Huh? That’s right.
“The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference. Addressing the ‘Combat Global Warming’ conference at the Indian Merchants Chamber (IMC) here, former Union minister for power and environment Suresh Prabhu said global warming was primarily a problem created and induced by human beings. He said the increase in emission of green house gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and methane had resulted in the situation, which could prove catastrophic if unchecked. Prabhu said the cold wave that swept Maharashtra and other parts of India recently could be attributed to the phenomenon of global warming.”
The article ends with this: “It is estimated by the year 2050, another seven million persons are expected to take refuge in Mumbai after global warming leads to either a drought or deluge in their village or city elsewhere in the country,” D’Silva said.
I especially like this last “prediction” – sometime in the next four decades, somewhere in India, it will either rain too much or too little! A clarion example of rational scientific falsifiability!
{ 44 comments }
Well if anything, the people who worry about overpopulation should embrace global warming based on this…
GREAT to hear from Sean Corrigan. Keep up the observations. Wish we saw more of your work.
Sounds like George Orwell’s doublethink
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Global warming, as far as I can tell, is a theory which cannot be falsified. Every “unusual” weather event – even cooling – is explained by the theory. Karl Popper, the great 20th century philosopher of science (and friend of Hayek) would have identified this religious certainty and ability to explain everything as problematic (see _Philosophy and the Real World_ by Bryan Magee, pp. 42-44). Too bad we seemingly have no one of his stature today to ask the pertinent questions.
Cold waves in the midst of GW should tell scientists that the process had a built in governor that will reverse global warming at some point and produce the second part of the cycle–global cooling.
Well, global warming is about the average temperature over the whole planet. Now it’s you guys who are looking silly by taking local weather and claiming that because it gets colder somewhere, the whole thing falls down.
It’s actually possible to have local ice ages while the planet gets warmer if heat is distributed differently on the planet (f.ex. the gulf stream that warms europe less..).
Jake, for the love of…
Of course it is possible, it’s those strange people at the IMC that are implying that one can be attributed to another.
I just hope they did there math, and check if in the big picture there were places really much hotter, to make up for the cold wave AND increase overall temperature:p
If everything that has been prophesized by Global Warming advocates/fanaticists were somehow deemed 100% false tomorrow, would that negate or minimize the ecological damage that humans are responsible for?
If Global Warming was somehow proved 100% true tomorrow, would humans make the necessary, uncomfortable and inconvenient sacrifices to reverse its effects?
Note: By “Global Warming,” I’m referring to the media/Al Gore version and not the Climate Changes that we have little to no direct or indirect effect on.
Dave
Human-Caused Global Warming is a mixture of politics and religious dogma. It can not be proved wrong! (When was the last time you heard a politician admit that he was wrong?)
To answer your question, the answer is yes – all I need to do is look out my window at the smog -it will still be there!
To answer your second question, even in the face of compelling evidence, the chances are we would do nothing. We can see the smog in the air. People live in flood zones and do nothing. People live in earthquake zones or near active volcanos and do nothing. All the old buildings in Seattle will fall down the next time the get a good quake, yet nothing is done. People seem unable to act unless they see a “clear and present danger” or until after the catastrophic event has occurred. Perhaps the Neuro-scientists could enlighten us?
Sean, your willingness to clutter up the Mises.org Weblog with your trite, uninformed and blather on climate change is a continuing puzzle – but it certainly does provide opportunities for sharing information!
The climate is a complex system, and it should be no surprise if poking it here or there produces some consequences that may appear counterintuitive – such as a general warming that allows greater atmospheric moisture, and thus heavier rainfalls (and snowfalls!) in some places, while also sucking out greater moisture from the soil in other places. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/088.htm
You seem to be operating on the assumption that change, if man plays a role, must be smooth and affect only temperature, without affecting climate variability and the frequency of extreme weather events. What basis do you have for your views? Have you ever troubled yourself to read ANY of the scientific litereature on climate change? The IPCC’s most recent digests of the literature (last year’s reflected work published up to 2005) are here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Just a brief walk through this work indicates that, in fact, scientists very much expect that ongoing climate change will alter local climate baselines and alter the magnitude and/or frequency of extreme events. Here is a brief list of some of the latest research papers on climate variability: http://www.vsamp.com/resume/publications/IPCC_Europe.pdf.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) held a big conference on precisely the implications of climate variability in July 2006 (“Living with Climate Variability and Change: Understanding the Uncertainties and Managing the Risks”, Espoo, Finland 17-21 July 2006); http://www.livingwithclimate.fi/en/index.html
I suppose that Prabhu may be jumping the gun to say that a particular cold wave “could” be attributed to global warming (his statement may reflect confirmaton bias, but I rather suppose that Prabhu is in any event much better informed than you on climate science and conditions in India), but certainly your own mocking and unsupported dismissal starkly reveals your own bias.
Friedrich Hayek, in his 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservativeâ€, identified the following traits that distinguish conservatism from market liberalism:
• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.â€
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.
Which of these traits you continue to exhibit, Sean? I count at least the last two, and wonder about items one and three.
You might wish to minimize future embarrassment by doing a little more legwork, but any case I thank you for continuing to post on this important and challenging topic.
For readers who share my interest and that of Wrong-Way Corrigan in climate change, I recommend consideration of these two recent essays published by Cato:
- Edwin G. Dolan’s “Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position”, from the Fall 2006 issue of The Cato Journal: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-3.pdf.
- Indur Goklany’s “What to Do about Climate Change”, February 5, 2008, Policy Analysis no. 609: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9125.
I have put excerpts of Dolan’s piece on my blog: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx
Dolan was the editor of the Austrian classic, The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (1976) – online at http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMAContents.html – and author of the classic pamphlet TANSTAAFL: An Economic Strategy for the Environmental Crisis (1971).
I do not agree fully with Goklany, but at least he is seriously grappling with the problem and its policy implications.
Some may wish to consider:
- why a libertarian think tank is now supporting carbon taxes: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/13/quot-pay-your-air-share-quot-libertarian-think-tank-advocates-carbon-taxes.aspx
- and why leading financial institutions, utilities and environmental groups have just announced the formation and release of “The Carbon Principles”: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/voluntary-action-on-climate-change-wall-street-s-new-quot-carbon-principles-quot.aspx
Thanks once again, Sean. Let me second the remarks of commenter Joseph, above: “GREAT to hear from Sean Corrigan. Keep up the observations. Wish we saw more of your work.”
Regards,
Unclean Tom
Inquistor: “Well if anything, the people who worry about overpopulation should embrace global warming based on this…”
Well said, Anthony! We know those enviros are really just misanthropes! They should be happy if climate change provides some check on man’s population!
That means we don’t have to think about the property rights failures that lie at the core of both. Let’s keep chanting about those “watermelons”, and ignore the scientists, economists, industry and financial leaders, politicians and whatnot who actively share the evil enviros’s concerns. Let’s also ignore those in the developing world who are stuck with corrupt governments that keep them mired in poverty, and much more vulnerable than us to climate change.
Right?
Regards,
TT
Tom,
There is now a very large group of scientists who have gotten together and signed petitions against the idea of global warming being manmade. One premise is that the effect of the carbon dioxide being released from the oceans since the end of the last ice age is cumulative and is now beginning to have an affect on the climate. That the carbon dioxide from the oceans far outways that which man is creating. That we are going through a weather cycle.
Sorry, Sean – I obviously left a word out in my opening line. Let’s see; trite, uninformed and …. blather. I suppose a thousand other words could fit. But in the spirit of Hayek’s comments, we could go with “self-arrogatedly superior” or even “conservative”.
But maybe a more modest “smug” or “complacent” would be more appropriate?
Or have I been verbose? Maybe just blather is fine. Oh, fiddlesticks!
TT
Quote from Dave: “If Global Warming was somehow proved 100% true tomorrow, would humans make the necessary, uncomfortable and inconvenient sacrifices to reverse its effects?”
Are you? Are you ready to do what has to be done to reduce the population of humans? Are you ready to decide by how much? 25%? 50%? 75%? Are you ready to decide how that reduction should happen?
If the pending disaster is as bad as some think, then all the “solutions” proposed are silly half measures aimed more at concentrating political power, not addressing the “real” issues. Alternative fuels, carbon credits, cap and trade, etc., do nothing to address the basic problem. A certain amount of carbon waste is produced by all living things. As long as the population continues to increase, any actions to try to reduce the emissions from a subgroup will be easily out paced by the increases of the whole. Unless you reduce the whole, then you’re wasting time and effort.
And as for all the rhetoric about “saving the planet”, please! The planet will be just fine. We simply might not be here to watch what happens. It’s survived far worse perils than what this one species could possibly wrought. The “save the planet” rant is the worst kind of conceit.
TokyoTom, in your opinion what would falsify Global Warming ?
TokyoTom,
You have been asked this question by others several times before: what organization are you in the employ of? While the vast majority of us on this blog approach the man-caused global warming issue from the interested citizen standpoint, you obviously are closely involved from a professional standpoint. Why not clear the air? While honestly divulging who pays your salary would help the disclosure issue, it would not strengthen your arguments, which largely rest on appeal to authority.
Unfortunately, Mises Institute and other like- minded organizations do not have the resources to hire professionals that could better present the other side of this issue. But then again, the Mises Institute refrains from accepting money coerced from taxation to fund its research activities.
Chodorov, your question itself is both an implicit ad hominem and grudging praise. Why not simply respond to what I have to say? Is it THAT difficult?
“You have been asked this question by others several times before: what organization are you in the employ of?”
And what responses did I give? Shall I find and post them for you? Or is this another research project that is simply too difficult?
And by the way, Chodorov, just who are you, and who asked you to ride to Sean`s rescue? When have you ever posted on the Mises blog before, except in this column? Are you a friend of neopyrrho, perhaps? http://blog.mises.org/archives/007541.asp.
Chodorov, your question itself is both an implicit ad hominem and grudging praise. Why not simply respond to what I have to say? Is it THAT difficult?
“You have been asked this question by others several times before: what organization are you in the employ of?”
And what responses did I give? Shall I find and post them for you? Or is this another research project that is simply too difficult?
And by the way, Chodorov, just who are you, and who asked you to ride to Sean`s rescue? When have you ever posted on the Mises blog before, except in this column? Are you a friend of neopyrrho, perhaps? http://blog.mises.org/archives/007541.asp.
TT: “The climate is a complex system, and it should be no surprise if poking it here or there produces some consequences that may appear counterintuitive – such as a general warming that allows greater atmospheric moisture, and thus heavier rainfalls (and snowfalls!) in some places, while also sucking out greater moisture from the soil in other places.”
This is a typical attempt of hysterical environmentalists to create a smoke screen in which to escape. If an issue seems clear and understandable, they’ll try to make it seem far more complex and confusing. You should pay more attention to the principle “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
The simple problem with GW hysteria is that global warming can predict any type of weather, from burning heat waves to freezing snow, massive floods to droughts. Even amateur scientists understand that a theory that can predict one phenom as well as its opposite is worthless. GW evangelists should have stuck to predicting higher avg temps and left the extreme colds as outliers. They would have much more credibility that way.
TokyoTom,
I do not recall that you ever answered the question as to who is your employer. You only skirted around it. If you did answer the question, please reproduce it, so that I can admit that I am mistaken. Maybe you have a good reason for not divulging your employer or maybe you do not; without truthful information, we will never know. For instance, maybe you are in the employ of the nuclear energy industry or one of its lobbyists.
Also, Sean Corrigan is fully capable of defending himself; he does not need me to come to his support.
“And by the way, Chodorov, just who are you.†Well on this one, I am following your lead, TokyoTom. You have not disclosed your name or employer. By comparison, I distinctly remember the full name of one individual who asked you on this Blog for the name of your employer.
Keith:
1. If the pending disaster is as bad as some think, then all the “solutions” proposed are silly half measures aimed more at concentrating political power, not addressing the “real” issues.
Rent-seekers are happy to expand the commons of government on which they graze, and some no doubt also see this as an opportunity to increase their relative power. But mainly this is a strawman, and misses the vast majority who care about this and other “environmental” issues. Did the environmental wave in the late 60s and 70s arise because there were real problems, or because people wanted to penalize cleaner Western coals in favor of dirty Appalachian ones?
2. Alternative fuels, carbon credits, cap and trade, etc., do nothing to address the basic problem. A certain amount of carbon waste is produced by all living things. As long as the population continues to increase, any actions to try to reduce the emissions from a subgroup will be easily out paced by the increases of the whole. Unless you reduce the whole, then you’re wasting time and effort.
Surely you can see you`ve completely missed the problem, which is not anima/human respiration, but the introduction of FOSSIL carbon and other GHGs to the atmosphere and oceans?
You`re kidding, right?
3. And as for all the rhetoric about “saving the planet”, please! The planet will be just fine. We simply might not be here to watch what happens. It’s survived far worse perils than what this one species could possibly wrought. The “save the planet” rant is the worst kind of conceit.
So caring about one`s neighborhood, town, state, country or planet is a conceit. Thanks for opening my eyes. We need less of tribal man, and more of an atomized one, right?
Now you`d better get to work breeding this kind of broader self-interest out of human nature.
TT
Kristian: TokyoTom, in your opinion what would falsify Global Warming ?
Good question, Kristian. Why don`t simply make up a few duplicates of the Earth as it is, and crash-test them?
Oh, I forgot – that`s what we`re “conservatively” doing right now.
TT
IMHO: There is now a very large group of scientists who have gotten together and signed petitions against the idea of global warming being manmade. One premise is that the effect of the carbon dioxide being released from the oceans since the end of the last ice age is cumulative and is now beginning to have an affect on the climate.
Believe it or not, I`m not sure I know what you`re referring to. I don`t really believe in “consensus science” on any side, but can you tell me more about this “very large group”? Do they have a i>precis that summarizes their research? You know kinda like the IPCC reports?
Regards,
TT
Fundamentalist: This is a typical attempt of hysterical environmentalists to create a smoke screen in which to escape. If an issue seems clear and understandable, they’ll try to make it seem far more complex and confusing. You should pay more attention to the principle “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
The simple problem with GW hysteria is that global warming can predict any type of weather, from burning heat waves to freezing snow, massive floods to droughts. Even amateur scientists understand that a theory that can predict one phenom as well as its opposite is worthless. GW evangelists should have stuck to predicting higher avg temps and left the extreme colds as outliers. They would have much more credibility that way.
One of the great things about being hysterical, devious, unintelligent AND an evangelist is that it frees me from responding to the mixed ad hominems and serious point sof fundamentalist.
Chodorov, sorry, but who I am is simply irrelevant to anything I`ve posted here or elsewhere on the Mises blogs (including my own small endeavor), so I am afraid I must decline to feed your importunings further, or to do your research as to what I`ve already posted. But since Yancey has asked several times, maybe you could ask him, or run a Google search with us both together.
I`m happy to discuss substantive matters, on which my identity (and yours) is, was and always will be irrelevant. Are you uninterested?
Perhaps you might also think through the implications of your suggestion – that rent-seekers somehow think that the LvMI community is a such fertile and potent ground for manipulating the state for private interest that they would consider investing in having a blogger work to persuade the community, and that they would be happy with continuing to back my mode of winning friends and influencing people.
It doesn`t really fly, does it?
TT
Sincerely,
TokyoTom,
I am somewhat surprised that truthful disclosure would be viewed so cavalierly, if not negatively.
Who funds yours and everyone else’s professional endeavors regarding the man-caused global warming issue is not irrelevant. The employment/funding matter is fundamental, especially given that the biggest rent seeker by far, government, has so skewed, through its immense funding, the research on this issue and virtually every other topic it gets involved with. And the establishment media is little better.
On another issue, you have mention that several Libertarians evidently support the consensus view on global warming. While I have not read all their GW arguments, I would note that several “Libertarians” also support the Iraqi War, and that the so-called “Beltway Libertarians” disagree with more traditional Libertarians on several other issues. While I certainly am not fit to label anyone, it is questionable whether the so-called “Beltway Libertarians†can accurately be considered Libertarians. I would also note that the word “Beltway†and what it implies is significant.
Agitating religous fanatics like TokyoTom is a waste of time IMO.
If it isn’t falsifiable it is religion not science. It is as simple as that.
The tone, angry and frustrated, of Tokyo Toms responses is actually another piece of proof that this is not science.
Chodorov,
Here is where I think I first asked Tom this question. I don’t recall getting a straight answer (or I may have missed it), but I do remember getting an e-mail that took me to task for asking. In that email, I simply don’t remember if he answered the question straight out. I generally don’t save my emails in that aol account, so I don’t have it in hand.
Thank you Mr. Ward for the link and comment.
I did recall you asking the employment question at least once, and never receiving a straight answer.
TT: “…who I am is simply irrelevant to anything I`ve posted…”
That’s odd! For whom scientists skeptical of GW hysteria is very important to you. You have always attacked their science by attacking their funding sources. Shouldn’t that work both ways?
Chodorov:
Who funds yours and everyone else’s professional endeavors regarding the man-caused global warming issue is not irrelevant.
Unless it simply reflects your unthinking assumptions, then points for the clever phrasing. However, my endeavors here are purely personal – NOT “profesional” – and thus unfunded by anyone but yours truly.
Isn’t that rather obvious, by the way? After all, what “rents” are there that could be possibly won by ANYONE here, much less by a squeaky wheel who is viewed with as much suspicion as me? You, Yancey, fundamentalist and others don’t seem to have your thinking caps on very securely.
I am somewhat surprised that truthful disclosure would be viewed so cavalierly, if not negatively.
Why am I, on the other hand, NOT surprised that rather than making any effort to address substantive questions on science, economics or policy, you and others choose to discard logic in favor of either blunt or thinly veiled ad hominem attacks? Do you find yourself overmatched or on such unfamilar ground that rather than doing any homework you prefer to attack motives?
How readily you and others abandon, even on the Mises blog, a rational and Austrian approach to environmental matters, whcih might be fairly summarized by these statements by Roy Cordato:
- “[I]rresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights.â€
- “[W]e have integrated the Austrian focus on the actor’s means-ends framework, including its emphasis on the subjective nature of value and therefore costs, with the definition of what constitutes an environmental problem. By defining such problems in these terms, both the nature of pollution and the definition of a polluter take on new meaning. Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.â€
- “[W]hile the Austrian approach to solving pollution problems may face implementation problems at the margin, i.e., with certain “tough cases,” defining and enforcing property rights already stands as the fundamental way in which interpersonal conflicts of all kinds are avoided or dealt with. … The challenge for Austrians is to explain how we apply the theory in certain tough cases ….â€
An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics, http://mises.org/daily/1760.
But despite these words, it is has been my sad experience over the past two years here that there is very little appetite for exploring Cordato’s “tough cases”. Rather, on environmental matters, the modus operandi of many LvMI authors and commenters appears to be: All ye who enter here, let’s abandon all logic, band together and eliminate the misanthropes (whomever they may be) – ignoring all others but those evil strawmen!. In honor of two leading lights who regularly exhibit this behavior, I have begun to call it the “Reisman Rule” or the “Corrigan Creed”: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx
I would note that several “Libertarians” also support the Iraqi War, and that the so-called “Beltway Libertarians” disagree with more traditional Libertarians on several other issues. While I certainly am not fit to label anyone, it is questionable whether the so-called “Beltway Libertarians†can accurately be considered Libertarians. I would also note that the word “Beltway†and what it implies is significant.
Relevance, Chodorov? Why assume that I’m a “Beltway Libertarian”, as opposed to simply a rather contrary person in Tokyo? All you do is show that you care more about rather shallowly defending some bit of ideological turf than engaging in a discussion of issues at hand.
FWIW, I vehemently opposed the war for the beginning, while libertarian puritans like fundamentalist/Roger strongly supported.
Thank you Mr. Ward for the link and comment. I did recall you asking the employment question at least once, and never receiving a straight answer.
Chodorov, you are a lazy fellow and Mr. Ward is as well. The thread he links to refers to another that neither of you seems sufficiently interested in to find or review. You might try running a Google search with TokyoTom, Yancey and uneasy as the search string and see what I said there. A curious person with a modicum of initiative might also go to my Mises blog page – by clicking on the link I provide on nearly all my comments – and then clicking anywhere my name appears to go to my public profile with the “About Me” description.
As an aside, I do hope you and and others will revisit the thread that Mr. Ward kindly provides.
I further note that those who have joined the Mises site can easily send messages, and before personal pages were allowed I frequently posted my email address (unlike Mr. Ward and many others here).
Sean Corrigan is fully capable of defending himself; he does not need me to come to his support.
He may, indeed, but could you be so kind as to direct me to a thread where he has in fact exhibited the capability of which you speak? I am sure he does enjoy your support though, Mark. I only wish that I were as winning as he, and had evarned myself even a single grudging supporter. Must be that my rent-seeking ways are too off-putting! If my puppet-masters were smarter, they surely would have substituted a more effective mouthpiece a long time ago!
Sincerely,
TT
The tone, angry and frustrated, of Tokyo Toms responses is actually another piece of proof that this is not science.
Global warming Archdruid 1: “Dang; the’y're definitely onto us now! Shall we pull the plug on TT?
Global warming Archdruid 2: “Are you kidding? Just when we’ve added enough emotion to his circuits that he’s now passed the Turing test? Don’t be a fool! Let’s brave along a while longer, and then introduce him with a friendlier personality!”
You [Sean Corrigan] seem to be operating on the assumption that change, if man plays a role, must be smooth and affect only temperature, without affecting climate variability and the frequency of extreme weather events.
Uh, TT, THAT is the assumption of most AGW believers. The “Hockey Stick” scenario, for example, works on a proportional assumption between CO2 discharge and temperature. Are you saying NOW that there is no such proportion?
Just a brief walk through this work indicates that, in fact, scientists very much expect that ongoing climate change will alter local climate baselines and alter the magnitude and/or frequency of extreme events.
…. Which was a way of back-pedaling from the initial doomsday scenario of high-temperature, no-glaciers scenario peddled through one and a half decades. Also, this backpedaling is highly convenient, because what could [before] been taken as extraordinary (but not highly unusual) climatic events in past ages, can be now used as “proof” of human-caused climate change… something akin to blaming these cold spells on witches and demons.
fundamentalist: For whom scientists skeptical of GW hysteria is very important to you. You have always attacked their science by attacking their funding sources.
Hogwash. Can you demonstrate as well as you remonstrate?
“This is a typical attempt of hysterical environmentalists to create a smoke screen in which to escape. If an issue seems clear and understandable, they’ll try to make it seem far more complex and confusing. You should pay more attention to the principle “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
“The simple problem with GW hysteria is that global warming can predict any type of weather, from burning heat waves to freezing snow, massive floods to droughts. Even amateur scientists understand that a theory that can predict one phenom as well as its opposite is worthless. GW evangelists should have stuck to predicting higher avg temps and left the extreme colds as outliers. “.
The simple truth, fundamentalist, is that the wonderful world that God created is more complex than you prefer to try to get your head around. That it is complex is undeniable and not my fault. Blame God – or Eve, who, according to God’s plan, ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and drove us out of the Garden, leaving us to be continued to be bedevilled by just-so stories, false perceptions, and an inability to get our heads around things such as gravity, the non-geocentricity of the universe, general or special relativity, continental drift, the evolution of life or the existence of rainbows before the Flood.
“GW hysteria” and “GW evangelists” are:
1. shorthand for saying that we should run the world based on YOUR preferences, and the preferences of those who prefer to be good stewards of our rather rare planet (or just wish that the commons continue to provide dwellings for louseworts, spotted owls and the like) should be ignored. Where does Austrianism teach THAT lesson?
and 2. a neat rhetorical sleight-of-hand to avoid any intellectual heavy lifting on the science that I’ve linked to – one of which provides cites for 95 different papers by a greater number of researchers, and another provides a “simple” explanation for how increasing climatic variance can increase the frequency of extreme events at either end of a normal distribution (i.e., both high and low temps, more and less precipitation, more severe weather, etc.). But Heaven forbid that you trouble yourself to consider that. So much easier to blame those slippery enviros for introducing too much clomplexity!
I wish it were different, but I’m sorry to say that you exhibit so much blindness and so little good faith that I’m afraid that I am incapable of do any justice to the role of playing Anne Sullivan to your Helen Keller.
Regretfully,
Tom
TokyoTom,
If I was a betting person, I would wager that you are an attorney, and an arrogant one at that, the kind that gives attorneys a bad name. I would also wager that you are a paid propagandist, assigned to the Mises’s and other similar blogs to help spread the word.
You selectively quote, pull comments out of context, and respond to points that were not made. All the while you have not answered a question put to you, dismissing it as irrelevant. Yes, we have been able to contact you, but this is in no way the same as you disclosing who you work for, who pays your salary. This disclosure, which has been requested several times, you refuse to make.
And the point of my comment concerning “Beltway Libertarians” obviously was not intended to shallowly defend some bit of ideological turf, as you arrogantly suggest. I have no turf to defend. My comment simply noted that not all those who are labeled Libertarians fit the more or less traditional definition, and Beltway funding, power, and prestige has its influence. Please comment on what is actually written, and cease acting like a sleazy attorney.
After posting my above comment, I realized that you have admitted on the Mises’s website to being a lawyer in Tokyo. On this same posting, you also claim to be a paleocon/liberetarian. This I find hard to take seriously, especially by the traditional definitions of these two movements. For instance, in all your postings, you have shown little, if any, knowledge of the Old Right or closely related paleoconservativism. But I assume that you will do your web searches, come up with a few terms and names, and articles to link, and continue to claim that you are a paleocon/libertarian.
I am glad that you oppose the Iraqi War; that is one issue that we are in agreement on. But I am not sure that you oppose it for the same reasons that I do. Furthermore, I would wager that you do not oppose U.S . involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam War, since these were started and escelated by liberal Democratic Party icons.
Chodorov: If I was a betting person …
If you were a careful, thoughtful or considerate person with a modicum of initiative and self-control, you would address issues of substance, do a little more legwork on your own, and refrain from embarrassing yourself by slinging around shallow and obviously nonsensical ad hominems.
You also wouldn’t be as preoccupied with putting little labels on everyone’s heads so you can figure out how to deal with them.
If I had less stomach, I would leave my response to that, but since I’m used to ad homs like this, let me soldier on a bit.
Some might wish to be paid for their postings, but I have always looked at the as an opportunity to learn and share. But in any case, I’m afraid that there just isn’t much of a market among climate change rent-seekers to seek to curry favor at the LvMI blog, and much less of one for “arrogant” “sleazy” ones who everyone loves to hate and stick out like a sore thumb for persisting with unpopular views, like me. So when you rather directly call me a liar after I affirmatively advise you that no one pays me for commenting, you not only betray that you not a gentleman but you make us suspect your ability to reason.
As for my views on various wars, again you would bet wrong – despite the statements in my blog bio that I was raised Republican, and remain on the right side of the spectrum but lean strongly libertarian yet with a concern for commons issues. So perhaps do I not only agree with you about wars, it’s possible – gasp! – that I might even do so for the “right” reasons a la you. But I’ll wager you’ll continue to suppose what my views might be and why.
You refrain from being a betting man for good reason. A little more self-restraint in other areas may also be advisable.
With that, I’m off to cleanse myself from this thoroughly distasteful encounter.
Quote from TokyoTom: “Did the environmental wave in the late 60s and 70s arise because there were real problems, or because people wanted to penalize cleaner Western coals in favor of dirty Appalachian ones?”
What do the environmental debates of the ’60s and ’70s have to do with today’s rent-seeking? So now anybody who thinks all the global warming noise is just political hype is in favor of pollution?
Quote from TokyoTom: “Surely you can see you`ve completely missed the problem, which is not anima/human respiration, but the introduction of FOSSIL carbon and other GHGs to the atmosphere and oceans?”
No, you’ve just over simplified it. Burning ethanol or biodiesel or animal dung is no different than burning petroleum. Unless you have some way to maintain the present population without combustion, then you’re just wasting more resourses and effort on less efficient processes.
Quote from TokyoTom: “So caring about one`s neighborhood, town, state, country or planet is a conceit.”
When its used a a vehicle to repress and subjugate your neighbors, fellow citizens and species, yes its a despicable conceit. All the good intentions in the world do not justify it.
Can it likewise be pointed out that wanting to stop the destruction of the Amazon forest is akin to baby-killing because the farmers are trying to clear the forest to start up farms to feed their children?
Ooops! Wrong environtment issues blog! Meant for the enviros = commies one.
Keith, as to what contributions of carbon to the atmosphere are at issue in the cliomate change discussion, you’re simply wrong. Combusting biofuels essentially simply takes the place of respiration by animals higher up the food chain and natural decay/combustion.
However, I agree with you that shifting to biolfuels MAY be wasting more resourses and effort on less efficient processes, but I’m happy to leave the choice up to the market. No subsidies, and I do worry that biofuels represent an opportunity for elites to steal and convert land owned by indigenous peoples.
I have a few carry-on thoughts regarding this post and comment thread here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx.
I would like to repeat Kristian Joensen’s question:
“TokyoTom, in your opinion what would falsify Global Warming ?”
This is actually a thing that woul [kind of] make me think you really believe in the stuff you’re saying.
Is the Proposed Trans Global Highway a solution for population concerns and global warming?
One tremendous solution to future population concerns as well as alleviating many of the effects of potential global warming is the proposal for the construction of the “Trans Global Highway”. The proposed Trans Global Highway would create a world wide network of standardized roads, railroads, water pipe lines, oil and gas pipelines, electrical and communication cables. The result of this remarkable, far sighted project will be global unity through far better distribution of resources, including including heretofore difficult to obtain or unaccessible raw materials, fresh water, finished products and vastly lower global transportation costs.
With greatly expanded global fresh water distribution, arid lands could be cultivated resulting in a huge abundance of global food supplies. The most conservative estimate is that with the construction of the Trans Global Highway, the planet will be able to feed between 14 and 16 Billion people, just using presently available modern farming technologies. With a present global population of just under 7 billion people and at the United Nations projection of population increase, the world will produce enough food surpluses to feed the expected increased population for the next 425 years. Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous dire food shortage predictions of 1798 failed to take into consideration modern advances in farming, transportation, food storage and food abundance. Further information on the proposed Trans Global Highway can be found at http://www.TransGlobalHighway.com .
Comments on this entry are closed.