Collectivism, Climate Change, and Economic Freedom
An individual kills someone—for money, out of jealousy, as an act of revenge, or because he doesn’t like his victim’s looks. A chorus of left-“liberals� rushes in to excuse his act, especially if he is poor. He is not responsible, they say. The real criminal is “Society,� for having allowed him to live in the conditions that led him to kill.
Another individual owns a refrigerator, an air conditioner, and an automobile or SUV. This time, a chorus of left-“liberals� rushes in and pronounces him guilty. He is allegedly guilty of causing “global warming,� by virtue of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of the fossil fuels required to produce and operate his goods.
The “innocent� killer is not to be punished but “rehabilitated.� The “guilty� owner of the appliances and automobile or SUV, however, is to be punished. He is to be prohibited from continuing with his evil ways. He is to be compelled by the force of law to do his part in reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, which means, he is ultimately to be deprived of his goods or, at best, to be made to accept radically smaller, less effective substitutes for them.
Clearly, there is something very wrong here. What is wrong is the influence of the philosophy of collectivism.
Collectivism considers the group—the collective—to be the primary unit of social reality. It views the collective as having real existence, separate from and superior to that of its members, and as thinking and acting, and as the source of value. At the same time, it regards the individual as an essentially inconsequential cell in the superior, living collective organism. It is on this basis that the loss of an individual’s life is considered to be of no great consequence, with the result that whatever the killer of an individual might be guilty of, it is viewed as not all that serious in the first place. And then, the killer’s actions, it is held, do not emanate from within himself but from the collectively determined circumstances in which he lives.
By the same token, if the collective, consisting of billions of individuals consuming fossil fuels over two centuries or more, is responsible for releasing enough carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere to raise the average surface temperature of the Earth, then each and every individual now alive and who consumes fossil fuels is held to be responsible for the phenomenon, because no distinction is made between the individual and the collective. This is the basis on which the owner of the appliances and vehicle is held to be “guilty.� His individual emissions of carbon dioxide are seen as part and parcel of the emissions of carbon dioxide by all the members of the carbon-dioxide emitting collective taken together and as responsible for their effect.
There is a different, diametrically opposed philosophy, which has all but been forgotten. It is rarely, if ever, taught in our “culturally diverse� educational system, whose diversity consists in the teaching of numerous varieties of collectivism and the employment of many varieties of collectivists, all the while almost totally excluding this fundamentally different point of view. The name of this different philosophy is individualism. Its most important advocates are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.
According to individualism, only individuals exist; collectives consist of nothing but individuals. Only the individual thinks; only the individual acts; only the life of the individual has value and is important. All rights are rights of individuals.
On the basis of individualism, the life taken by a killer is the worst possible loss to the victim and an enormous loss to anyone who loved him. Moreover, that loss of life is the result of action that the killer chose to perform and did not have to perform. He is therefore responsible for a terrible loss and deserves to be severely punished, even to the point of losing his own life.
In contrast, no individual, and no voluntary association of individuals acting for a common purpose, such as a business corporation, is responsible for any perceptible rise in the surface temperature of the world or for any harm that could result to anyone from such a rise. When it comes to global warming, the human individual is innocent! Nor is the human “race� guilty. There is no human race apart from the individuals who comprise it. Any attempt to punish an allegedly guilty human race reduces to the attempt to punish innocent individuals.
Thus everyone must stand back and keep his hands off our appliance and vehicle owner. He has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, the very existence of his possessions implies that he has done a considerable amount that is right and good. He has improved his own life and probably that of family members and friends by his acquisition and use of his goods. And he has had to do good to others, in order to be able to earn the money that enabled him to buy his goods. To earn that money, he had to produce goods and services that others judged to be of more value to them than the money they paid him.
The conclusion that follows from this is that we should wish this individual well and hope for his continued and even greater success and good fortune in the future, and wish the same for all other peaceful individuals. This is known as having good will toward one’s fellow man.
Having introduced the perspective of individualism, let us now concede for the sake of argument that there actually is global warming and that the currently prevailing estimates of its future extent and consequences for rising sea levels are all perfectly accurate. (In case anyone has forgotten, those estimates are a rise in average temperature of 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, accompanied by a 1 to 3 feet rise in sea-levels by that time, culminating in a cumulative rise in sea-levels of 13 to 20 feet in following centuries.) Let us also concede that if the human race did not exist or existed in the much smaller numbers and abject poverty and misery characteristic of the pre-industrial era, there would be no global warming or at least significantly less of it.
We have shown that this global warming, and any damage it may do, is still not the product of any individual human being. Nor is it the product of any such actual entity as “the human race.� There is no such actual entity. At the very most, global warming is a cumulative, unintended byproduct of human behavior for which no one is responsible.
A phenomenon for which no human being is responsible is an act of nature. That is the category to which all global warming belongs. It is an act of nature. It is an act of nature whether it comes about, as it did more than once in geologic time, in the absence of human beings from the planet, or in the presence of human beings. To repeat, it is an act of nature even when it is the unintended cumulative byproduct of the actions of billions of human beings. None of those human beings is responsible as an individual and there is no human “race� that is responsible.
With the interfering cobwebs of collectivism out of the way, and seeing global warming now as a phenomenon of nature, we are in a position to consider the question of how human beings should deal with global warming and with the wider question of how they should deal with climate change in general. For someday, there certainly will be climate change. If not global warming in this century, then, certainly, in some other century. And if not global warming, then a new ice age, which, according to some accounts is already overdue, and which mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions may have served merely to postpone.
The question of how to deal with climate change, in turn, is subsumed by the broader question of how should human beings deal with physical reality in meeting their needs and wants. It is part of that question.
And that question has already been answered—by the science of economics—and answered beyond all honest dispute. The only way for human beings to meet their needs and wants in an efficient and progressively improving way is if they produce under a system of division of labor and monetary exchange, which in turn rests on a foundation of private ownership of the means of production and economic freedom. The name for this system, of course, is capitalism. (A much smaller number of human beings than are now alive could survive without this system, as our ancestors survived, namely, as essentially self-sufficient farmers. But they would live in the poverty and misery of our ancestors, and, as stated, their number would be relatively small—a billion or so versus our present six billion or more.) For the present number of human beings to survive and to be able to enjoy the comforts, conveniences, and luxuries now found throughout the modern, industrial economies of the world, capitalism and its economic freedom are essential.
Economic freedom is what is required to cope with global warming, global freezing, or any other form of large-scale environmental or social change. If global warming turns out to be a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it—that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. (This applies even to responses to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, that allegedly will occur in connection with global warming. The response of a free market would be typified by that of the Biloxi, Mississippi gambling casinos in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Within months of being freed of restriction to riverboats and being allowed for the first time to locate on land, they sprang into existence ready and eager for action, in the midst of otherwise unrelieved devastation and paralysis, as most property owners waited for government aid from FEMA. The casino owners were fortunate in being ineligible for such aid and so took immediate action on their own. On this subject, see my blog post of March 14, 2006.)
The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the collectivist perspective of government central planners. It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle, as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has shown. But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.
Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened, individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.
Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved much greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry.
This is not to deny that important problems of adjustment would exist if global warming did in fact come to pass. But whatever they would be, they would all have perfectly workable solutions. The most extreme case would be that of the Maldive Islanders, in the Indian Ocean, all of whose land might disappear under water. The population of the Maldive Islands is less than two hundred thousand people. In 1940, in a period of a few days, Great Britain was able to evacuate its army of more than three hundred thousand soldiers from the port of Dunkirk, under the threat of enemy gunfire. Surely, over a period of decades, the opportunity for comfortable resettlement could be arranged for the people of the Maldives.
Even the prospective destruction of much of Holland, if it could not be averted by the construction of greater sea walls, could be dealt with by the very simple means of the United States and Canada joining with the European Union in extending the freedom of immigration to Dutch citizens. If this were done, then in a relatively short time, the economic losses suffered as the result of physical destruction in Holland would hardly be noticed, and least of all by most of the former Dutchmen.
For densely populated, impoverished countries with low-lying coastal areas, like Bangladesh and Egypt, the obvious solution is for those countries to sweep away all of the government corruption and underlying irrational laws and customs that stand in the way of large-scale foreign investment and thus of industrialization. This is precisely what needs to be done in these countries in any case, with or without global warming, if their terrible poverty and enormous mortality rates are to be overcome. If they do this, then the physical loss of a portion of their territory need not entail the death of anyone, and, indeed, their standard of living will rapidly improve. If they refuse to do this, then nothing but their own irrationality should be blamed for their suffering. The threat of global warming, if there is really anything to it, should propel them into taking now the actions they should have taken long ago.
Indeed, it would probably turn out that if the necessary adjustments were allowed to be made, global warming, if it actually came, would prove highly beneficial to mankind on net balance. For example, there is evidence suggesting that it would postpone the onset of the next ice age by a thousand years or more and that the higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is supposed to cause the warming process, would be highly beneficial to agriculture by stimulating the growth of vegetation. Growing seasons too might be extended. Furthermore, any loss of agricultural land, such as that which is supposed to take place in low-lying areas as the result of higher sea levels, would be far more than compensated for by vast quantities of newly useable land in central Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland.
Whether global warming comes or not, it is certain that nature will sooner or later produce major changes in the climate. To deal with those changes and virtually all other changes arising from whatever cause, man absolutely requires individual freedom, science, and technology. In a word, he requires the industrial civilization constituted by capitalism. What he does not require is the throttling of his ability to act, by the environmental movement. If it really is the case that the average mean temperature of the world will rise a few degrees in the next century as the result of the burning of fossil fuels and of other modern industrial processes, the only appropriate response is along the lines of being sure that more and better air conditioners are available.
In absolutely no case would the appropriate response be that of the environmentalists, who seek to throttle and destroy industrial civilization by means of massive restrictions on the use of energy. The environmentalist solution to global warming is the diametric opposite of economic freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest that it allows and the economic success that that pursuit brings. The environmentalist solution is the massive violation of economic freedom and the imposition of massive economic sacrifice, in the insane belief that the way to cope with the destructive forces of nature is to deprive man of his means of coping with them, as though he, and not nature were the cause of those destructive forces, as though nature, left to itself, were benign.
Yes, man’s economic activity can sometimes have negative by-products, on the scale of droplets of harm compared with tank-car loads of good. There have been two centuries of the most rapid economic progress and improvement in the history of the world, elevating the lives of hundreds of millions of people above that of the kings and emperors of history, and holding out the potential for the whole population of the world to be similarly elevated. If the price of this scale of good is to be the existence of higher sea-levels and some very bad weather, that is a tiny price indeed. And the answer to the bizarre fears of such things is that under capitalism, man will deal with any such negative forces of nature resulting as by-products of his activity in precisely the same successful way that he regularly deals with the primary forces of nature.
Primitive man, the ideal of the environmentalists, was incapable of successfully coping with climate changes. Modern man, thanks to industrial civilization and capitalism, is capable of successfully coping with climate changes. To do so, it is essential that he ignore the environmentalists and not abandon the intellectual and material heritage that elevates him above primitive man. The grandchildren of those who endured World War II and its massive air raids and battles on land and sea, to preserve the freedom and way of life of the Western World from tyranny, should not now run away in terror from the threat of hurricanes and floods. Moreover, adopting the program of the environmentalists and throttling the production of energy, will not save the condos in South Florida or the Malibu beachfront, or any thing else of value. They will be useless without the energy production required for people to access them and enjoy them. And when hurricanes and floods come, as they inevitably do, those who have adopted the environmentalists’ program will simply be unable to cope with them.
Marxian “scientific socialism� was collectivism in its boisterous, arrogant youth. Environmentalism is collectivism in its demented old age. It will be much easier to overcome than was Marxism. Marxism, however falsely and dishonestly, at least promised major positives: the unlocking of human potential and the achievement of future material prosperity. Environmentalism is reduced to trying to find terrified people with less than the mentality of children, to whom it can offer the prospect of avoiding wind and rain. It is the intellectual death rattle of collectivism. When it has been overcome, a world-embracing capitalist economy will be able to come into existence and be capable in fact of achieving unprecedented economic progress and prosperity across the entire globe.
This article is copyright © 2006, 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. The last portion of this article was adapted from pp. 88-95 of the author’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). The author is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics
Comments (182)
I don't know if I've ever seen such a muddle-headed piece of economic reasoning.
Replace references to greenhouse gases and global warming with "name your pollutant" and "air or water pollution" and you have a perfect prescription for doing nothing about any modern environmental or natural resource problems involving externalities or public goods - problems that we have learned that we can deal with quite capably without being hijacked down the road to serfdom.
Perhaps a bigger concern than those "collectivist environmentalists" whom you imply are out to ruin our economy are those industrial groups and regulators/legislators who prefer to run economic and environmental policy piecemeal in a manner that serves their respective private interests.
The reasons why the US has not acted to date has to do with complicated issues relating to coordinating behavior that affects global commons - where there are no clear property rights or market mechanisms to allow private choices to work (free rider effects; intergeneratinal aspects). We have already introduced market mechanisms under the Clean Air Act to permit efficent trading in emissions rights; it is these mechanism that underly those currently provided under the Kyoto Protocol.
Your essay here is simple an ideologically driven effort in denial, and is no contribution to economic or political discourse, and certainly not to science. The climate is now changing quite rapidly; even if we chose not to regulate GHG emissions for reasons of cost, delayed impact etc., we ought still to be thinking about how to prepare for the continuing climate change that has now become unavoidable.
I am happy to load you up with references on climate change science, economics and politics if you wish.
Sincerely,
TT
Published: March 29, 2006 3:54 AM
TT - the "pollution" which does not harm anyone is not a pollution.
If the climate change is real and does have victims they can go against the polluters and demand compensation for their current and projected losses - considering that they can prove that there are losses. The fact that the victims of the human-made climate change are many and dispersed does not make this course of action impossible - there's a thing called "class-action lawsuit".
The current problem with environmental protection is that "nobody" owns the environment. The lack of ownership makes what could've been straightforward action against vandalism and tresspassing into a muddle of legistlation by disinterested govenment busybodies weakly responding to the pressure from emotional and generally misinformed environmental activists who are not at all concerned about the rights of other people.
Also, if you think the Clean Air Act is a "market mechanism" you're in a serious need of learning what the market is. The library on this site has a lot of texts on the subject.
Published: March 29, 2006 4:09 AM
Ho Ho. Good one TT.
Listen. The natural tendency is toward glaciation. And glaciation is WHITE DEATH. If you want to waste my time instead of the professors load up birdsnewworld@mac.com with all these 'scientific' studies.
But you can save yourself some time in this way. Ask yourself this one question:
Do the advocates for the campaign against warmer winters for the Siberians know for an absolute fact that CO2 release will stave off the next glaciation?
If the answer is yes, no or maybe then not one dollar can be spent restricting the release of CO2 which is afterall what plants breathe.
I never thought I'd see as irrrational campaign as this one in my lifetime. By the way if they were sure that glacition was now an impossibility and we risked some sort of vast overheating and they were absolutely sure about this then some tax substitution might be justified. But none of these 'science workers' is making such a claim.
There have been twenty-plus glaciations in the last 3 million years. Most of that time the planet has been a nasty inhospitable place. This is the real reason (I believe) for the unprecedented evolution of our species.
We get 6,000-10 000 years to run rampant then the white death comes for 60,000-100,000 years and thins down our numbers and splits us into clans. Its a disaster every time but this series of holocausts is what has made us what we are (or so runs my thinking).
So from my perspective all this fuss about warming could not be more bizzare. We can only put this down to the socialisation of science. Which probably had some benefits early on but which now has led us to this nonsense.
Published: March 29, 2006 5:14 AM
TT,
First off, pollution is nothing more than a violation of property rights. If you look at what is polluted today, it is your precious "commons", where there is a clear lack of property rights. Private property is rarely polluted; and if it is, a lawsuit is usually right around the corner.
Water (and land) pollution is an easy fix: get rid of commons and allow privately-owned waterways and such. Onwers of waterways would work hard to keep the value of their property high by keeping it clean.
Air pollution is more difficult. It is perhaps the only "commons" in existence. However, it is still not a diffiult problem to solve. Pollution Protection Insurance (PPI) would go a long way towards solving this little problem of externalities:
-- Suppose you move into a new home and want to be sure that your air is not being polluted by the factory across town. Simply acruire a PPI policy that states that your air will not be polluted above x amount (dependant on the consumer of the PPI, of course), and if it is polluted above x amount, you will be compensated. If pollution occurs, the insurance company negotiates a settlement with the polluter. There you go, externality solved! All without government interference. Of course today, government regulation of the issue and public courts crowd out such insurance policies in many spheres of life.
Secondly, your assertion that the "climate is changing rapidly" is unfounded. You probably haven't done any research on the issue at all. Here are some facts:
-- Today, it is not nearly as warm as it was during the Medieval warm period that ended 700 years ago.
-- CO2 levels are 1/7th of what they were during the Jurassic Peiod.
-- The sun is currently undergoing one of its "warm phases".
-- The VAST MAJORITY of CO2 that is pumped into the air is absorbed into the oceans, although it can take a century or so.
Most scientists that believe in Global Warming look at the lab and see that CO2 traps heat. Therefore, more CO2 = warmer temperatures. Little else is taken into consideration.
Published: March 29, 2006 8:16 AM
TT,
You do realize this is Mises.org and not Time Magazine's website, don't you?
Published: March 29, 2006 8:25 AM
I have a problem with this piece. Much of it is good, but confusion results from the collective vs. individual responsibility. It is assumed (for the sake of argument) that the economic activities of humans causes global warming. It is stated as resulting from humanity as a collective, but then because the author does not believe in collectives as units, says nobody is responsible and that it is naturally occurring. Wouldn't it be more fitting with individualism to say that individuals all contribute to varying extents carbon emmisions that (it is assumed) are a significant factor in climate change?
Published: March 29, 2006 8:40 AM
My take on the issue of individualism, and the cumulative effect of disbursed actions, versus collectivism is that even if it can be proved that such actions will have negative effect X at time A, the collectivist response usually means a negative effect 10X now. Creating whole nests of bureaucrats, and taxes, and regulations, and the corruption that goes with it, and the huge misallocation of resources and cross-purpose and negating legislation so that producers have no idea if they are doing the "correct thing", causes more misery than the likely alternative.
Simply put, when the "problem" is so oblique, any solution is a medicine that causes more harm than the disease.
Published: March 29, 2006 9:52 AM
Yeah I'm with you on that Brad. But if there WAS shown to be a problem then it could be dealt with very easily by tax substitution alone. Which could never justify us not reducing the government footprint ASAP.
You would slash a whole bunch of other taxes and just have this carbon tax.
But the campaign against warmer winters for the Siberians hasn't even made a case yet. Since none of them has shown that the natural tendency for glaciation has been SO OVERMATCHED that the balance of risks is now with overheating and not glaciation.
Imagine not wanting the Ukranians to have less frost on the crops? Just bizzare.
Published: March 29, 2006 10:50 AM
Burn fossil fuels until there are none left... problem solved. Peak Oil is the cure for Global Warming. How perfect is that?
Published: March 29, 2006 1:07 PM
Excellent article. Prof Reisman gets it spot on.
For all you collectivists who are into the global warming nonsense, here is the complete solution. Take responsibility for your own actions. Every time you exhale you are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. You should stop breathing out at once.
Now the results of this are interesting. Collectivists would no longer produce CO2 and so couldn't be held responsible for addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. They would no longer be contributing to the problem that concerns them so much. Collectivists would no longer be worried about the issue. For them, the problem is over. Nothing to worry about.
Everyone else would still be around doing whatever it is they do. They are not worried about the problem either. Everyone is happy.
Sione
Published: March 29, 2006 3:01 PM
And it would, incidentally, reduce the number of living breathing performative contradictions out there.
Published: March 29, 2006 3:39 PM
"Burn fossil fuels until there are none left... problem solved. Peak Oil is the cure for Global Warming. How perfect is that?"
Peak Oil according to the theory occurs when the accesable oil is about halfway through. And whereas we may be closing in on that when it comes to oil and natural gas we are centuries away when it comes to coal.
So its a cute idea you bring up but not really relevant.
This campaign against warmer winters at the tree-line is much more pernicious then most people realise. Because it will prevent localised coal burning for industrial use and coal-electricity generation.
Sending electricity miles and miles down the wires is not only a massive security risk. But its such a tremendous waste of accesible resources (I would say scarce, but ultimately our resources are unlimited. Its their expense that we have to consider).
To stop this outrageous wastage we want clean-burning coal generation in every suburb. Or even in individual factories and large buildings.
We (Australia) just had a cyclone in North Queensland. And it was a good time to reflect on just how much better we would have dealt with it under economic liberty.
Two key things the people in Innisfail lacked when the wind calmed was CASH (due to fractional reserve banking) and ELECTRICITY (due to the failure to have localised coal-to-electricity generation.
We may one day face multiple nuclear attacks. We better let any potential aggressor know that after such an attack we can function and calmy and surgically remove the relevant regimes after such an outrage if we never want this to happen.
So we ought to start deregulating the energy sector and increasing reserve requirements right away.
Published: March 29, 2006 5:38 PM
"You do realize this is Mises.org and not Time Magazine's website, don't you?"
That's funny, because I have a free subscription. The cover of Time Magazine was so ridiculous, I almost burst out laughing: "BE WORRIED, VERY BE WORRIED".
They include a diagram of a few phenomena that increases global warming - excluding the factors that would reduce it. In other words, no equilibrium exists - it's pure chaos as time passes.
Published: March 29, 2006 5:49 PM
"You do realize this is Mises.org and not Time Magazine's website, don't you?"
That's funny, because I have a free subscription. The cover of Time Magazine was so ridiculous, I almost burst out laughing: "BE WORRIED, VERY BE WORRIED".
They include a diagram of a few phenomena that increases global warming - excluding the factors that would reduce it. In other words, no equilibrium exists - it's pure chaos as time passes.
Published: March 29, 2006 5:52 PM
"Be very worried," was it? That is funny.
Published: March 29, 2006 8:22 PM
Guess what? Peak oil is a load of good ol' dog. Most of the oil in the known fields is left in the ground when they stop producing. We reckon that in our outfit's stripper wells around 90% of the crude is still down there even when it comes time to turn the nodding duck off and sell it or move it to another well head. All it'll take is some new technology and...
Anyway all this global warming wax made me remember a story that happened in the Islands a while back. I have a friend there. Siotu is his name. We used to tease him that he was the cause of global warming.
The TV news would report nightly that rising CO2 was causing global warming and that would be a disaster for the Islands. Since the TV said Siotu was responsible, we reckoned he must be the one to blame! He took the ribbing quite well. Anyway this thing took on a life of its own. All in good fun.
Some wag said Siotu ought to remain in bed and stop rising in the morning, that way global warming would stop.
RISING OF SIOTU DELAYED. GLOBAL WARMING HALTED! (I wish I'd thought of that startling line of logic.)
I know Siotu stayed in bed some mornings as he was a good man for a torrid night out on the bottle from time to time. Still it would appear that Siotu's failure to rise has not stopped the global warming industry. That must mean our "science" was mistaken. And we had a consensus as well.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Sione
Published: March 29, 2006 11:24 PM
Right Sione. But is there some sort of point behind this retreat into satire?
I mean irony is one thing. But it really amounts to chickening out if you don't also reveal where you are actually coming from.
Published: March 30, 2006 3:28 AM
averros, thanks for your comments. I’m sympathetic with your concerning that government regulation could make a hash of finding ways to cut GHG emissions, as I noted in my first comment. However, I see no practical solution outside of government – and the problem is compounded of course by the fact that we are talking about a global commons issue, and not one confined solely to the US.
You misread my comment on the CAA; there is much to criticize about the Act, but the 1977 amendments included the establishment of emissions trading for SO2. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/. At the insistence of the US, Europeans and other signatories to the Kyoto protocol included mechanisms to allow the trading of GHG emission allocations.
Published: March 30, 2006 3:39 AM
"....However, I see no practical solution outside of government – and the problem is compounded of course by the fact that we are talking about a global commons issue, and not one confined solely to the US."
If more government is the answer then someone is asking the wrong bloody questions.
BUT WHAT IS THE PROBLEM YOU ARE SPEAKING OF?
If the problem is make-believe its hardly a justification for more governmental depredation. And in any case the first step to solving any AUTHENTIC national or international or economic crisis is ruthless financial triage of non-defense spending.
But what is the problem?
You are going along with the perfect storm of unreason. And you had no answer to my comments. So living in a world of make-believe you simply decided to ignore them.
Published: March 30, 2006 4:11 AM
Graeme:
Thanks for your many and interesting comments.
Glaciations have payed a very important and little understood role in human evolution. Ever read anything by William Calvin? Here's a link to his book on precisely this: http://williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/.
Your reference to "warmer winters in Siberia" is interesting - nobody wants an ice age, so some climate change has obviously been good. Scitific American and other have recently indicated that the human shift to agriculture over the past 5000+ years may be get credit for delaying the onset of the next glaciation (by increasing mathane emissions). But human climate forcing over the past century have been even more pronounced, and has resulted in a marked warming trend that has clearly swamped any incipient cooling (that seemed eminent in the 70s due to heavy particulate pollution).
Also it is fair to note that no everone's ox will be equally gored by the negative effects of climate change - there may some regions or countries that benefit while others may be clear losers, while others are in between. This is one factor that complicates analysis.
But your position that we shouldn't do anything about climate change since taking action may simply accelerate the next glaciation is irresponsible - what, we should continue our uncontrolled climate experiment, heedless of present and near-term costs, because of a much further off possible benefit? Obviously we should conduct a present term analysis with discounted values in mind.
The real question is at what point "we" - the myriad of actors involved with what is essentially an unregulated global commons - will decide to take meaningful action about runaway climate change. Please note that it already is too late, as even if we immediately halved global human CO2 emissions, this will have minimal effects on total CO2 levels for decades, and meanwhile the oceans will continue to warm and tundras will contuine to thaw, which will put even more potent GHGs – water vapor and methane - into the atmosphere. The Arctic and the Greenland ice cap are melting rapidly, and the American Geophysical Union believes that we will soon have a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean for the first time in millions of years. There is enough certainty about what is happening now and what is likely to come down the pike to justify action now - both in terms of limiting GHG emissions and to abate the effects of unavoidable warming.
You seem not to want to discuss the science, so I'll save that for a response to another poster.
I like your suggestion of carbon taxes, by the way. They seem to be one efficient mechanism to deal with the problem - as well as certain others that the US and the rest of the developed world face (energy insecurity, heavy flow of oil dollars to unstable regimes, inefficient energy use, subsidies to oil and natural gas industries and lack of consistent incentives for alternatives and, in the US, tax policies that favor present consumption at the expense of investment and the need for new revenues to fill huge budget deficits).
Your final comment about energy policy in Australia in the context of the latest typhoon also seems to point to a productive area for discussion - we can take advantage of the huge supplies of coal in the US and Australia and deal proactively with climate change by focussing on coal gasification (which leaves no pollutants) projects that are coupled with carbon sequestration. The US power industry favors a carbon tax precisely for this reason.
Published: March 30, 2006 4:35 AM
Nick:
I'm with you generally on developing more refined approaches to environmental regulation, including private alternatives. I'd love to turn alot of our laws upside down, and am in favor of the types of approaches discussed in these places:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism
http://commonsblog.org/about_freemkt.php
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vcems/papers/ELRVersion2.pdf
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/cv_dce.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/freegreentext.html
However, given the tragedy of the commons aspects to climate change - free riders, information difficulties, myriads of parties and no shared juriusdiction, purely private "solutions" clearly won't work, will they?
Sadly, you're dead wrong on the science of course. Can I ask you to peruse with an open mind these links to what the US/other leading scientific bodies/climate change scientists have to say?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=240#Responses
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/17/85716/1778/228
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/11/30/223549/05/14
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: March 30, 2006 4:45 AM
Fred, yes I realize where I am. Do you mean to imply that Prof. Reisman was looking only for applause, and not discussion?
I have enough respect for the thoughtfulness of this group generally – and concern about the issue - to protest Reisman’s surprisingly uninformed and unsophisticated argument. Or is this a“Flat Earth�group that also believes in Intelligent Design?
Published: March 30, 2006 4:53 AM
Brad and Graeme:
I share your public choice theory skepticism in general – we could handle a lot of regulation better than we do, and look at how even under Republican federal discretionary spending has grown rapidly.
But don't we know enough about the problems inherent in externalities, public goods and common or unowned natural resources, to recognize the need for governmental involvement in finding solutions? Solutions are particularly hard to come by in the case of international resources, as there is no global regulatory and the politicians of hundreds different countries, with differning interests, may have to be prodded into action.
I think that this is a case where even imperfect solutions, such as to air and water nationally, are better than none at all. Climate change is a sufficiently serious and difficult issue that I think it irresponsible simply to dismiss it because we think government will not handle it well (that of course is a given, but there is no alternative).
The problem in the case of market failures in the case of negative externalities is that the pricing mechanism simply doesn't reflect true costs. If we taxed greenhouse gas emissions, even at a very modest level, and taxed imported fuels, we could very easily spur private decisions the would lead to higher fuel efficiency, investments by utilities in nuclear power plants and coal-gasification power plants that generate zero pollution (the US is the Saudia Arabia of coal), and investments in co-generation (capture of waste heat by generating electricty) by industry, etc.
I think that we're foolishly pushing off to the future a problem that by its very nature will only be aggravated by our procrastination. The multi-national, global commons aspects of the problem make coordinated action essential. Let's at least admit the intractable aspects of the problem we face, rather than simply throwing our hands up at it and pretending it doesn't exist.
More in-depth discussions of the application of environmental economics in the context of climate change are here:
http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.664,filter.all/book_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.211,filter.all/book_detail.asp
http://www.issues.org/issues/20.2/stewart.html
http://www.issues.org/issues/20.3/forum.html
For those who are interested, I've fleshed out my thoughts a little further here: http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/12/3/204530/429/76
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/11/30/223549/05/36.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: March 30, 2006 5:20 AM
Sione, thanks for your note of levity – but don't hold your breath waiting for me!
Of course your do-nothing, know-nothing approach is sheer foolishness. Kindly tell all resource economists that they are idiots; problems through human history over water rights, salinization, pollution, over-fishing, extinction of species, tropical deforestation never happened, and or if it did, it was all for the best.
Published: March 30, 2006 5:23 AM
Paul, did you know that all living breathing performative contradictions are
Published: March 30, 2006 5:29 AM
TokyoTom,
I have an open mind and I USED to think that (1) global warming was a realtiy and (2) the impetus must be on a free market solution to the problem. However, I have came across so much information that makes me question the long-term global warming thesis.
Ever heard of the vostok ice core? According to the ice core, there have been so many severe fluctuations in global temperature over time that today's slight increases pale in comparison:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Vostok_long.gif
Solar temperatures fluctuate as well. Ever heard a climatologist talk about high temperatures on the sun? Or how about rising temperatures on other planets?
The truth is that when people in general statistical trend, they tend to extrapolate it far into the future. Hence, the dire predictions.
But I go further. Even if their predictions for massive CO2 increases ARE true, oceans will mitigate teir effect by absorbing a TON of it!
Thanks for the links tho.
Published: March 30, 2006 6:21 AM
Qoute from TokyoTom: "Please note that it already is too late, as even if we immediately halved global human CO2 emissions, this will have minimal effects on total CO2 levels for decades, and meanwhile the oceans will continue to warm and tundras will contuine to thaw, which will put even more potent GHGs – water vapor and methane - into the atmosphere."
If its already too late, then what is your point? That we should have a greenhouse AND massive economic depression due to the government control of the economy to prevent something we can't prevent?
You can't make statements like this and expect us to take your arguments seriously. You're making giant predictions about future outcomes in chaotic systems that are not fully understood or predictable.
Published: March 30, 2006 6:39 AM
Much better Tokyo Tom. Much better.
But your latest still lends itself to some criticisms even now that you are taking a more reasonable tack.
"But your position that we shouldn't do anything about climate change since taking action may simply accelerate the next glaciation is irresponsible ..."
Justify this. If a White Death holocaust is the major threat then what is irresponsible is forcing other people, in some giant social experiment, to incur costs to restrict the output of plant food (ie CO2).
You know I quite like nature. I hate the mass slaughter of the natural world of course. Nature is a nazi. But aside from that I like the idea of animals (excluding predators who prey on larger brained animals) getting about as a sort of great and sacred museum. And nature likes CO2. CO2 makes plants grow more quickly.
So if you take my (qualified) pro-nature position you would not want to close down the one major good thing that the humans have done for the other species. But most of all you ought not be so uppity as to want to steal money off your fellows for the purpose of restricting the ability of plants to grow.
Of course there will be some downside to the overwhelming benefits that CO2 based warming will bring. But its economic liberty and generous immigration that is the key to allowing people to cope with whatever transitions are in store.
You and the other supporters of this gigantic scientific fraud are the ones who wish to impose extra costs on people. And you couldn't have picked a worse time. Since now is the time we have to substitute away from oil to a greater or lesser extent. So anything that gets in the way of coal particularly will impose great hardship everywhere. Much more authentic suffering then anything we are likely to get from interim warming. And this is before taking the possibility of glaciation into account.
Published: March 30, 2006 12:24 PM
"I have enough respect for the thoughtfulness of this group generally – and concern about the issue - to protest Reisman’s surprisingly uninformed and unsophisticated argument. Or is this a“Flat Earth�group that also believes in Intelligent Design?"
Right. It didn't last long did it.
There was nothing uninformed about what the Proffesor said. Now you have shown that you understand the problem of glaciation. And yet you continue on with this willful stupidity.
"If we taxed greenhouse gas emissions, even at a very modest level, and taxed imported fuels, we could very easily spur private decisions the would lead to higher fuel efficiency, investments by utilities in nuclear power plants and coal-gasification power plants that generate zero pollution (the US is the Saudia Arabia of coal), and investments in co-generation (capture of waste heat by generating electricty) by industry, etc."
True enough. At least if you are talking tax-substitution rather then a tax increase. BUT YOU ARE YET TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. You have already shown that you understand that to take such action may be to push things in the wrong direction.
Explain this continued irrationality then. Irrationality is the ONLY word for it. You know what's going on. Yet on you go with a conclusion that does not stack up with the facts that you have already acknowledged.
Published: March 30, 2006 12:35 PM
Graeme
Two things for you to remember.
#1. Most of the oil is still "down there" ready for us to get. (BTW I'm intending to get some of it.)
#2. A consensus of opinion does not necessarily correspond with the truth.
Simple enough, even for okkers, maaaaaaaate!
The story about Siotu is correct. I reported it pretty much as it occurred. It was funny at the time. It's interesting that some of us "ignorant islanders" were so rapidly able to see through the global warming hype and identify the reality of the situation so quickly. I suppose that's could be because for well over a century the islands of Polynesia (Melanesia and Micronesia as well I guess) have been visited by palangi selling various ideologies and the like. Always they say the same things. Stuff along the lines of, "If you 'boons do not do as we say then you are evil and bad things will happen to you." Unfortunately THEY were usually the bad things that happened.
Once you see through the lie (and the accompanying threats) it becomes a matter for ridicule. Rather than turning to violence we laughed at it. Mostly people relax and live together peacefully after that (some call it "going troppo"). In the village you learn to get on. Anyway, I still do tend to make fun of mental silliness. But I understand you want an explanation. Since you don't appear to have been around for very long I'll elaborate a little.
Global warming is little more than junk science dressed up with some social metaphysics aimed at socialist ends. As far as I am concerned socialists are liars and wilfully dishonest people who should be dismissed from polite society at the first available opportunity. They are not to be trusted. Since it is the socialists who tout global warming to further their ends, then that topic requires most careful analysis. Sure enough we find that global warming theories are incomplete and there is considerable latitude for contention and alternative interpretation. For example, you have a particular interpretation and it differs to that of many others. Fair enough.
There are two issues to address:
1/. What is the scientific truth? I'm not seeking the consensus of opinion. I'm after fact.
2/. Can coercive collectivism be justified by global warming theories? I'm not seeking emotion, only truth.
For the first question the jury aint in yet. Lots more knowledge required. Currently the store of knowledge on the topic is sparse and incomplete (there is nothing wrong with admitting that).
As for the second, what can be rapidly concluded is that there certainly is no justification to use global warming theory to impose the burden of socialism on individuals. There never has been.
Sione
Published: March 30, 2006 7:03 PM
TokyoTom
To get anyone responsible to accept the global warming sect's calls for action there are several steps to be taken and tests to pass. I've challenged people with these on numerous occasions and not one of them has satisfied the tests. This is your chance. Here be the chain of scientific logic necessary:
1/. Prove the Earth's climate is getting warmer.
2/. Prove that it is an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is solely the cause of the warming (there are at least three things to show in this step)
3/. Prove that the activities of Man are the sole cause of the increase in CO2 levels and that in his absence there would not be an elevation of CO2 levels (two steps)
4/. Prove that the results of the warming climate are necessarily bad and deleterious (very large task)
5/. Prove that a serious situation is developing which would lead necessarily to great harm to people
Even should all these proofs be accomplished none of them justifies continued expansion of the state. Nor do they justify continued funding of state sanctioned science. There are more tests to be applied long before we ever arrive at coerced collectivism.
A proper course of action is what individual people choose to do voluntarily. The best approach may well be to adapt and not to worry about the climate alteration (bad weather, as Reisman succinctly puts it). Another approach may be to begin developing better technologies and new products (if anyone really believes in global warming why aren't they actively supporting efforts to do this? Let's see the colour of your money!). It may be to change behaviours or habits (if anyone really believes in global warming why aren't they actively doing this? Let's see them quit electricity and the car and the computer etc. etc. Is it too hard to be consistent?). All power to them.
Unfortunately you appear to be more interested in big national scale programs. That means you need to show collective action is required and not just any collective action but the compulsory and coerced variety. So there are some more tests for you to satisfy. Consider these:-
6/. Prove that collective action must be taken (this is a big task akin to proving that communism is necessary and good for Man- important to understand the magnitude of what is required to accomplish this).
7/. Prove that it is YOUR great plan that should be followed. There are many, many steps to prove that ANY solution you propose is sound. Individuals may still reject it. They may choose someone else's approach (like mine for instance). You still need to justify forcing people to do as you order.
TokyoTom, I don't think you'll ever be able to get over the line. Not in my lifetime and not in yours either.
What is more likely to occur is that gradually new products and technologies will become prevalent. They will be superior to what is available today. Perhaps some of these may rely on renewables or home brewed fuels. Perhaps some will be extremely sophisticated and very clever (like using microbes to produce energy from "waste"). I don't know for certain which ones will be available. I do have some favourites though.
What I do know is that govt action will delay or even prevent products based on these technologies from being available to us. I also know that govt actions will reduce my and other people's wealth; many will be impoverished. I know that life on this planet is always changing. Trying to roll back time to "protect the environment" (in the politically green sense) is like trying to keep a baby locked in its mother's uterus, resisting the changes that must eventually occur.
So, TokyoTom, best start on your prep. Before there is any more promotion of big tax or (inter)national schemes or govt spending nonsense, let's see those proofs.
Sione
Published: March 30, 2006 7:09 PM
Dear Nick:
Thanks for your response; I hope you will keep working through the links. Are you aware that Pres. Bush readily admits that climate change is a serious problem, is spending $5 billion on it annually and announced the Asia Pacific Partnership last year in an attempt to rein in rapid GHG emissions from China and India? More is obviously needed, but is ideologically and politically unpalatable in the US.
I’m quite aware that there are many long-term factors at work and have been dramatic changes in the past. However, the massive GHG forcing related to industrialization is undeniable and the accelerating climbs in temperature over the past few decades is clearly linked. We are already witnessing remarkable changes in the Arctic, as I have already noted.
As to the oceans, I’m afraid there are multiple effects that are not uniformly positive. Oceans are carbon sinks, but the sink effect is lagging for behind the human generation of CO2 (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040719-124526-9990r.htm
) – only a third to date. Of course heating also throws water vapor – a potent GHG - into the air, and also threatens massive releases of methane from hydrates on ocean floors and thawing permafrost areas.
One of the ironies of the Arctic melting is that it runs the risk of flipping the switch on oceanic thermohaline circulation and shutting down the Atlantic current - this could lead to a sharp cooling in Europe (which lies further north than the US), and appears to have happened in the past.
Published: March 30, 2006 8:24 PM
Thanks for your response; I hope you will keep working through the links. Are you aware that Pres. Bush readily admits that climate change is a serious problem, is spending $5 billion on it annually and announced the Asia Pacific Partnership last year in an attempt to rein in rapid GHG emissions from China and India?
Are you aware that Pres. Bush readily admitted there were WMDs in Iraq, Saddam was involved in 9/11, etc., and is spending vastly more than $5 billion annually on fighting in Iraq? Pres. Bush is a moron and a liar of the highest order. If he readily admits that climate change is a serious problem, that's about 90% of the evidence I need to know it isn't!
Published: March 30, 2006 9:20 PM
Come on Keith, be serious. Acknowledging that the patient is already ill doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat the patient. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure, but obviously we should be BOTH getting ready for what cannot be avoided (or what Graeme would say is desired) and to make rational efforts at prevention.
You accuse me of being overdramatic, but what about you – why do you think that fixing market failures will trigger “massive economic depression due to the government control of the economy�? Is this the lesson you learn from your study of the impact of environmental regulation to date? If so, it’s wrong – fixing market failures improves the economy, as I’m sure Lornborg would tell you. Granted, we could do a better job with our environmental regulation, but even with the obvious inefficiencies the special interests competing for tax dollars produce, we are surely better off now than if we had simply thrown our hands up and hoped that other market failure problems would cure themselves.
Because of the global commons aspects, coordinated international action is needed, but there is a lot that the US can do alone that would actually improve the US economy, and it is possible to take steps outside of Kyoto with respect to China and India that would be more meaningful than what we have embarked on to date.
Simply imposing a tax on fuel consumption, even if limited solely to imported fuels, would do a lot to rationalize fuel consumption and accelerate the economics of coal gasification, nuclear power, biofuels etc. This would also fill an enormous budget hole, and would more accurately reflect the true costs of imported fuels (not limited to our huge military spending). http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/11/16/83949/551/83#83.
The Bush Administration has recently embarked on the Asia-Pacific Partnership, by which the US, Japan and Australia agreed to shove R&D tax money at China and India, precisely because we realize it is in our interest to have them use the latest and cleanest technologies as they industrialize. Have we consider whether, as part of our trade deals with these countries, that we could require that they accept GHG emissions caps?
We should not use the difficult nature of resolving climate change issues as a justification to deny the issue. This was noted recently by Steven Hayward of the AEI, in his piece Is "Conservative Environmentalist" an Oxymoron?:
"the sweeping portentous language we hear from orthodox environmentalists reflects not a deep and serious attachment to Rousseau or Heidegger, but is rather a reflection of the unhappy truth that there are a lot of environmental problems, especially on a global scale, about which we simply don’t know what to do. Even the problem of climate change, which in the abstract appears straightforward, is obviously proving very hard to deal with. What about much more complicated problems like species extinction and habitat loss? There is scarcely the beginning of an answer to this problem on the global scale. It is at this point that orthodox environmentalists figuratively throw up their hands….
[C]onservatives have overreacted to these radical-sounding tendencies in conventional environmentalism. Now, why should anyone who is not a conservative care especially whether conservatives have anything serious to say about the environment, or care whether the issue is a liberal monopoly? I think people should care because the liberal monopoly on environmental issues is a disaster for the environment. … The environment is much too important to be left to environmentalists—they’ll just screw things up.� http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp
The environmentalists are making noises because there are obvious market failure, tragedy of the commons issues that confront us, and very little is being done to address them. We can tell the environmentalists that they do not understand the institutional underpinnings of the problem or the appropriate cure, but responsibility lies in acknowledging that a number of problems exist that we should be working to cure.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: March 30, 2006 9:44 PM
Graeme, thanks for engaging me. I’m happy that we’ve managed to put off one ice age, and hopefully we’ll at some point know enough to keep them permanently at bay, but in the meanwhile there is just the small problem that our collective effects on global ecosystems is unregulated by feedback mechanisms – except where we use laws and regulations – as we are dealing with regional and global common resources for which there are no clear owners and accordingly are not subject to market pricing. Isn’t this the key insight that economics bring to the analysis that so stumps guys like Jared Diamond, what can see problems but not understand them?
More particularly, the consensus from climate change models is for a further increase of global temperatures in the next 100 years of from 3 to 10+ Fahrenheit, and we can already see the Arctic melting and the Great Barrier Reef bleaching. There will be lots of regional affects as we heat up the system – stronger weather events, regional droughts, less predictable waterflows as glaciers and snowpacks disappear, countered in some regions by more favorable growing conditions. These relative rapid changes, even if we get more plant growth overall from the additional CO2, will likely be quite disruptive to many species (on top of the many problems already caused by invasives). Sorry, but I think this is a problem, and worth trying to fix the underlying market failures through intelligent unilateral and multilateral action.
There is lots of creative thinking out there on resource law and economics from guys on the right like Terry Anderson at the Political Economy Research Center, and from places in the field like NZ. Surely your aware of these efforts? The bigger problems relating to species and global commons are just tougher nuts to address; let's not pretend that they don't exist at all.
Published: March 30, 2006 10:15 PM
Hey, Peter, you talking to the wrong guy if you're looking for a defense of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. They've proven to be more adept at pork-barrel politics than the Dems and have also learned that demagoguery (wars, gays etc) is handy at winning elections and keeping serious thought at bay. Discussions about the shocking lack of effort to put our fiscal and current account deficits house in order are off thread, so I'll leave that here.
Tom
Published: March 30, 2006 10:25 PM
"I’m happy that we’ve managed to put off one ice age, and hopefully we’ll at some point know enough to keep them permanently at bay, but in the meanwhile there is just the small problem that our collective effects on global ecosystems is unregulated by feedback mechanisms."
Hang on a minute. Are you claiming that you know for sure that the balance of risks is no longer with glaciation?????
You cannot be serious.
Look you are just going to have to accept that the campaign against warmer winters for the Laplanders is a ridiculous fraud.
If it wasn't you would have been able to come up with something here. But you haven't.
Now it may be astounding for you that you found this out on an economics site. But find it out you did. Unless you are simply going to continue with this irrationality you have to go with what you have found out here.
The relevant question is: DO WE KNOW THAT THE GLACIATION THREAT HAS BEEN ENTIRELY OVERMATCHED BY HUMAN CO2 RELEASE.
Now you don't know that. You aren't pretending to know that. And neither are any of the fraudsters that you might care to site.
So you will just have to wake up to yourself and accept that the movement is an irrational fraud and likely inspired by the sort of philosophical stupidity that the proffessor outlined.
Now don't slime out of this. You can run but you can't hide.
Published: March 30, 2006 10:44 PM
Sione:
Thanks for your response, the length of which belies your ready dismissal that “Global warming is little more than junk science dressed up with some social metaphysics aimed at socialist ends.� Given your firmly stated opinion it is clear that I can’t change your mind – you will have to change it yourself, and will only do so when there is sufficient cognitive dissonance generated between your existing model of reality and the information that you are willing to let in. So you’ll have to do your own proofs. But is your person jury still willing to weigh the information, or has it gone on strike?
Allow me just to note that there are plenty of economists and political economists on the right who acknowledge not only (i) the increasingly convincing and consistent information being provided by climate scientists but (ii) the market failure aspects that require – yes! that shibboleth! - “collective� action to address. I have already provided numerous links upthread to thinkers on the right at the AEI and elsewhere on the economics; perhaps you may be willing to peruse them?.
On the science, do you dismiss the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, Wood’s Hole, the American Geophysical Union and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee as all crackpots? Here is a link to statements by these groups: http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/11/30/223549/05/14. Do you not find it interesting that those who profess to be rationalists are those who are the science deniers? It seems that those who, for very good reason, are chary of the misuse of economic regulation, prefer to throw the baby out with the bathwater by taking a simple Luddite approach.
Allow me a brief bite at some of your “tests�, which are actually unreasonable “traps� rather than an invitation to reasoned discussion:
1/. Prove the Earth's climate is getting warmer.
TT: See the science. Especially look at what is happening in the Arctic and Greenland, and to growing seasons.
2/. Prove that it is an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is solely the cause of the warming (there are at least three things to show in this step)
TT: The wrong things to prove. Atmospheric levels of methane, water vapor, and SO2 are also important. These levels have all gone way up over the past 300 years.
3/. Prove that the activities of Man are the sole cause of the increase in CO2 levels and that in his absence there would not be an elevation of CO2 levels (two steps).
TT: Much easier – see the science. Are you denying the pulse of GHGs from human activities? And don’t forget how particulates have had the opposite affect – for a time producing a cooling in the northern hemisphere that has been swamped by the GHG effects, although there is still a significant reduction in insolation in Asia due to air pollution (see Asian brown cloud).
4/. Prove that the results of the warming climate are necessarily bad and deleterious (very large task)
TT: Again, the wrong thing to prove. There may be positives in some regards – as Graeme notes, CO2 is a limiting factor on plant growth, so higher levels may aid forests and agriculture. But there are plenty of serious negative effects to be concerned about and those who will benefit are likely to differ from those who will gain. Is this the same question you ask your wife when she asks you to slow down on the freeway? With GHGs, we are speeding up, but have no steering mechanism and no brakes. Tell me again why it’s a CONSERVATIVE approach that we wait until we crash, and then say, okay, let’s get brakes? This how the tobacco industry has continued to buy off Congress.
5/. Prove that a serious situation is developing which would lead necessarily to great harm to people
TT: See 1 and 4.
6/. Prove that collective action must be taken (this is a big task akin to proving that communism is necessary and good for Man- important to understand the magnitude of what is required to accomplish this).
7/. Prove that it is YOUR great plan that should be followed. There are many, many steps to prove that ANY solution you propose is sound. Individuals may still reject it.
TT: These show that you’ve taken an inflexible ideological position. I like the ideology of minimizing governmental mucking around with the economy – frequently goes wrong, Congressmen and industry line their pockets, creates “necessary� bureaucracy that tends to grow etc - but it’s the inflexibility that bothers me. Just like we needed air and water pollution laws to deal with those cases of market failure, there are other cases of market failure that also justify action. Corrective measures that allow the pricing mechanism to work efficiently IMPROVE people’s wealth (I acknowledge there is a balancing with the public choice negatives). The instances that require international action – global and regional commons – are particularly sticky. That doesn’t mean the problems don’t exist, or that the responsible thing to do is to ignore them, as you would have us do.
I agree that “that life on this planet is always changing� – competition for fitness within and among species makes such change inevitable. However, it is also undeniable that man’s industrialization is causing a pulse of extinction that equals that caused by prehistoric meteor strikes. These other species don’t vote – just as the people in poorer countries mentioned by Prof. Reisman have no political voice over actions taken in our countries (often not even in their own), and we have no obligation to take them into account. In my own view, however, it is desirable for us, for our own selfish benefit, to act deliberately to moderate our effects on the global environment. Denial of this leaves humans “collectively� in a position not much different from mold on a slice of bread – racing individually to consume our environment before others do. Or, to use a different metaphor – to drive blind on a highway without brakes, while the mother and the unborn baby have neither a way to get the driver to behave responsibly or to safely exit the vehicle. I leave discussion of the morality of this for another day.
Published: March 30, 2006 11:59 PM
Tom,
"Paul, did you know that all living breathing performative contradictions are..."
...(in this context) showing a demonstrated preference for continuing to live and continuing to contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere, over the taking the alternative action?
Yes, it has occurred to me. I do applaud the choice. Next step: adopt a consistent philosophy.
Published: March 31, 2006 12:20 AM
Graeme, I understand that you're not a climate scientist, but can I take it that your positin is that man's activities ARE changing the climate, thankfully so, and are willing to take the blast of heat and all the damage that it can do just to make sure we never have another ice age? Is that a fair summary of your position?
But if warming can cause damage, and it takes a long time to reverse course, when do you decide to act?
Allow me to make a person note on this:
Now it may be astounding for you that you found this out on an economics site. But find it out you did. Unless you are simply going to continue with this irrationality you have to go with what you have found out here.
The relevant question is: DO WE KNOW THAT THE GLACIATION THREAT HAS BEEN ENTIRELY OVERMATCHED BY HUMAN CO2 RELEASE.
Now you don't know that. You aren't pretending to know that. And neither are any of the fraudsters that you might care to site.
So you will just have to wake up to yourself and accept that the movement is an irrational fraud and likely inspired by the sort of philosophical stupidity that the proffessor outlined.
Now don't slime out of this. You can run but you can't hide.I'm not running and I'm not hiding, but I think your tone here is way out of line and essentially telling me you don't want a discussion. In that case, I will oblige you, and respond to anyone else who chooses to explain my errors.
Tom
Published: March 31, 2006 12:28 AM
Paul, you're smart guy. You must realize that the anthrogenic GHG forcing under consideration is largely due to human industrial and agricultural activities; the portion contributed by human respiration and flatulence are an insignificant portion (we are simply displacing other animals).
So it really won't help if all those who actually are concerned about climate change simply drop dead. Can you put your thinking cap on and come up with a more productive approach?
Published: March 31, 2006 12:50 AM
Tokyo Tom --
However, I see no practical solution outside of government – and the problem is compounded of course by the fact that we are talking about a global commons issue, and not one confined solely to the US.
Actually, the government is what created the problem in the first place and keeps perpetuating it by preventing private parties with the interest in protection of their own environment from taking over the "commons".
According to the government I do not own air in my house. It also prevents me from defending my own property. Accordingly, I cannot go and extract compensation from a nearby polluter - I have to use political means to convince some government bureaucrat to side with me on this case.
And because polluters tend to have paid buddies in the governement, guess who usually wins?
Published: March 31, 2006 1:45 AM
Ok, fair enough, Tom. How about this: Not only are human respiration and flatulence an insignificant influence on the temperature of the planet, all human activity also is insignificant. It was not a lack of human breathing, lack of flatulence or lack of human industry that put the world into the little ice age in the 1300's, and it is not human activity that continues to bring it out of that ice age today.
The forces that put the planet into an ice age are the forces that take it out of one. We are presently coming out of one. In one, out of one, in and out; whatever way the earth goes, one thing remains constant: it is not human activities that have dictated them and it never will be. Come to grips with that, and relax. The best way to deal with big swings in the weather is to allow technology to advance unhindered by world government style regulation.
In summary; want to keep the world off a crash course with unmitigated disaster? Stop advocating regulation on a global scale. If national governments can wipe out millions of lives at a go-round i do not want to imagine what havoc an organized world government could accomplish even in the name of global warming.
Published: March 31, 2006 2:14 AM
averros:
I'm afraid I'm not following you. In addition to the pollution laws to which you seem to object, the government creates and maintains courts and other means by which you can seek redress from a nearby polluter, to which common-law principles of "nuisance" may provide you some sort of remedy. Consumers still have access to the court of public opinion, and can influence corporate behavior particularly if they voluntarily band together.
However, it is the very limited usefulness of common law principles in providing you with a meaningful remedy that led to popular demand for environmental laws.
In some cases, informal or formal private or group action to enforce private property and "common property" rights remain very effective, in which case regulatory law is undesirable.
Published: March 31, 2006 3:22 AM
Paul, thanks for giving me a little more to chew on.
"All human activity is insignificant". Shall I'll assume you mean only with respect to man's aafect planetary temperatures? In other ways, I think it's fairly easy to demonstrate man's massive impact on the planet - and I suppose Prof. Reisman would agree and say that we are simply and "naturally" shaping the world in the way we'd like it be. If there's some part of that "other", significant impact you'd care to contest, please let me know.
As to anthropogenic effects on temperatures, you are using the internet, so I presume you live in the modern world, which reflects human technology which in turn is based on human understanding of the physical world. I cannot explain to you how most technology works, and there is still an awfully lot to know, but I imagine you share my understanding that technological devices don't work by magic, and that we live in a physical world that isto a large comprehendable based on scientifi principles.
If you are with me so far, then can you please go back and look at what our major scientific organizations are telling us, and explain to me why you think they are all lying to us, or are simply high priests of a cool-aid drinking voodoo cult?
What I read tells me that our "puny" activities have increased CO2 concentrations by something like 50% and more than doubled methane concentrations. There are certainly many other factors at play, but we know we're pushing the accelerator on the car, it's going faster, and we have no brake. Even Prof. Reisman seems willing to concede this, and says let's just get ready to enjoy the ride.
I totally agree that we want private individuals rather than the government dictating what actions to take in respect to unavoidable climate, but (i) I'm not yet willing to concede that nothing can or should be done to control spiraling GHG emissions and (ii) the problem with adaptation, as environmental economists point out, is that the market pricing mechanism doesn't fully reflect externalities. There are sensible, market-oriented approaches to natural resource and environmental problems, as noted on my links to conservative economist groups like the AEI, CEI and PERC.
I share the desire for caution in finding the right policy tools and fear of misuse by industry, bureacrats etc., but I don't that wise caution should lead one to complete dismissal of any problem.
We already have enough inertia in dealing with climate change due to the free rider effects (no one willing to maike a meaningful international commitment unless others do as well) that you guys really don't need to hyperventilate over the climate change enviros - we've already got Crichton and the whole political orthody on the right doing that. Instead, Prof. Reisman and the rest of you should be focussed on rolling back our environmental laws - by which Republican "collectivists" from the 70s have so shackled American citizens and manufacturers. (On the serious side, my links above note that despite these laws clearly being a net plus for America, they have also been unnecessarily rigid and expensive, and can and should be fixed!)
In summary, capitalism, individual freedom and the "free hand" of the market work great and should be as unfettered by government meddling as possibile - but it's also well known that markets tend to over-destructive exploitation where there are inadequate property rights, externalities and consequently imperfect pricing. The answer is to have as light a hand as possible, by taxing or by creating meaningful property rights in public goods, thereby allowing the market to work. Without such regulation, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.
Published: March 31, 2006 4:07 AM
Professor Reisman, thanks for testing my email address. For anyone who wishes to engage me off-line, it is tokyo-tom[-AT-]NOSPAMexcite.com.
It is relatively easy to brush away "collectivist" environmental strawmen - most environmentalists have no clue how an economy works. But you paint with far too broad a brush for useful argument – there are real environmental problems and quite an established body of environmental and resource economics work. Besides, environmental thinkers on the right make more challenging opponents. Perhaps you are aware of this criticism of your book "Capitalism" by David Henderson at The Objectivist Center?
"While this section on environmentalism is among Capitalism's greatest strengths, it is marred by Reisman's unfortunate lumping together of all environmentalists. He writes again and again about "the environmentalists" as if there are no major differences among them, and he fails to acknowledge the economically literate environmentalists at the Political Economy Research Center in Montana and at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Those environmentalists see government as the major cause of environmental problems, and freedom as the natural solution to such problems."
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-31-Making_Known_Capitalist_Ideal.aspx. I think to that list you can safely add the economists at the American Enterprise Institute.
Allow me to address some specific weakenesses in your argument, other than points I have addressed above with other posters on this blog. Serious economic analysis would recognize that climate change and other issues where regulatory action is needed are cases of market failure where property and pricing mechanisms do not adequately reflect the costs of public goods consumed or externalities generated by individual or corporate behavior. Government action is justified not as some collective “punishment�, but in order to allow a private market between individuals and companies to function efficiently by reflecting externalities.
Many environmentalists may misunderstand the issue, but it hardly helps when economists do as well. Climate change is an example of a “tragedy of the commons� phenomenon, writ large. Governmental action is needed only because of the external aspects to individual behavior; this is all rather humdrum and mundane stuff that you have with no small degree of melodrama inflated to be a collectivist threat to our entire way of life. Well, take a deep breath and relax.
You correctly observe that (i) no one individual is responsible for the fossil fuel consumption that is leading to climate change, but then illogically conclude that (ii) “global warming is a cumulative, unintended byproduct of human behavior for which no one is responsible.� Yes, the scientific claim is that climate change is a cumulative, unintended byproduct of human behavior, but do you conclude that no one has responsibility for it merely because it was unintended and the result of the actions of many individuals rather than a single individual?
This seems to directly defy objectivist principles because you irresponsibly and generously (i) release all individuals and companies of responsibility for the consequences of their unintended acts and (ii) provide an ironic “collectivist� absolution on the basis that it is impossible to blame one or more identifiable groups for the whole of the problem.
You then state that “a phenomenon for which no human being is responsible is an act of nature� and that “all global warming … is an act of nature even when it is the unintended cumulative byproduct of the actions of billions of human beings.� Having absurdly absolved individuals and society more broadly for playing a role in creating a problem, you neatly avoid any discussion as to whether any policy is needed to regulate fossil fuel consumption or other industrial, agricultural or individual behaviors that contribute to climate change, and jump to your desired conclusion that any reactions to the "natural" phenomenon of climate change should be left to the actions of individuals in a free marketplace.
Nice, but surely you can see that your conclusion that climate change that is caused by humans is "natural" is a far too facile, deus ex machina device, rather than a justified conclusion? We could similarly deny any role for government in any case where a number of unidentified individuals have contributed to a problem, without particularly intending a bad result that negative affects others. In that case, we could do away with government altogether (and leave individuals to agree with each other to reconstruct the public governing infrastructure that makes possible the technologically advanced and wealthy capitalist society we have today. We have government precisely because that there are public goods that will be either undersupplied or overconsumed by the market because of lack of clear ownership and free rider effects.
You state that “Economic freedom is what is required to cope with global warming, global freezing, or any other form of large-scale environmental or social change� and that“Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system.� I agree that economic freedom is the system best suited to adapting to changes (just look at the environmental ruin produced by communism), but it is not well-suited to dealing with externalities – where the cause of the large-scale change is the negative consequences of individual economic behavior. Here, market intervention (with as light a hand as possible) may be needed to establish property rights (in fisheries and other public resources) and to adjust pricing signals. There is a wealth of literature on this, as I have already noted. Unfortunately real-world difficulties, large and small, are not so simply defined away.
Immigration may solve some problems, particularly with respect to citizens of wealthy countries who can bargain for admission. In the case of poor, overpopulated countries you very correctly note that these countries’ corrupt and mismanaged governments are in fact the chief problem faced by their citizens in dealing adapting to climate change. Given the difficulties poor and relatively powerless citizens face in pushing for significant institutional change, perhaps a more engaged foreign policy by the industrialized nations may be more enlightened and productive than your “sink or swim� approach?
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: March 31, 2006 6:42 AM
"Graeme, I understand that you're not a climate scientist, but can I take it that your positin is that man's activities ARE changing the climate, thankfully so, and are willing to take the blast of heat and all the damage that it can do just to make sure we never have another ice age? Is that a fair summary of your position?"
I have a problem with this:
"...and all the damage that it can do just to make sure we never have another ice age?...."
Not JUST to make sure we never have another ice age. But that's important DON'TCHA THINK??????????????
And what damage do you speak of. The intellectually sloppy amongst us would talk of net rather then gross damage.
But in fact nothing could be more benign then CO2 based warming. Its like a blanket. It reduces the highs and lows and the virulence of extreme weather events.
Solar activity increase based warming is another story entire.
CO2 is plant food. And plants grow faster the more CO2 they have.
So what is this damage you are trying to sell here. Its a myth. You are only trying this on because you won't admit to yourself its all a myth. And even a fourteen year old science student can figure out that CO2 release ought to be considered a net benefit until proven guilty.
Now comes the running and hiding and before that I saw your relentless filibuster:
"I'm not running and I'm not hiding, but I think your tone here is way out of line and essentially telling me you don't want a discussion. In that case, I will oblige you, and respond to anyone else who chooses to explain my errors."
You are running and you are hiding and I expected it and the ridiculous assumption above is my proof.
As is this shitrain of words since I last booted up. Every last word running from the relevant question:
ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT YOU KNOW FOR SURE THAT HUMAN CO2 RELEASE WILL OVERMATCH THE NATURAL TENDENCY TOWARD GLACIATION.
Now all the rest of most climate change discussions are irrelevant policy-wise since they amount to a constant evasion of this most basic of issues.
Believe me no-one around here is going to buy into that lame excuse for running and hiding that you tried on. They are too smart for that. They will see it instantly.
"Graeme, I understand that you're not a climate scientist, but can I take it that your positin is that man's activities ARE changing the climate, thankfully so......"
THANFULLY SO.
You bet thankfully so. Its the best dumb luck the human race ever had. On our side of the fence our intellectuals often tell us that man is good. But still I don't know whether we deserved to stumble into such a lucky break.
Now if you were honest you would have by now tentatively admitted to me that the movement is quite likely a fraud.
But instead you have manufactured the most implausible of outs. So that you can now bury your evasion in words.
Published: March 31, 2006 8:04 AM
Quote from TokyoTom: "Acknowledging that the patient is already ill doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat the patient."
Your previous statement was that its "already too late". Continuing to treat a patient that's already dead seems a little silly. Anyway, that's your position, not mine. I don't think its too late. I also think your treatment will only make the patient worse.
Quote from TokyoTom: "... fixing market failures improves the economy, ..."
Where are these market failures? Markets don't fail. And tell where these so called maket fixes have ever improved an economy for any sustained period of time? Government distortions of the market cause distorted outcomes and make it easy for socialists to say that the market has failed (e.g., education, welfare, minimum wage, etc.).
Quote from TokyoTom: "Because of the global commons aspects, coordinated international action is needed, but there is a lot that the US can do alone that would actually improve the US economy, and it is possible to take steps outside of Kyoto with respect to China and India that would be more meaningful than what we have embarked on to date."
This proves my point above (i.e., an excuse to intervene and "plan").
Quote from TokyoTom: "We can tell the environmentalists that they do not understand the institutional underpinnings of the problem or the appropriate cure, but responsibility lies in acknowledging that a number of problems exist that we should be working to cure."
The ideas I've heard you throw out to "cure" our "problems" are little more than nibbling at the edges. Incorporate GHG caps with trade agreements? Tax fuel consumption? Do you honestly think any country is going to significantly slow down its economic progress because of a rider on some trade agreement. Do you think people are going to stop heating their homes or transporting things (including themselves) because the tax on fuel is prohibitively high. Look at the public outrage when gasoline prices get up to $3 a gallon. You'll have to tax gas much more than that to get a real effect. How long will that tax last? Not past one election, I'd bet.
If you really want to "cure" these "problems", you need to attack the real cause: population. So unless you're willing to do something about that, you're not being serious.
But to reiterate my original position, I don't think the "patient" needs any "cure". You want to "cure" a "patient" that isn't sick, but simply changing. Change isn't sickness, its only change.
Published: March 31, 2006 8:14 AM
Get ye to a church Tokyo Tom. For it might be that ye harbours a secular religion of sorts. And not all of us are fit to be atheists.
To a church I sez Tom.
And don't be insulting any 20th Century heroes on the way.
Published: March 31, 2006 8:29 AM
Hi Tom,
I like to convince myself first that the truth differs substantially from whatever the consensus is in the community of the establishment, before speculating on why this should be so.
For instance, are you convinced, as i am, that the planet cooled in a dramatic fashion in and around the 1300's to such an extent as to have glaciers displace entire previously thriving communities. Are you convinced as i am that the cooling in the world's temperature at that time wiped out profitable grape and wine industries and other agriculture in southern England in that same period which is yet still to recover? Are you convinced, as i am that this cooling probably had a role to play in major world health problems that occurred subsequently?
Until you are, and believe, as i do, that these things are simple facts of history, and furthermore when you consider it "odd" that no one ever discusses them in the global warming debate, you will not be inclined, as i am, to suspect there is something foul at play behind this movement that is not meeting the eye.
Once at this stage though, one becomes ready to entertain explanations of why the establishment, the elite, the media, the politicians, and the most prominently parroted scientists all seem to speak in unison and with the same or similar arguments.
Global warming plays well into the argument for the need for a world government. And the very powerful are very convinced world government is necessary and that they could be even more effective if only they could control such an entity. These same fanatics scoff at the idea that aversion to lying to and misleading people on any particular issue should get in the way of advancing their wonderful agenda.
I once doubted that truth could be stranger than fiction. But i stuck around, and that changed.
Published: March 31, 2006 11:29 AM
Keith, I think that with your logic (?), we should do away with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and all environmental and antimonoply laws altogether. Not merely that, but tolls on roads.
Let me quote you:
"If you really want to "cure" these "problems", you need to attack the real cause: population. So unless you're willing to do something about that, you're not being serious.
But to reiterate my original position, I don't think the "patient" needs any "cure". You want to "cure" a "patient" that isn't sick, but simply changing. Change isn't sickness, its only change."
Or have I misunderstood your position?
Cheers,
Tom
Published: April 1, 2006 9:44 AM
Paul:
There are no collectivist conspiracies, but merely masses of venal people acting in their own selve interest. That`s why public choice theory so potently explains how government freauently goes wrong.
There may be folks who want a global government, but to some degreee don`t you see that modern society is the product of the voluntary expansion of government among nation-states? Why did we adopt the Constitution except in realization of the failures of economic warfare between the confederated states? Why is Europe integrating? What are the global trade treaties all about? They are all about establishing agreed rules - and burying destructive wars - that allow free marekts to flourish globally. If all problems could be solved by individual nations, there would be no treaties, international standards, etc. What are you hyperventilating about?
I think it`s painfully obivious that none of the individual countries want to lose their sovereignty to others or to a bunch of bureaucrats. But it`s trade that`s pushing globalization, not environmentalists that want to destroy trade, capitalism or individual freedom.
As I note in repsonse to Prof. Reisman on his nest post, I`m quite aware that climate can change quite rapidly and has in the past. What`s undeniable now is the unprecedented HUMAN forcing of CO2, methane and water vapor from industrialization. These have rapidly increased levels of greenhouse gases (far beyond natural fluctuations) and we are seeing rapid temperature increases as a result. This is unmistakable - go visit Alaska, or note the acceleration of growing seasons in N. America, or the fact that this is the first year on recorn\d that the Great Lakes didn`t freeze.
What`s happening in the physical world is not an illusion, nor a conspiracy by greens or industrialists (which is it anyway?) who are pining away for a global government. I certainly don`t want one, but I see the need for coordinated action to deal with a looming problem. This is just classic self-interest when I need to the cooperation of someone else to achieve a personal goal - and is why the US has signed any number of international treaties.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: April 1, 2006 10:06 AM
Hi Tom,
I appreciate the dialog. I guess there are three things that we are either in disagreement on, or we haven't yet decided.
1. Did the earth experience a little ice age around the 1300's? I say yes, i'm not sure where you stand on this.
2. Is the earth cooler now than it was in the late 1100’s? I say yes, i'm not sure where you stand on this.
3. Did human activity play a significant role in the warm temperature of the earth in the 1100's, and the arrival of, or the subsequent departure of the little ice age of the 1300’s? I say no, i'm not sure where you stand on this.
Now from where i stand, the most important aspects of the global warming discussion (the above three points) have yet really to be discussed between you and i. I am interested to know if we see eye to eye on them or not. As you can imagine, if one such as myself, is convinced that human action neither induces, nor relieves ice ages, that such a person is not susceptible to the idea that changing human action can avert global warming or global cooling for that matter.
We are also far apart, in places, in how we interpret the motivations behind the small group of individuals running various nation states and the thinking of the masses who acquiesce to the manifestations of their leaders’ machinations. However, the question at hand is simply do my points 1, 2 and 3 mean anything to you. Do you disagree or agree with them?
Published: April 1, 2006 5:30 PM
TokyoTom
What nonsense you wrote! YOU FAIL to provide any proofs whatsoever. All you do is regurgitate a position statement over and over again. That is simply not good enough.
You are asserting that every individual's activities should be restricted and that they all be ruled according to a centralised collectivist system of regulation (economic regulations, tax codes, price controls, social policy etc. all part of a grand central plan set arbitrarily and enforced by threat and violence). To derive the necessity for that political system from an alleged problem (the uncertainty of climatic conditions) you were asked to supply a chain of proofs. You certainly did not get anywhere near fulfilling the requirements you were challenged with. All you demonstrated is that your premise is coercion. A poor effort from you and I'm not really surprised.
Let's go through your post.
First point. The length of a post does not prove or disprove the validity of the content. Why don't you restrict yourself to the matter at hand and stop playing the man? Stick to the topic and quit sly-dogging. It's dishonest.
Next. Quoting, "You'll have to supply your own proofs." This is so intellectually sparse I had to laugh. What you are expecting me to do is provide proof for YOUR assertions and lusts. Not good enough. The burden of proof falls directly and solely on you, as you are the one making the assertion that global warming requires coerced collectivisation of individual people. What you have been asked to do is follow a basic requirement of philosophic discourse. You'd do well to learn it and abide by it.
Next point. Appeals to authority ("plenty of economists and political economists..." etc. and all the "numerous links upthread...etc.") are not proofs. What they are is a form of social metaphysics which is exactly what I mentioned in a previous post. You are attempting to rely on the notion that if a number people agree with a contention (especially if they are famous or belong to a prestigious group of other prestigious people), then that in itself makes the contention correct. No TokyoTom, it does not. It just means that you have located some people who agree with each other. It is certainly not a proof.
Look, I could have found dozens of sites such as those you quoted should I have wanted. But that's not what I was after from you. I wanted proofs.
Do you understand what a proof actually is?
Next point. Avoid ad hominem, which is what most of the next section of your post appears to consist of. Nevertheless I would remind you that I am not a rationalist. Nor am I a "science denier" in the smearing sense you intend. I doubt there would be many on the VMI blog who are but VMI blog contributors can speak (or write) well enough for themselves so I'll leave to them to disclose their thoughts on the matter should they so wish.
Let's confirm I swiftly expel unsupported assertions, especially ones that conflict with reality or promote compulsory enforced behaviour. To show your ideas & assertions correspond with reality you MUST provide proof or fully expect them to be dismissed out of hand. You have been offered an excellent opportunity here. So far you are failing dismally as your responses to the requests for proofs demonstrate.
In brief:
1/. Perhaps the Earth is getting warmer. Perhaps not. You need consistent evidence. What if the climate is actually altering but overall the averages are constant? Are current climatic conditions part of a cycle? Do you really know? I reckon not.
How do you know whether the data you quote is correct? What assumptions were made during its collection, statistical manipulation, normalisation, renormalisation, collation, analysis, report and publication? What are the uncertainties and error bands? Are any artefacts present (that infamous "hockey stick" comes to mind)? What about the outliers? What is the significance of this? What is the context? Do you know? I reckon not.
2/. OK. You can recast the proof to include other gases should you wish. This makes the task more difficult for you. You are still required to show the increase in "level" is the CAUSE of your global warming. But what if the cause is solar or something else entirely? You remain silent. So far you have not even started to address this test.
3/. If, as you state, this is an easier proof to provide, then why not provide it? You talk a lot, yet you fail to front up with anything.
Is Man the major contributor? Provide proof.
4/. You have admitted that climate changes may or may not be necessarily bad and deleterious. That admission alone shuts your position down right there. You do not KNOW whether the climate changes which you fear may be occurring WILL NECESSARILY be bad and deleterious, yet you are fully prepared to apply force and coercion against individuals. That WILL be bad and deleterious especially those who do not agree with your ideals and want to live according to other choices.
The car analogy is irrelevant and makes no sense. This is not an emergency.
5/. No proof provided. Not even an honest attempt.
6/ & 7/. You certainly have not achieved much in the way of a proof here save demonstrating that you support and promote coercive collectivism. That is, initiations of force against other people. Clearly collectivism is your premise. I'd say you have proved that. It's not what I asked for though.
Let's be very clear on this. The "corrective measures" you write of with evident fondness represent coercion, force and ultimately violence initiated against other people. Now, how do you know that your great plan is going to work? How do you know it is any good? By what standard? WHY should ANY individual be forced to obey your orders and ideas? You remain silent on all this.
But a few lines further on we see your admission that you are not really sincere about improving people's wealth (let alone well being) as there "is a balancing with public negatives." Yes, I know exactly what you mean and where you are heading with that statement.
TokyoTom, the gaps in your chain of logic and your inability to seriously seek a single proof are most disturbing. Your promotion of coercive measures against other people's lives is unfortunately typical of collectivist thinking. In essence the premise is that people who would make decisions contrary to your values should be prevented from so doing. You seem to think you know better than other people how they should live their lives, what they should be forced to value and how they should behave. What conceit. You don't even know how to sort out your own position or even attempt a proof of its veracity and validity. I for one want nothing to do with the likes of this type of nonsense. It is a criminal enterprise you are promoting and one that should be resisted in determined manner.
Note. I am not one of your collective. I do not belong to your "we" or "us". You speak for yourself ONLY. Remember that next time you get the urging to start telling other people what to do. Leave them alone.
You failed utterly to make a case for yourself.
Si