilely, if not laughed away, while Dr. Reisman’s suggestions for the use of nuke and grandiose construction projects drawn kid gloves or silence.
I’m certainly not trying to lead anyone down a primrose path to KoolAid, but rather that people use their critcal faculties a little more rogrously.
So maybe the skeptics of the skeptics might deserve a little sympathy? (Or is that too much like asking for sympathy for the Devil?)
Tom
Tom,
It’s not fingers in ears; it’s eyes wide open to the kind of hysteria from which nothing good comes, especially when the world has two massive and intimately intertwined problems that it remains blissfully ignorant of and for which it has hell to pay accordingly:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213
http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/economics/2007/03/financial_armag.html
TT,
Please do not twist what I said. I never said or implied in my comment that industry and industry supported groups can not be biased or do not lobby for their own interests. In fact, I used the word “worstâ€, which implies that other groups partake in this type of activity. Interest groups from all parts of the political spectrum “capture†the government regulatory apparatus, not to mention all the funding and power that flows to the regulatory apparatus itself.
And regarding the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, I believe that many from the Left of the political spectrum are supportive of both of these. In fact as far as wars are concerned, over the last 100 or so years Democrats arguably have more blood on their hands than Republicans.
Sorry, Tom, I didn’t mean to insult or upset you. I think you are a valuable part of this discussion, I am just asking for a bit of empathy for the skeptics.
I have mentioned this previously in other posts on this blog regarding AGW, but it has been ignored. In the mid-1970s, I was an undergraduate geology major, and at that time we were taught that the earth was entering another ice age and that only international government action could save earth and man from catastrophe.
Then within roughly 10 years, the consensus shifted 180 degrees, and the earth was heating up, with this caused by human fossil fuel consumption. And of course, the same type of action was required to prevent the new catastrophe.
Call me what you may, but I know what I was taught, and I am not a liar. I am sorry but this 180 degree about face by the supposed experts in a space of 10 years (the earth is over 5 billion years old), was a bit too much for me to accept from a common sense viewpoint.
No one take this personally, but I do not believe many of this site’s bloggers were even attending grammar school in 1976 or 1977.
Also, how do the supporters of AGW explain the fact that roughly 10,000 years ago the earth was so cold that almost all of Canada and a notable part of the United States were covered by glaciers? Somehow, the earth warmed up considerably with virtually no human CO2 emissions for all but the last few hundred years of this period. In fact, the last glaciation period is generally not presented for popular consumption by the supporters of AGW.
ChrisB (and Tom and … )
One more time, watch this — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 — and chill out.
Chris,
Mises, Hayek, Lachmann, and Rothbard, are all considered outliers, if not unscientific cranks, by the mainstream economics profession. Since you have shown admiration for their work, just possibly, you might want to rethink the veracity of what is considered the consensus in climate science regarding AGW.
In particular, Mises, arguably the twentieth century’s greatest theoretical economist, was treated like garbage by the mainstream economics profession in the United States, overwhelming because his economics and methodology did not conform to the consensus. So much for the integrity of academia.
To reiterate, academia, across not just the US, but across the West is thoroughly compromised by its intimate association with the state. I can’t put it any plainer than that. This means that any purportedly scientific explainations of the association (if any can be shown) between anthropogenic activity, increased atmospheric CO, and rising global temperature must be held in extreme skepticism, particularly by people familiar with a priori reasoning and the corrupt habits of government.
I for one cannot see how anyone can express any real sympathy for the Austrian position and at the same time unquestioningly embrace a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data.
And please, don’t question my interest in science, or the environment, it’s where I have made my living for my entire career.
Chris;
Please give an example of how Rothbard’s arguments in “The Ethics Of Liberty” are “badly thought out”. I don’t see any.
Dennis, your impression that I’ve twisted anything you said seems to me a perfect example of how good we are at avoiding thinking in defense of our existing views. We all do it; it’s reflexive and comes naturally and subconsciously.
All I’ve done is to ask you a few questions that make you examine how your views actually apply. Care to actually look at and respond to my questions, instead of treating me like I’m a torturer?
Tom
Vince, thanks for the kind remarks.
Actually, I do empathize with the skeptics and think that my posts generally manifest that. For what it’s worth, I consider myself a skeptic, and certainly know what it’s like to argue from an outlying position.
I think I understand better than most that we all have trouble changing our minds, and for that reason hate the direct questioning of bona fides. We are all quite flawed and susceptible to self-delusion and tribal patterns of thinking and behavior.
Dennis:
Again you bring up cooling.
1. I’m not sure how many commenters on this blog were even here 11 months ago, but didn’t we already have this discussion?
April 13, 2006 WSJ Article “Climate of Fear”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004905.asp
a. “Dennis: Links to detailed explanations concerning the 70′s fears of cooling (and other concerns about the existing science) can be found at this “climate bingo” page: http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/. To summarize, it was clear that climate forcing could be caused both by CO2 (warming) and sulfates (cooling) from air pollution; as it was not clear that we would actually enact laws and regulations relating to air pollution [draconian measures that lead us to serfdom, ruined the economy, etc.!], some scientists predicted, that IF sulfate levels QUADRUPLED, it may force an ice age. That of course did not occur, as the Western democracies took measures that sharply reduced sulfates.
“It is thought that the cooling in the 70′s was partially attributable to sulfates and soot from industrialized nations, as well as to particulates thrown into the air by atmospheric nuclear testing.”
Posted by: tokyo-tom at April 16, 2006 9:22 PM”
b. Earlier to you on the same thread:
“Ah, yes, the global cooling canard. It pops up every year like the spring flowers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94“
Posted by: M1EK at April 13, 2006 8:47 PM
You didn’t respond to either of us at that time, but your response is of course always welcome (next year too?).
2. You can find more support for this from RogerM, who on Dr. Reisman’s more recent thread has the following to say:
“During the 3 days that the 9/11 disaster grounded all air travel in the US, a California scientist measured temperatures across the country and found them 3 degrees warmer than normal. He thinks airline contrails block 3% of the sun’s energy and cool the earth.
In India, pollution reduces the average temp by 10 degrees. So all we need to do to reduce the effects of global warming is fly more and pollute more.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp
Can I provide any further help?
Regards,
TT
PS: You really make me feel like an old dog – in 1976/77 you were in grammar school?!
David, the Peak Oil guys tend to forget that there are many more BTUs in the form of coal than there was of oil, and the US sits on most of them. As the real price of oil rises and technology costs fall, there will be a natural switch to coal liquefaction and to other energy sources.
Vince:
You’re a tough nut.
1. Okay, academia “is thoroughly compromised by its intimate association with the state. … This means that any purportedly scientific explainations of the association (if any can be shown) between anthropogenic activity, increased atmospheric CO, and rising global temperature must be held in extreme skepticism, particularly by people familiar with a priori reasoning and the corrupt habits of government.”
So let’s try some other sources:
ExxonMobil’s response to publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp
“The release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Climate Science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important contribution to informed debate on the issue of climate change. The IPCC report process is valuable in that it facilitates the sharing of global scientific knowledge and encourages further inquiry on the important issue of climate change.
“The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides an extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth’s climate. It describes the scientific basis for concern regarding the risk of climate change and attempts for the first time to characterize the probabilities for change. …
“As in past IPCC assessments, scientists from ExxonMobil have participated directly as lead authors, as well as in the review process and workshops contributing to the development of AR4.
“Climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. We are constantly learning and reassessing the science and policy aspects of this important issue, and the company’s views and actions will consider the best information available at the time.
“There is increasing evidence that the earth’s climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period – and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
“Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.”
Please also consider these links:
http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/response/index.cfm
http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/program.cfm
2. “I for one cannot see how anyone can express any real sympathy for the Austrian position and at the same time unquestioningly embrace a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data.”
Have you no sense of irony? You ask me to sympathize and empathize with “the skeptics here” who can’t rouse themselves to discuss policy measures even when the explicit premise of Dr. Reisman`s post is to assume arguendo that the “alarmist” view may be correct, and then you trot out this strawman? Who is “unquestioningly embrac[ing] a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data”?
And is this not empirical data?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html
To paraphrase you, I for one cannot see how an Austrian position requires either “sympathy” or that its self-professed proponents focus on dismissing all scientific support for climate change rather while ignoring Austrian understandings of incomplete catallaxy with respect to open-access resources and of rent-seeking.
Regards,
Dr. EvilTokyoTomTT,
If you do not believe that you twisted what I said, you can believe what you want. My words speak for themselves, and you have yourself to live with.
Given some of your tactics, I am beginning to believe that what others have posted about you is true.
And in a general sense, your side of the debate, whether its AGW or global cooling, always emphasizes that that man is at fault. There is little if any acknowledgement that natural causes are at work, and likely drawf any POSSIBLE effect man’s activities have had on climate.
Chris and others,
My reference to my comparative age was not meant to imply that age has anything to do with correctness or to belittle those who are younger. The reference was only meant to illustrate that I am old enough to remember when the consensus regarding climate change was the opposite of what it is today, and in a span of 10 years the consensus had changed 180 degrees.
I apologize if my reference was taken the wrong way.
TT,
I would agree with you about alternative fuels (though you’ve got to admit that coal liquefaction would require mining on a monumental scale) except that the oil industry, having been juiced for nearly a century by non-asset-based credit, has been able to keep the price of oil artifically low. Thus have alternatives been stymied, and thus will the world have to suffer through ruinously high oil prices even as Peak Credit wreaks havoc on the global economy.
And by the way, this will render AGW moot, as the world will have its hands full dealing with REAL problems.
Dennis, you continue to dodge. But I`m willing to examine my evil tactics:
1. You say I twisted your words; I said that all I did was to ask you a few questions that make you examine how your views actually apply. Let`s go to videotape:
Dennis: “So, industry-funded research is likely to be biased, if not fraudulent. However, no bias or fraud is involved when the funding comes from the government or non-industry special interest groups. My 13-year old son can easily spot the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy of these assertions.
My experience is that government and academia are the worst in perpetuating lies and in crushing viewpoints that don’t coincide with theirs. After all, the government view of things is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, as is the ultimate source of government funding, i.e. taxation and inflation. And as I have said more than once on this site, the more that government funds scientific research and education, the more that research and education will be driven by political considerations at the expense of the truth and an accurate understanding of the phenomena under study.”
TT: Although I think you have good points about the biases of academia and government, your criticism is clearly incomplete and does not vitiate all climate change science (in which industry is also involved) and downplays that there are other unclean hands as well. So I asked you to consider the RELATIVE importance of the academic/government bias you refer to -
“Do any of Vince’s comments above on how utilities and coal interests have captured “clean air” regulation at the cost of property rights, liability for the costs they impose and alternative energy resonate with you, or is he also “perpetuating lies” and “crushing viewpoints”?
“And are the academics and enviros the ones in power who have been perpetuating lies and crushing viewpoints that are readily apparent in the War on Drugs and the War on Terror? Are the benefits of big government flowing to them, or to other elites who are no friends of property rights or the environment?”
Rather than straight responses to these questions, we get whining, a grudging concession of relatively minor rent-seeking by industry and a remarkable attempt to ignore the rent-seekers and elites behind the War on Terror and the War on Drugs by pointing to some political support for these from Democrats (remarkable in that Democrats haven`t run the government for the past six years and provide the greatest political support for ending both counterproductive “wars”):
Dennis: “Please do not twist what I said. I never said or implied in my comment that industry and industry supported groups can not be biased or do not lobby for their own interests. In fact, I used the word “worstâ€, which implies that other groups partake in this type of activity. Interest groups from all parts of the political spectrum “capture†the government regulatory apparatus, not to mention all the funding and power that flows to the regulatory apparatus itself.
“And regarding the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, I believe that many from the Left of the political spectrum are supportive of both of these. In fact as far as wars are concerned, over the last 100 or so years Democrats arguably have more blood on their hands than Republicans.”
What is this last comment, anyway? What have I said that has made you think I`m a Democrat? I have criticized Republicans because they`re the ones in charge. (And why stop at 100 years, when the bloodiest war was Lincoln`s the War against the Southern Secession?)
2. “Given some of your tactics, I am beginning to believe that what others have posted about you is true.”
You continue to complain that I`m being unfair or underhanded in some way, without specifying how. Well, to repeat you, you can believe what you want. My words speak for themselves, and you have yourself to live with. I`ve openly set out the dialogue and my views on it for you and others to consider – is that simply another dirty tactic on my part?
3. “And in a general sense, your side of the debate, whether its AGW or global cooling, always emphasizes that that man is at fault. There is little if any acknowledgement that natural causes are at work, and likely drawf any POSSIBLE effect man’s activities have had on climate.”
More whining by complaining about “my side”. How about a direct criticism of MY comments? Have I denied that there are natural causes at work? Further, your strawman hides much more than it reveals. Even a cursory look at RealClimate shows a deep awareness and discussion of natural causes among the scientists posting and commenting there. The point of course is that they think they`ve teased sufficient evidence to establish that NOW man`s cumulative impacts (and the IPCC clearly discusses all manner of forcings) are having a discernable impact on climate.
Among the relatively uninformed and in the policy debate, there does seem to be a focus on CO2 rather than other factors, but this is understandable (let me know if you want clarification).
4. As another example of my unfairness, let`s not forget the question of cooling, which you say you “have mentioned this previously in other posts on this blog regarding AGW, but it has been ignored.”
I unfairly point to how I and others directly responded to you almost a year ago, and provide links both to that response and to places where you and others can go to read more.
From you? No peep of acknowledgement. Just whining about how I twist your words and try to undermine discussion. Care to tell me again about who is being open, straightforward and responsive?
Tom
Chris,
Understand your skepticism re: Rothbard laying out a unified system of libertarian ethics, but he DOES address many objections to his points in the text. Still, he is laying this out a priori in part for the purpose of the inevitable critique, a common technique.
As for a free market in children, I have asked the question here before – what is Rothbard advocating (as opposed to what he is often misread as advocating) on this topic? To my reading he is simply acknowledging the failure of the current social-welfare system in dealing with the problem of unwanted or neglected children. He does so in a manner that while consistent with libertarian ethic, appears to be shocking to us. Until you read of this case, and others like it;
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040213_childabuse_collingswood_report.html
In action, Rothbard’s formulation of a market in children, while conjuring mental images of white slavery and abuse, would IN PRACTICE result in better treatment of unwanted children. The current system could hardly be a worse one.
Dennis, I note that you seem to have misposted your response to me on Dr. Reisman’s other thread: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp.
I think that your conclusion, quoted below, is partially correct:
“In closing, one issue that permeates the entire debate over AGW is that neither side accepts the objectivity, motives, and veracity of the other side’s scientific analysis. Given this situation, any attempt to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW is extremely problematic.”
First, precisely because it is very difficult for nonscientists to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW science, it is helpful for analytical purposes to make some assumptions, such as those Dr. Reisman has made in this and his following post – IF AGW is occuring, what are Austrian insights as to the institutional underpinnings of the assumed problem and for approaches to address them?
Second, as I’ve acknowledged to you and others, a huge part of the difficulty that we’re having on this topic ties into our very human penchants to avoid cognitive dissonance by filtering out, ignoring or minimizing informaton that is at odds with our mental maps and to fall into tribal behavior patterns – where those not perceived as in “our tribe” are view with suspicion, if not hostility. For that reason, we all need to be careful that we are making a conscious effort to overcome these handicaps to rational discussion.
Sadly, for some this is too difficult – and I am simply the devil incarnate, along with all greenies/nazis/communists with whom I am lumped. Say, did anyone besides me notice that Martin Durkin, maker of “Swindle” is a self-avowed and committed Marxist?
This phenomenon is also apparent in those who refuse to accept Dr. Resisman’s premises for this post, and would rather attack the science than to engage any any substantive Austrian analysis.
Third, as to the “other side’s scientific analysis”, I don’t perceive that there is any one side at all, but rather an ongoing endeavor to which many scientists are making contributions, although there are efforts by some organizations to try to summarize trends and characteristics of this flow. It is clear that views that are not in the “mainstream” are simply dismissed by some (typically by lay persons who are not placed to critically examine it), but that others in the scientific community make every effort to analyze and respond to new views, analyses and proposals. The debate among scientists is definitely not an echo chamber.
Regards,
TT
TokyoTom,
Thank you for pointing out that I misposted the below comment.
*************************************************
TokyoTom,
I am glad that you reproduced my comments; they represent what I actually said and implied, and are not someone else’s interpretation. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
You are correct in one of your criticisms: my not including the “Civil War†and other earlier conflicts was arbitrary. Since the Civil War has now been mentioned, I would add that at the time of this conflict the Republican Party was the party of (relatively) big and interventionist government and remained so for roughly 40 years. And for the record, I am certainly not a Republican, or Democrat for that matter.
In closing, one issue that permeates the entire debate over AGW is that neither side accepts the objectivity, motives, and veracity of the other side’s scientific analysis. Given this situation, any attempt to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW is extremely problematic.
Chris B:
Sorry, but I think your overstating things a bit, which is bound to press a few buttons here. Yes, while there are only a few scientists who would disagree that climate change is occurring now and that humans are causing/contributing to it, but the scientific debate is not and will never be over – as long as there are scientists. We`ve made great progress in figuring out mechanisms and principles, but the climate and other Earth systems are tremendously complex, so there is now and hopefully will always be a scientific debate about climate change. Without such a debate, there will be no more progress.
Still, it`s clear that enough is known to merit action, proof of which lies in the growing private entreprenurial and corporate action to reduce CO2 and methane emissions and increase energy efficiency, such as this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.html.
Regards,
TT
Chris, only because I am evil AND contrary.
Don`t take it personally.
TT
I don’t care what was posted before this or what will be posted after this, but I believe global warming is real and that the only reason people are making such a big deal about it is because we continue to do nothing to stop it.
Thanks, No Name, for your No Brain comment. You may leave now.
In Litigation, lawyers contesting with corporations often try to avoid technical debates since the side with the most money can hire the best and most expert witnesses (the side with the most money wins any technical debate). This is clearly how the “consensus†on global warming has been achieved. And the stakes in this contest are huge; we are talking about global regulation (anti-competitive regulation of production), barriers to entry for small scale bio-energy, taxation of the poor in the OECD and developing nations who wish access to relatively inexpensive Carbon energy, and of course “Carbon Tradingâ€, a mechanism for financial intermediaries to scam billions in transfers of permits and emission rights from the First to the Third World.
This last motivation is very important to understand in context; the slave state China is exempt under Kyoto from production regulation but may create permits. This is a huge subsidy to European joint ventures and Euro-Oil companies aligned with the PRC, e.g. BP-Shell. This is why you’ll find these organizations as charter members of the International Emission Trading Association, and indirectly supporting, and coordinating the distribution of propaganda related to global warming, including Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth-a film distributed and managed by fronts linked to the CFR; itself a front for the BP-Shell consortium. See:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=geo+karras&hl=en
And follow the links there.
To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists†who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.
90% of the “scientists†on there are not even in a field related to climatology or any complementary studies. Most of them are completely unrelated subjects and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming.
I don’t go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climage change.
There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because it’s been so plumped up with air.
If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.
Not to mention the organizers include people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks.
PS – meteorologists are weathermen.
found your blog thru search engine. bookmarked and will come back more often.
Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog centered on the same topics you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my audience would value your work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e-mail.
F*ckin’ remarkable issues here. I am very satisfied to peer your article. Thanks a lot and i’m looking forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.