CO2 Science’s Finding on Global Warming: A Marxist-Type Response
One of the very first replies to my posting of CO2 Science’s journal review "A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast of Greenland" was this: "’CO2 Science’ is funded by Exxon. Come on, you guys are usually such independent thinkers—you can do better than rehash this stuff.�
The author of this statement believes that it is sufficient to name the economic affiliation of an individual or organization to be able to dismiss and ignore anything that comes from them. This was a tactic employed for generations by the Marxists. Instead of refuting the criticisms leveled against their doctrines by economists and others, they were content to identify critics as a member of the capitalist class or as having received financial support from capitalists. The Nazis had their own variant of the practice. They were content to identify their critics as Jewish or as somehow supported by Jews or otherwise affiliated with Jews. The devastating criticisms of socialism made by Mises were dismissed on both grounds.
Now, today, here is Exxon. I don’t even know that it is the source of funds for CO2 Science, or is the major or only source. But I’m willing to assume that it is. How does it follow from that, that whatever comes from CO2 Science, or from Exxon, on the subject of global warming and CO2 emissions is automatically false?
Yes, it is true that Exxon-Mobil is the largest American oil company and wants to be able to remain in that branch of business, while the environmental movement would like to destroy it, and the whole rest of the oil industry, along with the coal and atomic power industries, and is using the alleged connection between global warming and CO2 emissions as its main weapon in its attempt to do so. (This weapon, of course, does not apply in the case of atomic power. But atomic power is regarded by the environmental movement as a terrifying death ray, even more frightening than global warming.)
So, yes, Exxon may have a financial self-interest at stake, which depends on whether or not there is a real connection between the CO2 emitted by the consumption of its fuels and global warming. Its financial self-interest may very well lie with the establishment of lack of any connection.
As a minor digression, I need to point out that this is not necessarily the case. To the extent that the environmental movement succeeds in making petroleum scarcer and more expensive, the revenues and profits earned by the owners of existing petroleum reserves rise. Major oil companies like Exxon-Mobil have actually gained in this way and have been severely criticized for these gains. In fact, some of their critics seem to imply that oil companies are, or at least should be, actual supporters of the environmental movement, precisely because it makes oil scarcer and more expensive and thus increases their profits to the extent that they already have reserves.
I have to say that I believe that the norm of competition within the oil industry, as well as its pride in the products it produces, prevents any such monopolistic, pro-environmentalist mindset. The individual oil company knows that its self-interest lies with an increase in its reserves, because whatever the effect on the overall supply and price of petroleum, its own situation would be worse if others added those reserves instead of it. Because then, it would be faced with the same lower price, but have less to sell.
So, granted, the individual oil companies, like Exxon Mobil, have a financial self-interest in the continued and growing production of petroleum and are glad to find any evidence they can that diminishes the threat of the environmentalist agenda. The relevant question is, which better serves their self-interest in accomplishing this? Is it to fabricate the facts or to find the actual facts and present them if they support its case? Or, to say the same thing in different words, which is the better defense of their self-interest: The actual truth if it supports their case? Or simply lies?
In the United States, we are fortunate to have both a long-standing tradition and clear Constitutional protection of a defendant’s right in a criminal trial not to testify. What the Marxists and Nazis and those who are following in their path today are seeking is the equivalent of a prohibition of a defendant’s right to testify.
Individuals, corporations, industries, are to be subject to attack by those who seek to injure or destroy them, and they are to be prohibited from defending themselves by virtue of people being unwilling listen to what they have to say. They are not to be listened to for no other reason than that their avoidance of injury and their survival matters to them. They have an “interest� in the outcome. Yes, they do. And they have a right to be heard—for that very reason! Because their best defense is truth.
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. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Comments (87)
The whole point of the scientific method is that someone's motivations don't matter. Either they can make falsfiable, unfalsified predictions, or they can't. If they can't, there are plenty of others who can expose the error. Whether scientists "agree" one way or another is totally irrelevant.
To the extent that someone shields his analysis from open, critical review, he is not acting as a scientist. To the extent that someone refuses to explain what would falsify his model, he is not acting as a scientist. To the extent that he considers "consensus" a basis for truth, he is not acting as a scientist.
Published: June 29, 2006 5:25 PM
CMB,
I believe they mentioned state sponsored studies as self-interested in response to arguments that the exxon study cannot trusted on the basis of its self interested position. Indeed, they framed the argument as "If the Exxon study is not trustworthy on such and such grounds, then the very same grounds can be used to discount government studies." There is nothing wrong with that kind of argument, as its basically a form of reductio.
As for your whining about being compared to Nazis it has nothing to do with gas chambers, so grow up. The Nazis as well as the Marxists indeed were well known for ad hominem type attacks, in which they attacked the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Professor Reisman could not have made that any clearer.
Published: June 29, 2006 5:27 PM
"What the Marxists and Nazis and those who are following in their path today are seeking is the equivalent of a prohibition of a defendant’s right to testify."
Speak in hyperbole much?
"To the extent that someone shields his analysis from open, critical review, he is not acting as a scientist. To the extent that someone refuses to explain what would falsify his model, he is not acting as a scientist. To the extent that he considers "consensus" a basis for truth, he is not acting as a scientist."
Absolutely, positively agree 100%. More people need to understand this point about science.
"The Nazis as well as the Marxists indeed were well known for ad hominem type attacks, in which they attacked the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Professor Reisman could not have made that any clearer."
Apparently by acting like a Nazi or Marxist, and using ad hominem attacks every chance he gets...
Published: June 29, 2006 5:32 PM
"As for your whining about being compared to Nazis it has nothing to do with gas chambers..."
'It' being THE COMPARISON. The comparison had nothing to do with gas chambers.
Published: June 29, 2006 5:43 PM
quasibill,
Reisman said: "What the Marxists and Nazis and those who are following in their path today are seeking is the equivalent of a prohibition of a defendant’s right to testify."
To which you responded: "Speak in hyperbole much?" Implying that Reisman is, indeed, speaking in hyperbole.
The definition of hyperbole is:
"Hyperbole is a figure of speech which is an exaggeration. Persons often use expressions such as "I nearly died laughing," "I was hopping mad," and "I tried a thousand times." Such statements are not literally true, but people make them to sound impressive or to emphasize something, such as a feeling, effort, or reaction."
Hence, Riesman statement cannot possibly be hyperbole, because the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement does EVERYTHING posible to quite oppistion. Remember when Gore was vice-president and was trying to FORCE global warming critics to change their position? This is just one example of many.
Published: June 29, 2006 6:44 PM
Actually, I meant the "..lunatic fringe of the envronmental movement does EVERYTHING possible to *silence opposition.*"
I need to proof-read better. Oh well...
Published: June 29, 2006 6:49 PM
Don,
Yes, Reisman was speaking in hyperbole.
Go ahead, ask anybody who has an inkling of the criminal "justice" system in this country, and ask them what would happen if they made the following argument in court:
"your honor, you cannot possibly allow the prosecution to cross examine my client, my eyewitness, and my expert witness on their bias, as it would be akin to prohibiting my client from testifying on his own behalf!"
Published: June 29, 2006 6:57 PM
Professor Reisman has pointed out indisputable similarities between ad hominum attacks routinely employed by Stalinist thugs and Nazis, and on this website by those who disparage any connection by science to Exxon or Mobil. The response to Reisman's clearly valid observation is to attempt to smear him as a totalitarian and etc. That response reinforces one of Dr. Reisman's points: Green crusaders are much more interested in shouting down their opposition than they are in carefully thinking about evidence and facts.
The global warming crusade is politics masquerading as "science". One indication of this bait and switch tactic is the argument, continually promoted by left-wing Greens, that a "consensus" of climate scientists support this officially sanctioned thesis. Aside from the questionable truth of this claim (more on this below), consensus has nothing to do with the process of identifying evidence, facts, and the logical integrations tbat lead to new scientific breakthroughs. So scientists properly ought not to be concerned with consensus. Consensus is the obsession of politicans maneuvering to impose their will by force on other people.
Reasonable people should be highly skeptical of much of the "science" produced by contemporary state-sanctioned institutions, because those institutions owe their existence to coercion. They are financed with tax dollars, and more and more they tend to be staffed and run by ambitious political types, who know how to massage the system for grants, prestigious awards, budget boosts, and official approval. Authentic scientists devoted to the adventure of discovery and understanding do not fare well in these institutions of Correctness, because the greater their devotion to science, the higher their resistance to compromising truth for political gain. There are many examples from history of the basic contempt for knowlege fostered by and charateristic of command science. As Ayn Rand explained years ago, force and intelligence are logically and fundamentally antagonistic.
In sharp contrast to the deceit that emerges when science is distorted by a regime of coercion, privately funded science, whether by Exxon or some other organziation, has a major stake in establishing the truth. For private funding is voluntary, so both sponsors and scientists have a huge stake in getting results, which in this case means establishing facts. The privately-funded scientists want to establish facts because their reputations and prospects for advancement in science depend on it. Their sponsors want to establish facts, because such is their only effective defense against those who attack them. "Scientists" who embark on a career in tax-funded politically-driven institutions think of themselves as engaged in science, but to the extent that their job security and advancement depend on acceding to political considerations, they are engaged in pretend-science. And these "other" considerations, whether or not they are acknowleged in public, comprise the whole purpose behind the institution that employs them!
The seeming unnanimity of opinion among scientists about global warming is the result of powerful political tides, all pulling in one direction. Dissenters get the silent treatment, are denied grants and fellowships, and will be demoted, sidelined and ostracized by their more politically-sensitive bretheran. But despite this great pressure to conform with the official line, 17,000 scientists signed a petition a few years ago dissenting from the global warming thesis. These were scientists who had some professional connection to this issue, climateologists, oceanographers, astronomers, etc. The left-wing dominated press, whose reporters all emerged from public universities with nearly identical ideological outlooks, saw fit to bury this news--a program that continues to this day.
Published: June 29, 2006 7:20 PM
Maybe global warming is caused by all the hot air of people on both sides calling each other nazis and communists and other names. The point I would humbly point out when you take all the data and then sit down and use only that data that supports your "side' of the story is not useful to anybody. To say that CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels do not effect our climate is beyond stupid. In 2004 on all the papers released by climate scientist NOT one said co 2 by fossil fuels did not contribute to global warming. Game, match, set.
Published: June 29, 2006 7:22 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha you sure are a kidder Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha stop it I can't breathe Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha But despite this great pressure to conform with the official line, 17,000 scientists signed a petition a few years ago dissenting from the global warming thesis. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha produce THE LIST and I'll stop laughing at you. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Published: June 29, 2006 7:29 PM
Here is an interesting link to several sources of documented science indicating that far from melting, the world's ice cover is growing thicker every year: http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm
This link is to an article by a famous atmospheric scientist from Poland, Zbigniew Jaworoski, who contends that global warming is absurd science, and also that the earth is about to enter another significant mini-ice age, based on fluctuations in solar activity: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4global_warming.pdf
Published: June 29, 2006 8:00 PM
Sorry, but the second link to Jaworoski's article is incorrect. It should be: http://www.21centurysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4global_warming.pdf
Published: June 29, 2006 8:05 PM
CMB
The Nazis are about collectivism. Environmentalism necessarily treats people under collectivist premise. These two are simply variants of the same old poison.
I note that the usual mode of attack on Prof Reismans's articles are directed against the man and not the substance of his position or argument. Rather supports his contention.
Sione
Published: June 29, 2006 8:32 PM
I've posted before about my disgust with constantly having to assert, "I'm not affiliated with this subject in any professional way, really, I promise. That said, I now voice my opinion that...."
This "Exxon paid for it, so they must have biased the outcome" is very much a part of the same symptom. For that matter, I deal every day with dozens of "studies" produced for pay by such companies as Microsoft which (to no ones surprise) always come out in their favor. But each study is still addressed individually.
So let's ignore the messenger and examine the message. Once proven wrong, and even better proven wrong more than once, then we can examine the messenger and look for a pattern.
There can be no pattern in a single study. Either the study is correct, or it is not correct.
Published: June 29, 2006 9:27 PM
One must suppose you get your information on the dangers of cigarette smoking from tobacco companies, and can not for the life of you imagine any possible reason that said companies would mislead you.
If Exxon-funded "scientists" have information available that calls into question the nearly unanimous conclusion of peer-reviewed articles on climate change that global warming exists and has an anthropogenic source, the way for them to convince the public that their sources of funding have not biased them, is to publish their information in those peer-reviewed journals.
As a final note, I find your "economic" theories of oil companies interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, if for no other reason than I hope to get a contact high from whatever it was you were smoking when you wrote the post.
Published: June 29, 2006 9:32 PM
Hey numbers, where's that list of 17,000 scientist that signed a "petition" against global warming? Looks like you'll have to pull it out of your backside! still laughing at you and your facetious list! Looks like you like to make cow patties up.
Published: June 29, 2006 9:49 PM
Hey Mark "disappearing numbers" hump or whatever your name is. You threw some cards out on the table and haven't backed them up. Where's your list of 17,000 global warming denying scientist? I raise you 17,000 global warming denying scientist! Are you folding or what?
Published: June 29, 2006 10:00 PM
To the weenie who writes under tag lines such as "yourfullofit" and "peacelovinguy" and "peaceluvinguy."
You coward. You have provided nothing of value. A wee bit of ad hominem is no argument and does not establish a valid position. On the other hand your behaviour conveys a great deal about the sort of person you actually are.
Should you be so concerned about the scientists' petition you could (and should) have asked Mark Humphrey for clarification.
But not you. You're too scared. You do not want to know in case your position is undermined; an expression of wilful ignorance on your part.
So I'll do what you should have. Perhaps you'll learn something.
Sione
Published: June 29, 2006 10:12 PM
Mark
Could you please explain more about the petition to which you refer.
Regards
Sione
Published: June 29, 2006 10:15 PM
I was the Marxist Nazi who posted the comment. I am also a scientist, and I find that bias in a study will tend to reflect its funding source. I'm particularly skeptical, because it is so unusual for Exxon to fund research. Such an unusual funding source bears mentioning; when my peers review drug trial studies, they never fail to mention whether a particular drug company funded the study.
Published: June 29, 2006 10:18 PM
Dear Sione,
Speaking of weenies, your the poster child for weenies. Mark "no neck" threw out some numbers and I call him on it. All he has to do is back it up! How is that being a coward ? Sione you throw that coward stuff around like a real putz. Have another Shirley temple and calm down.
Ken
Published: June 29, 2006 10:28 PM
CMB
"If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and qucks like a duck, it's a duck."- Anon.
Adding the tag "free market" does not alter the essential attributes of environmentalism one iota. One may as well rename communism, free market communism.
Environmentalism requires the application of coercive force to ensure all people behave in the manner that environmentalists demand. Options to choose alternatives to the environmentalist ideology are forbidden. People are to be treated as a collective entity, not as individuals.
Indeed just another variant of colectivism.
Sione
Published: June 29, 2006 10:32 PM
Hey Sione! Speaking of quacks. Where's your boy's list?
Published: June 29, 2006 10:47 PM
Over 17000 scientists sign petition
Here I found it. Really, it wasn't too hard to type into google. Global Warming Petition by state
Not that it matters. Even if it was from every prestigious institution in across the globe, they would still find a way to slander the source.
Published: June 29, 2006 11:24 PM
David C,
FFR (for future reference) please come with links handy. Obviously, there are animals about, that need no agitation.
Published: June 29, 2006 11:31 PM
To the weenie who writes under tag lines such as "yourfullofit" and "peacelovinguy" and "peaceluvinguy" and lately "ken".
Perhaps Mark Humphrey was referring to the petition found at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Simple enough to locate if you were seriously interested in knowing. You've made a real fool of yourself today mate.
How about you print out the names of each and every petitioner (they are all there, listed on the site). Then you can count them all one by one (more than 17,000).
You owe Mark Humphrey an apology.
Sione
Published: June 29, 2006 11:46 PM
David C,
Seems that I misconstrued the substance in the middle of the circus.
Way to do a solid for firm fact.
I see, now, that you posted that link to bolster a reference made by a different poster.
Published: June 30, 2006 12:10 AM
One comment made by Professor Reisman is a generalization that doesn't help to advance the debate:
"Yes, it is true that Exxon-Mobil is the largest American oil company and wants to remain in that branch of business, while the environmental movement would like to destory it, and the whole rest of the oil industry, along with the coal and atomic power industries..."
Wow, I didn't know that. I thought environmentalists were concerned about protecting the environment.
Published: June 30, 2006 12:12 AM
To the putz with the cow patty name of sione, What a real wanker you are not only are you a coward but you have no honor. If you would investigate the names on the list which you won't because research to you is calling people names. You would realize that most the people that have signed this petition is the intelligent design crowd. They don't carry much weight with me. As for Mark he did ante up and I lost the hand. If he wants an apology for me calling his hand he's got it.
Published: June 30, 2006 12:25 AM
Ken, good job bolstering Reisman's position.
Are there other 'classes' that don't carry much weight with you?
Aside from the obvious helium-balloon loving scientists.
"If you would investigate the names on the list which you won't because research to you is calling people names."
I will assume to read Sione's mind, and say:
Research to me is examining the arguments of those named. Research is not arbitrarily pigeonholing names into a 'class' and using a weight metaphor to denounce an argument supposedly projected from that 'class'.
Published: June 30, 2006 1:14 AM
Some people don't have all day to sit around and play blog. I guess government workers... cough cough "scientists" cough cough do...
Published: June 30, 2006 1:22 AM
"... most of the people that have signed this petition is the intelligent design crowd."
WOW!! It only took you an hour to go through this list of 17,000 scientists and figure out the view of each with respect to intelligent design. That is very impressive!! I calculate that as 4.7 individual assessments per second.
How did you do that?
Published: June 30, 2006 2:15 AM
As I posted on Reisman's other thread, anyone still interested in this debate should head over to ClimateAudit.
At least from my perspective, it's simply impossible for anyone who has done any kind of science to read ClimateAudit for more than about 15 minutes and still believe that they're some kind of shills. I encourage everyone also to have a look at the "official" warmers' site, RealClimate, for comparison.
The idea of anti-global warming shill scientists is almost hilarious when you think about it. The anti-warmers may be wrong, I grant you, but if they're wrong they are much more likely to be cranks than shills.
The implication of the whole shill argument is that these "scientists" don't really believe in their opinions, that if the Pew Charitable Trust paid them to say global warming was the main danger to humanity, that's just what they'd say.
But really. Given the avalanche of "green" money that has flowed into climate science in the last 15 years, a remarkably steady and consistent stream, compared to the few million here or there that Exxon has seen fit to pull out of their lobbying budget - if you were a shill, what side would you be on? Not to mention that since saying AGW is a load of horsepucky earns you a vast vat of vitriol from those scientists whose state funding the idea threatens, it hardly seems likely to advance one's career. The incentives don't exactly seem to fit, do they?
Published: June 30, 2006 3:40 AM
Curtis,
With that type of quality critical thinking you should be in good stead, no matter what rains down.
Published: June 30, 2006 4:06 AM
When presented with two opposing viewpoints on an issue, and web sites presenting the views, here's a good rule of thumb: the one that links to the other is almost certainly right. Now, go to the links panel on the right hand side of the front page of climateaudit.org and what do you see: there's realclimate.org right there, fourth link down! Follow the link. Go the links panel on the right hand side of the realclimate front page. See any opposing views represented there? No? No, neither do I.
Published: June 30, 2006 5:23 AM
Sorry, but I'm off for the weekend so I'll have to leave others to this fund.
Suffice it to note that it is of course fair to note when a rent-seeker is trying to purchase government action of inaction. Isn't that what this site is about? Does questioning the motives of rent-seeker become Marxist only if the rent-seeker is a corporation?
And also one should note that Exxon and other fossil fuel firms very much have a financial state in delaying any action that will make them internalize the costs they impose on all of us, and that the effect of regulation will be to reduce demand and lower returns (not increase them - Dr. Reisman's analysis seems faulty).
Global climate change and other natural resource over-exploitation issues are very easily understood as failures of property rights that can be cured. But it seems that Dr. Reisman very consistently argues in favore of allowing rationally self-interested over-exploitation of common or public resources to continue unabated. Why is he always on the side of irresponsible corporate behavior and rent-seeking, and so alarmed when someone calls them on it??
Sorry, but I have a hard time getting my head around it. I guess Dr. Reisman I will always be another rottom commie lefty trying to insidiously destroy America. I wish he would look up and notice that it's already happening - by the very rent-seekers and their political gate-keepers that he works so diligently and emotionally to protect.
Have a good weekend, all.
Regards, your friendly radical enviro pinko,
Tom
Published: June 30, 2006 6:21 AM
TokyoTom,
Not that Dr. Reisman needs anyone to defend him, but I don't think he was calling you, or your colleagues Marxists and Nazis. He said that the technique you used in your arguement was the same as what those groups used. The technique is a dishonest one, but if people can't recognize that, Dr. Reisman points out that it's the main technique of some very dishonest people. The idea is to quit using the technique of dismissing the research solely on the basis of who funded it.
Who is going to fund research that might disprove that CO2 causes global warming? (May I call that position the radical-green position in order to save typing, without offending someone?) University researchers who have tried have complained of an Inquisition-like environment at their universities and in so-called scientific journals. In other words, if your research doesn't support the radical-green position, it won't get funding; like-wise, it won't be published.
Those who dismiss Exxon-funded research because of the funding source are essentially demanding that only government-funded research is acceptable in this debate. It's no accident that such research favours the radical-green agends. All we're asking is that other research be considered. If you have a problem with the methodology of the research, say so. But don't dismiss it solely because of the funding source. Neither side should do that.
Published: June 30, 2006 8:44 AM
What is readily seen in this debate is that there is no consensus about "global warming". Indeed the almost continuous argument (complete with opposing citations) that goes on whenever the subject is raised on these very pages is evidence to that. Case is not proved by any means.
Amidst all this discussion the vital point remains that the existence or otherwise of a global warming problem does not justify application of coercive force against individuals. Nor does it justify collectivism.
Worth remembering.
Sione
Published: June 30, 2006 9:56 AM
Whole Global Warming is a Enviro-Commie hoaks.
Published: June 30, 2006 10:08 AM
I’m sure someone else has already said that the solution to global warming is global air conditioning. I’m also sure I’m not the first to argue that technology ought not to be thwarted in the process of seeking solutions to the presumed problem. If it turns out that the general temperature is rising, we will all be better able to compensate for whatever effects result if we allow technology to flourish in the meantime – even if technology requires use of energy, and even if providing that energy results in the creation of certain gasses.
Published: June 30, 2006 10:38 AM
"Amidst all this discussion the vital point remains that the existence or otherwise of a global warming problem does not justify application of coercive force against individuals. Nor does it justify collectivism.
Worth remembering"
Truly. My opinion, based off the admittedly small sample of scientific articles I've reviewed, is that there is a risk of human induced global warming. However, the probabilities involved as well as the scale of the resultant are subject to wide-ranging debate - they are far from settled questions.
In this respect, the situation is akin to situation that faced us in the run-up to the Iraq War - there is a risk, but we don't have the information to assess its magnitude or probability. Therefore, in this issue, as in Iraq, we are not justified in initiating force to address this risk.
Published: June 30, 2006 10:44 AM
The main problem I have with human-caused global warming is the issue of correlation/causation, mentioned earlier. I've spent some time in statistics and one of the chief errors I see people make is not testing for spurious correlations. For example, machine learning as well as traditional statistics will demonstrate a strong correlation between unrelated variables, such as GDP in the US and incomes in Italy because both have trended upward for a long time. However, if you model annual changes in the data, the correlation disappears.
With global warming, I haven't seen the correlations between human activity and global warming tested in this way. The only testing of the climate models I've read about shows them to be very innaccurate at predicting today's climate from data a century ago. Finally, I almost never hear anything about methane, which is a far greater contributor to greenhouse gasses than CO2. Bacteria in the oceans and rain forrests and every animal on the planet give off huge amounts. How does the CO2 produced by burning petroleum compare to natural methane emmissions?
Published: June 30, 2006 12:21 PM
Roger M.,
Possibly someone who is more conversant with the scientific facts could either back me up or correct me, but my impression is that the "greenhouse gases" produced by human activity account for well under 5% of those produced by all sources on earth.
Published: June 30, 2006 1:03 PM
Dennis,
That sounds about right.
Published: June 30, 2006 2:17 PM
And this thread, at this point, ties into "is they global warming (Bush pun)", is it wholly or largely anthropogenic in nature, what are the aggravating and mitigating factors, and what is to be done.
Keep in mind that one of the early successes of the environmental movement (particulate reduction) led to sharp increases in acid precipitation - it turned out that a lot of the particulate removed was alkaline in nature.
Published: June 30, 2006 2:40 PM
I'm just trying to figure out who was recording the average surface temperature of the Earth some 400-2,000 years ago--no wait--"SEVERAL MILLENIA" ago, or what kind of technology existed back then that would even enable anyone to record such data:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-06-22-global-warming_x.htm
It's really got me stumped. Maybe one of you really smart people who seem to think that global warming is a foregone conclusion can enlighten a backwards, un-"progressive" person such as myself as to how it's even possible to refer to a point of comparison from 400-2,000 years ago--or "several millennia" ago--when discussing the average temperature of the Earth.
Oh wait...according to these climatologists, in the 20th century the temperature of the Northern hemisphere rose by...ONE DEGREE!!! Oh my GOD!!! The Northern hemisphere of the Earth has gotten--on average--ONE WHOLE DEGREE warmer within a century!!!! Repent, for the end is nigh!!!
Published: June 30, 2006 11:21 PM
What Dr. Reisman fails to note is that, at least as far as disussion on this blog goes, the best target of his very valid point - that one should not dismiss an argument through identifying them with a villanous group - would be himself and perhaps one or two other here.
I and others here who are concerned about climate change have consistently presented reasoned arguments, and I have burdened all of you with reams of information. With respect to the very public positions taken by skeptics, some of us have quite fairly pointed to the self-interest of Exxon, which is a large and wealthy rent-seeker currently profitting from inaction on climate change policy, in funding such public positions. That is not slandering Exxon, and is not a page from a Marxist or Nazi playbook - and Dr. Reisman is simpy wrong to do so.
Dr. Reisman does neither himself nor his position any credit for name-calling, while conspicuously failing to address the principled arguments and evidence that have been presented here.
Again, it's quite clear that human-induced climate change is occurring and is a classic case of property rights failure as outlined by Roy Cordato at this website: http://www.mises.org/story/1760
"If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of "market failure" where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place."
It is also clear that under the Republican Bush administration a breath-taking degree of mendacity and rent-seeking has been underway. John Baden, who is the grandfather of the practical application of property-rights approaches to environmental problems and a member of the Mount Pelerin Society (founded by Friedrich Hayek to foster individual freedom and limited government), had this to say recently about the Bush administration and Republican Congress: http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=488
"Republican commitments to limited government were eroded by the opportunity to transfer wealth to clients and constituencies. It’s that simple -- and that sordid."
Why does drawing the connections, between this disgusting Republican sell-out generally to the case of Exxon and their jointly beneficial denial of human-induced climate change, draw such an emotional reaction from Dr. Reisman? If it's a reflexive fear that dealing with this problem will lead to the road to serfdom, I would think that it is clear that the refusal of the US, China, India and others to make meaningful commitments under Kyoto show how easily torpedoed international treaties can be, and how much power we have over the process. Could it be favoritism for Republicans or for rent-seekers? Who knows?
All I can tell is that Dr. Reisman doesn't want to come out and play, and likes to call people names.
Respectfully,
TokyoTom
(or, as Dr. Reisman has said it so well, the [evil] "environmentalist who hides under the name 'Tokyo Tom'") blog.mises.org/archives/004861.asp
Note: "evil" was my addition; it's short-handed for what Dr. Reisman thinks of environmentalists: "a lower, more lunatic form of collectivist than were the old socialists". Pardon me for thinking that this is just too full of labels to be anything but cooled-headed and clear.
Published: July 3, 2006 7:58 AM
TT,
Again, and again, more and more, you constrain your attacks to Republicans. You leave the false impression the Democrats are, or would be, better.
You do the debate a disservice.
Where are the unending of reams of recorded wisdom, on the matter, from Pelosi, Boxer, HRC, et al.?
Why, if the (D)'s are so upright on the given matter, do we hear so little from them? Are they truly powerless, or is it that they feed from the same trough? Have the baa-d (R)'s denied them access to the media? Biden (Sen. DE-(D)) seems to be gearing up for '08, what's his take, if any?
I think it's interesting that any proposal, that I've seen, to "solve impending atmospheric calamity", involves massive expansion of gov't.
Why is it that we're always hearing about ExxonMobil and rarely, if ever, the TVA ?
TT, you should be wary, your continious bleating about "AGW" only serves to feed the wolves that you are travelling with.
If it's truly the 'environment' you're concerned with, to paraphrase Jim Morrison, "Break on through to the Other side." I've pointed out to you, multiple times previous, that there are current technology solutions to many of the "pollution" problems you state you are concerned with. They have been with for many years. You should wonder why they are not employed...
You're a good dude. Do better. Do different.
Published: July 3, 2006 8:34 AM
MEH:
The internet ate my previous response, so this one will be short on my own words. Instead, let me quote Lew Rockwell on why I bash Republicans in general: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html
"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. ...
"For my part, I'm hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands.
"If they don't crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever."
I also share Rockwell's criticism of the left: http://www.mises.org/story/2102
“I don't mean to pick on the right exclusively. The left often ... believe that the
government can't but unleash Hell when it is waging war and spending on military
machinery. But when it comes to domestic policy, they believe the same government can
cure the sick, comfort the afflicted, teach the unlearned, and bring hope and happiness to
all.
"Each side presumes that it potentially enjoys full control over the government it
instructs to do this thing as versus that thing. What happens in real life, of course, is that
the public sector – always and everywhere seeking more power – responds to the
demands of both by granting each party's positive agenda while eschewing its negative
one. Thus is the left given its welfare, and the right given its warfare, and we end up with
a state that grows ever more vast and intrusive at home and abroad.
"What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they
do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and
me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same – and worse – to
countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the
destination of the money doesn't matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the
productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its
imperial will on foreign regimes – destroying property and lives, and making endless
enemies – is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives.�
In the case of climate change, I bash Republicans because they are the ones now in power and blocking change, for short-term partisan gain and for rent-seekers, at the long-run cost of all. I also bash them because I come from them and feel more betrayed by them. The Dems may be able to propose solutions, but they will be wrong-headed and unnecessarily costly. I am trying to get the Republicans to move, before the pressure on the logjam simply breaks and we have a flood of bad policy.
Not sure exactly what you're proposing, but would be happy to hear it. My own view is that, despite the voluntary efforts now underway, because of the global nature of the problem all investments in finding solutions will be insufficient, because dumping GHGs in the atmosphere remains cost-free. Thus we need to have a coordinated national and international approach.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 3, 2006 10:20 PM
Roger, you, Reisman and others confuse Exxon's financing of pundits and PR spokesmen - which is designed to spin the debate - with Exxon's financing of actual climate research, which is subject to peer review. Exxon's scientists serve on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous related scientific bodies and have produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/climate_science.asp. Exxon has also initiated and committed $100 million to the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford and other universities; it is doing so because it expects there is money to be made in lowering the carbon footprint of fossil fuel usage. I leave it to scientists and investors to review and judge this scientific work; but it is entirely fair to point to Exxon's camoflaged purchase of PR spin - not research - from pundits like Milloy and from so-called scientists who do not publish in the peer-reviewed journals and speak outside of their expertise. This is no small change and has been coordinated with the Bush administration and the Republican Congress through Frank Luntz.
Tell me again what you think is dishonest about identifying rent-seekers and their mouthpieces?
As for your questions, I admire you having them. Do you realize you could easily post them at RealClimate - if you're really interested in answers, that is, instead of securing your doubt. Postings on methane are here, for example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=methane.
Regards,
TT
Published: July 3, 2006 11:46 PM
I hope people will note that I spent plenty of time responding to Mark Humphrey and Dennis Sperduto on Dr. Reisman's prior threads. http://blog.mises.org/archives/005235.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005221.asp#comments
Mark seems to find non-peer-reviewed materials on climate by former architects and radiologists, posted on self-managed blogs and Lyndon Larouche sites, to be more persuasive scientifically than the likes of NOAA, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Maybe the rest of you do, too.
Dennis, it's undisputed that man is responsible for a 33% increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial levels and for a doubling of methane levels. The build up has been accelerating, and annual increases are multiples of what they were in the 50s, for example. CO2 levels appear to be higher than those for any period over the past 400,000+ years, and we are headed for a doubling in this century. Even if we stopped all GHG emissions today, the warming that is now under way would continue for 100 years. Scientists expect that a doubling of CO2 levels, if stabilized at that level, would lead to global average temperature increases of 5 degrees F - of which we have experienced a one degree increase so far.
Published: July 4, 2006 12:31 AM
Sione, you state that "the usual mode of attack on Prof Reismans's articles are directed against the man and not the substance of his position or argument." Can you site evidence to support that rather broad generalization from my own extensive posts, on this and his other two recent threads?
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 4, 2006 12:35 AM
David C., Sione, Mark and Fred:
About that petition, the reason that some posters here can dismiss it so quickly is that they actually care enough about this issue to have done some basic reading, and know that the Oregon petition has been laid bare as the industry-funded fraud which, with a little critical reading, is apparent just from the website. Here's one discussion of the petition in an excellent recent article on the role of PR campaigns in climate change discussions: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf
"In 1998, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received an envelope containing
a bulk-mailed letter, an article, and a petition form. The letter was signed
by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
and chairman of a think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute. Seitz’s letter
asked recipients to join a campaign urging the U.S. government to reject
international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition said that “substantial scientific evidence� shows
increased greenhouse gas emissions to have beneficial ecological consequences,
whereas there is “no convincing scientific evidence� supporting
concern about human-induced climate change.
The petition could be accessed and signed via an Internet site and collected
more than 15,000 signatures from both scientists and nonscientists. On
the petition form, signatories had the option of indicating their scientific
background, as some did. The actual list of signatories includes persons identified
as scientists and nonscientists with advanced degrees. Many signatories
did not lay claim to advanced degrees. Assuming that all the signatories
reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list
are very few. Nevertheless, many, including elected politicians, interpreted
the signatories as credentialed experts on the climate issue, including Chuck
Hagel (R-Nebraska). In a House hearing, Hagel told of the “extraordinary
response� to the petition effort, asserting that “nearly all of these 15,000 scientists
had technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data�
(Washington Post 1998).
The list even included fictional persons. Careful study of the list revealed
the names of fictional characters from the “StarWars� movies as well as the
name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls� band. Critics of the
petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the
petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of
verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention
their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.�
to Halliwell’s name (Washington Post 1998).
Additional examples of “conjured� scientific authority emerged around
the petition campaign. The letter asking people to sign the petition was
accompanied by a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial article by Arthur
and Zachary Robinson, the two “chemists� quoted above. “Science Has Spoken,�
read the title (Robinson and Robinson, 1997). The prestigious sounding
institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science
and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation
located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in
chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old
son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).
Accompanying the petition package was an article referred to as a “scientific
summary.� It was authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, as well as
two Ph.D. astrophysicists, Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. The former
two were once again affiliated with their “Oregon Institute,� while Baliunas
and Soon were listed as affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute. The
summary reviewed scientific evidence concerning climate change, concluding
that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in
minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current
experimental knowledge.�
The “scientific summary�was another instance of deceptive manipulation
of recognized symbols of science: it was formatted such that it looked like an
article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer reviewed
and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous
inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what
one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.�15 According to
the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled,
as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know
whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming
theory (Science 1998).
Arthur Robinson initially declined to reveal the funding sources of the
petition campaign. In response to pressure, he eventually acknowledged
industry groups as the main financial backers of the campaign (Hill 1998)."
There are many more pieces available disclosing more information about the origin and misuse of the Orgegon petition. Here are a few:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6#src3
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
solutions.synearth.net/stories/storyReader$29
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/10/goodbye-kind-world-/
The Oregon petition, which got started after the WSJ editorial page published a piece by the Robinsons, is just a small tip of the iceberg of how industry funds the skeptics and disrupts both understanding and meaningful discussion of the climate science. Seitz, an NAS president forty years ago, is known for his role after retiring from university in handling the "research" budget for tobacco, which financed many labs who could never seem to figure out that smoking causes cancer. When that funding dried up, he moved into climate change spin. Baliunas, Soon and the Marshall Institute are also heavily funded by Exxon. A similar example is here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html.
I'm happy to correspond more on this, but suggest you review the links first.
Regards,
TT
Published: July 4, 2006 3:05 AM
I see no one has yet to answer my question: who was collecting data on the planet's average surface temperature 400-2,000+ years ago, and how were they doing it? How can anyone possibly know what the temperature was back then, and so therefore how can you have any reliable point of reference to determine whether or not the one whole degree increase in the 20th century was in any way significant? Further, how does anyone know what the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere is supposed to be? Those of you who claim the climate is getting too warm, I assume you know what the temperature is supposed to be. So tell me--what is the correct temperature if we are to assume it's currently too warm?
Anyone care to address these questions? I'd really like to see an explanation.
Published: July 6, 2006 12:08 AM
BTW, I was not paid by Exxon or Mobil to ask the above questions. How to account for my skepticism then? Guess I'm just curious to know by what logic we are supposed to assume that global warming is a fact.
Published: July 6, 2006 10:29 PM
Tom,
With this: "My own view is that, despite the voluntary efforts now underway, because of the global nature of the problem all investments in finding solutions will be insufficient, because dumping GHGs in the atmosphere remains cost-free. Thus we need to have a coordinated national and international approach."--you are, consciencely or not, parroting a similiar form of "Trade Liberty for Security".
Published: July 6, 2006 11:24 PM
No, I'm not parrotting anuthing - that's your own illusion. I see a big tragedy of the commons that needs fixing, and it ain't gonna happen by itself. Even if we could get the US government to uphold free enterprise with a legal system
protective of private property rights, so that people could do it themselves without the interference of the state, a multinational approach is obviously needed to prevent free riders from completely vitiating the benefit of actions in the US (as we, China, India, Austral and S Korea are now doing to efforts of others under Kyoto).
It is impossible to get 6+ billion to sit down at a table and negotiate this, so they need proxies. What do you suggest, other than there imperfectly constituted national representatives?
As Walter Block noted, "For to engage in environmentally sound business practices under a legal regime which no longer requires this is to impose on oneself a competitive disadvantage. Other things equal, this will guarantee bankruptcy
" http://www.mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf
This is true at both the national and international levels.
What would be YOU preferred approach? I'm all ears.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 7, 2006 2:42 AM
TT,
Block is wrong. Whole Foods(WFMI) comes readily to mind. Also, there are many businesses that avail themselves to "environmentally-friendly" energy saving technologies that put them at Finanacial and Economic advantage v. their competitors. To say nothing of the many firms that engage in "waste" reduction and product recyclability. All of which meld Ecological and Financial benefits for Economic advantage over firms that choose not to do so.
This whole meme is, to me, reminiscent of AFP #2
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp02.html
"We have been told of Phantoms."
As well, you are abusing the spirit of "proxy", in your usage. The simple fact that those meetings(Kyoto, et al.) are held behind closed doors should tell you as much.
The easiest way to deal with "free-riders" is to allow the Market to vitiate them.
Published: July 7, 2006 8:00 AM
TokyoTom
You're being disingenuous. While you have been more restrained than previously, it remains correct that ad hominem and playing the man are strategies you employed when arguing about the Professor's articles. I recall rebutting your position and taking you to task for exactly that sort of behaviour on previous occasion. Now I've just read your latest contributions elsewhere on the VMI site and see you're at it again. Does you no good.
Anyway, as I recall, I wrote "usual" in the post you quote here. Was this referring specifically to you exclusively? Guilty conscience Tom? If the hat fits...
Moving on now. A self-perceived alteration in your behaviour does not mean you are correct in your contentions. The strategy (or habit) of repetitive citation upon citation, while less offensive than ad hominem etc., is not more accurate. Relying on social metaphysics, authority or reputation does not establish verified fact. You can post all the links and citations you find and swamp the VMI blog with them, but they do nothing to prove your assertions or support your position. Appeals to, or citations of, authority and social metaphysics are not proof. They do not justify your brand of coercive collectivism. To attempt that you'd need a set of formal proofs.
Do you recall that significant matter of providing those proofs I requested from you some time ago....? You still have not provided any of them. Not even one. That challenge still remains. Until it's met there is little point in debating climate change, let alone politics with you. All that'll occur is that you'll retreat back into citing favoured sources without any consideration of the premise, context or principles at the core of the issue.
Tom, you need to examine your underlying premise; coercive collectivism. My challenge of the proofs was designed to ask you to do exactly that.
You must understand it is not a balanced approach to assume that people should be coercively forced to act according to your values in spite of what they value. That approach shows an unbalanced conceit (a Messianic complex). You do not know better than other people how and what they should value, how and what they decide, or how they live their lives. Perfect your own life and leave other people to get on with theirs.
So let's have those proofs please, then we can examine them to establish their veracity (or not).
Sione
PS Another reason you should undertake the exercise of searching for proofs is that you would need to examine your philosophic system from first principles. Until you do that the Professor has you dead to rights. He already has a logical and self-consistent philosophical system developed (an important part of it is in the public domain and has been published). You lack a coherent system of thought from which to examine his position. And that is becoming more and more obvious with each post...
Published: July 7, 2006 5:47 PM
TokyoTom
As far as that petition of 17,000 was concerned, the link was specifically produced for the purpose of shutting down an intellectual weenie ("ken", "peaceluvinguy" or whatever he calls himself lately) who appeared to believe that being offensive was a substitute for substance. Evidence of the existence of that petition defeated his position completely.
Whether one dismisses the content of the petition or not is entirely another matter. Similarly, whether one agrees or disagrees with the message of the petitioners is another matter entirely. In either case "ken" or "peaceluvinguy", or whatever his name is today, had no excuse for his foolishness and distasteful nonsense.
Turning to the petition. The story of the Oregon Petition is very interesting indeed. I've read the allegations of impropriety, fraud and misleading behaviour. This is nothing new (unfortunately). It comes from all sorts in the climate business; accusation and counter-accusation, monkey business and games. There does not seem to be agreement about anything much, except that someone else is doing things wrong. This can happen when real evidence is scarce or open to alternative interpretations or there are many unknowns. Seems worse when there are plenty of self-interested parties chasing the brass rings of power, prestige, money, influence and reputation.
Now, is every single signature on that petition fraudulent? Were they all collected under false pretences? Did anyone believe in what they were actually signing? Why did anyone sign something they completely disagreed with? Was there rorting going on? Who was rorting who? One can readily conclude that it is best to never trust anything a "scientist" tells you, whether in a paper or essay or seminar or petition. Check the veracity of the claims. Do a due diligence. Seek out evidence. Get the proof if it's available. That's always the best policy.
What your contributions confirmed was that there is no scientific consensus about the climate. Even if there were, that in itself is not a verification or proof anyway.
The take-home message is that climate scientists have little of use to provide on the topic of politics, let alone values. Thankfully, the decision about how one should live one's life and what one should do is not a matter for climate scientists to determine. The threat of some bad weather sometime, somewhere, somehow, perhaps, possibly, at some point, is no justification for coercive collectivism.
Talofa!
Sione
PS. Japan. That's an interesting place you are living. What attracted you to go over there? I'm in Australia, but not for much longer. Soon time to swap the big island for a smaller one.
Published: July 7, 2006 10:10 PM
MEH, let's not confuse the point. I agree with you that many businesses CAN avail themselves of "environmentally-friendly" practices and technologies that MAY provide them with finanacial and economic advantages in the marketplace - either generally or with respect to particular market niches, like WFMI, which aims at a premuim market. In this regard, there are many purely voluntary efforts underway with respect to reductions in CO2 emissions that companies are undertaking because (i) they provide real economic benefits by reducing costs other than for CO2 emissions (which are free) and(ii) provide PR/brand-image benefits (and no doubt some efforts are simpy preparation for a new regulatory regime that is anticipated).
But what I and Block are speaking of are cases of market failure due to lack of clear or enforcable private or common property rights - the tragedy of the commons cases. Global fisheries are being destroyed in a competitive race because there is no effective ownership - and he who leaves a tuna or other fish out of concern for the future and so he can catch fish next year is simply a fool, as he has no ability to ensure that he gets the benefit of his conservation - someone else will simply catch that fish. The same is true with the global atmospheric commons - yes, one may reduce carbon emissions because it may reduce his fuels costs, for example, but there is no incentive simply to reduce CO2 or to sequester it.
That's why the atmosphere will continue to be over-exploited, and the costs shifted to all of us - and why those who now can use the atmosphere for free in this way are willing to underwrite PR campaigns and politicians to fog the science and to purchase delay.
I am all for lettign the market work with respect to adapting to unavoidable climate change - as you and Dr. Reisman suggest. Individual economic actors can do a much better job at this than governments. I am sure you are aware that, as climate change is real and we have a huge forcing now already locked in over the next century - with much more likely since we can expect that CO2 emissions will continue to grow over the next century and not fall significantly - significant adaptation efforts by corporation and communities are already underway.
You still haven't provided any meaningful suggestion as to an ideologically satisfactory solution to the over-use of the atmosphere as a GHG dumping ground or for the non-voluntary transfer of global warming costs by fossil fuel producers to the rest of the world. Guess for those who hate governments there is none - so let's just continue to let the wheels fall off the bus, right?
Your "close door" point is malarkey and you know it. Kyoto was foisted on no one, and each signatory did so of its own accord, after obtaining internal approvals.
My own opinion is that we were right not to sign Kyoto as it is - as it left out China and India, etc. - but it was a huge and costly mistake to simply abandon the deal and not try to use levers to get China and India in. The US Senate now agrees, and has approved a bipartisan resoultion calling for precisely those negotiations - but come on, five years have been lost, just for Republican partisan gain and to cover for fossil fuel produces and big manufacturers! This has been complete folly, since not only have we exacerbated a problem, we are now dealing with a weaker hand against China and India - instrad of using the threat of trade sanctions to get them top agree to caps, we have been offering them subsidies to help underwrite the more costly, cleaner technology.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 8, 2006 1:18 AM
TT,
Let's be clear. I have no hatred for Government.
Much in the same vein as TJ, b.1743, I believe that Government governs best, when it governs least.
With this: "what I and Block are speaking of are cases of market failure due to lack of clear or enforcable private or common property rights."
If I understand correctly, is a problem created by our legal regime, and, thereby, cannot be a "case of market failure", per se.
This: "You still haven't provided any meaningful suggestion as to an ideologically satisfactory solution to the over-use of the atmosphere as a GHG dumping ground." --is simply untrue. I told you that: the market will out, and can serve to vitiate those actors deemed "out-of-bounds".
I find it funny that the one thing the State could do: provide readily referenceable data on the pollution produced by (themselves, and) firms, linked to the products they ultimately sell, is not done. One would think that if the situation is as grave as many would care to have you suspect, surely such simple spreadsheeting would be one the first things(easiest) being done. But, "Non", "Nyet", "Nichts", "NFW".
As far as the "Kyoto" talks were concerned, do you have access to the transcripts? webcasts of the meetings? No? But, you claim "our" [proxies] were sent, Yes? Like I said previously, you abuse the spirit of that term and you misrepresent the nature of that confab. btw, where was "Kyoto" ever voted on by referendum( by the citizenry?)
with this: "we are now dealing with a weaker hand against China and India - instead of using the threat of trade sanctions to get them top agree to caps, we have been offering them subsidies to help underwrite the more costly, cleaner technology." are you purporting that the U.S. should have used accession to the WTO as a lever against China? to get them in line w/ GHG emmissions? And, yes, it is quite ripe that we, the U.S., experiencing a ~U$D200bn/yr trade deficit with China, are offering them additional subsidies. Gee, I wonder if something else may be afoot?
The "fisheries" problem is, to me, wholly different.
Published: July 8, 2006 7:21 AM
TT: "Tell me again what you think is dishonest about identifying rent-seekers and their mouthpieces?"
You haven't proven they're rent seekers, or that the "peer reviewed" scientists aren't. You obviously worship at the feet of "peer reviewed" science as if it holds some special claim to validity, which it doesn't. Your "peer reviewed" community shuts out all dissent when it reaches a consensus and it doesn't always reach that consensus by scientific means. Often they do so for political or monetary reasons. I see them as rent seekers as much as you see the oil companies. Actually, since they're all government funded, they're worse.
Published: July 8, 2006 9:28 AM
TT: "Reisman and others confuse Exxon's financing of pundits and PR spokesmen - which is designed to spin the debate - with Exxon's financing of actual climate research, which is subject to peer review."
Are you saying that Exxon is playing both sides of the game?
Published: July 8, 2006 9:33 AM
TT, I went to RealClimate.org and searched for a couple of hours for info on the effect of methane, but couldn't find an answer. Most of the time methane is mentioned, it's considered a variant of CO2. But over 20 years ago opponents of GW said that methane produced by animals and bacteria were a much bigger problem than CO2. If you have any other links on this subject I'd be glad to look at them. RealClimate seems to ignore the issue.
I spent some extra time looking at the estimates of past temperatures and the hockey stick effect. Being a statistician and specializing in forecasting, I was particularly interested in their techniques. Instead of predicting the future, they're trying to predict the past, but the techniques are the same. I found their forecasts lacking for several reasons:
1. I have a lot of experience with forecasting and have learned that forecasts can never replicate extremes, and for good reason: If you tune your model to replicate extremes, it becomes very volatile and increases the error in the forecasts. What this means is that the predictions of past temperatures will not show any extreme temperatures on purpose. This doesn't mean that their were extremes, or that there weren't. It just means that if extremes did exist, the models won't show them. Our current warming may be an extreme that has occurred in the past many times but the models won't show them. They couldn't because of the nature of modeling techniques. That's why the data looks relatively flat until the 20th century.
2. In forecasting, the most recent forecasts are the most reliable. As you move back in time, further from the 20th century, the forecasts become increasingly unreliable. The error bands should become increasingly wider as we go back in time. As a forecaster, the only forecast periods I would pay any attention to are the next two or three periods, which I assume are years. To take a century worth of data and project backwards over a thousand years is ridiculous. If I tried to project a thousand years in the future with a century worth of data, no one would take me seriously. Why should we take similar forecasts into the past seriously?
3. The forecasts are only as good as the assumptions. The main assumption is that CO2 levels drive temperature changes, with a few other factors thrown in such as volcanic activity. The correlation between CO2 amounts and temperature changes is high. The problem I have with this is that they're simultaneous. Temperature and CO2 rise and fall at the same time. In forecasting, you usually look for a leading indicator in order to justify an assumption of cause and effect. It would be much more convincing if the CO2 levels preceded temperature changes by at least one time period. The fact that the CO2 levels and temperature changes occur at the same time indicates to me that a third factor is causing the two. Changes in the amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun may be the third factor, but as the site acknowledges, there's too little data to tell. But logically, we can witness the dramatic effect that the small tilt of the earth has in creating the temperature changes of the seasons. Wouldn't small variations in the orbit of the earth around the sun, or small changes in the sun's intensity have similar effects?
4. It doesn't matter that all of the models agree. Some forecasting techniques are better than others, but that differs with the data types. They all suffer from issues mentioned above.
I also have a problem with the measurements of CO2 from ice samples. Current researchers determine the age of ice samples by counting rings, one ring per year. But other researchers have challenged this method, showing that several rings are formed in a single year.
Published: July 8, 2006 3:43 PM
FreeBee (Sione and Roger, too):
Believe me, I tried to respond before - but for some reason it was held up by the site and never posted.
On Dr. Reisman's previous post I had noted something about the temperature record; I quote it below:
Those who have been following the "hockey stick" discussion about the temperature record might note that Mann and his co-authors have been vindicated by the National Academies recent report to Congress specifically on this issue, which says the following:
"It can be said with a high level of confidence
that global mean surface temperature was
higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the
Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during
at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has
subsequently been supported by an array of evidence
that includes both additional large-scale surface
temperature reconstructions and pronounced
changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such
as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers
around the world, which in many cases appear to be
unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
Not all individual proxy records indicate that the
recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger
fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced
exceptional warmth during the late 20th century
than during any other extended period from A.D.
900 onward.
Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the
Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last
few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.
Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
The complete NAS report can be found here:
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
And a one page summary provided to Congress of the report is here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=6222006
However, I would really recommend that you look not only at the recent reconstruction, but (1) ther paleoarchaelogy data and (2) data that shows how global warming is affecting the world right now.
The following are good sources of information and good summaries:
Charts & graphics
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/keeling/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf (12/05 talk by James Hansen to AGU on avoiding dangerous climate change - you can just look at the charts if you want to avoid forecasting)
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Science.html (extensive explanations, including discussions and links to “skeptics�)
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/SHSCongress1.pdf (10/03)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Working Group I) has written up a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on global warming and climate change, entitled "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm].
climate data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
paleoclimatology:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Temperature:
Recent temps/climate:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/perspectives.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/may/may06.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation
“Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.
Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.
Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).� http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Reconciliations:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/third-draft/default.htm
Charts/Data:
Global mean surface temperature increase/temperature anomaly:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif
Seasonal temperature change over the past 50 years based on local linear trends
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3.gif
Global temperature change, 1861-2000 and 1000-2000:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gif
Mann charts:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
Variations of the Earth's surface temperature: years 1000 to 2100
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.24.jpg
Comparison of temperature change between model and observation
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif
Vostok, Law Dome, ERICA ice corea CO2 concentration and temperate variations:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-52200.html
gases: (Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere)
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg
Past and future CO2 atmospheric concentrations
Keeling chart
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.21.jpg
Law Dome ice core
Glaciers and ice sheets:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/gracef-20060602.html
Antarctic (NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss
March 02, 2006):
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-028
As for Greenland, although some interior portions are building ice as more snow falls (more moisture), huge portions of the ice sheet have been melting away. http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/
Scientists believe Greenland's glaciers are sliding into the ocean much faster than earlier thought – about twice the rate of only five years ago: http://www.physorg.com/news10948.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267
Greenland Ice Loss Doubles in Past Decade, Raising Sea Level Faster
February 16, 2006:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023
South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level
October 16, 2003
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/138.cfm
Sea level increasing (half warming, half meltwater)
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/gracef-20060602.html
relative sea level
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/04.17.jpg
Arctic
See the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment’s (8 nations w/ US) recent Overview Report entitled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic" [http://www.acia.uaf.edu/].
sea ice (9.6% per decade since 1979):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html
This melting has apparently reached a tipping point. http://www.physorg.com/news6897.html
According to the American Geophysical Union, it looks like there will be an open Arctic Ocean in a few decades, for the first time in 800,000 years. Here's a recent press release and here's the short paper, authored by 21 scientists. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0530.html
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
Weather events:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html#2006
Comparison between GDP and CO2 emissions for selected countries
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/03.17.jpg
This is just to provide some moer datapoints for you guys.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 9, 2006 6:02 AM
Roger:
There are more than two sides to this game - so Exxon naturally has multiple strategies. Besides (1) being engaged in real research directly and having scientists on IPCC panels (which makes it clear they are fully aware of the global warming problem), (2) yes, they are also financing a persistent PR campaign to delay any regulatory action - this shouldn't really be news, but Exxon has done its best to hide its role (see my cites about Exxon on the prior thread: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005235.asp), (3) they are actively funding - to the tune of a $100 million commitment - research that they hope will bring them proiprietary technology, competitive advantages and financial rewards under a new regulatory regime, (4) they are making nice-sounding "yes, we accept that man is changing the climate and the risks merit action now" statements to shareholders (for PR and liability reasons) and (5) presumably they are also investing in alernative energy technologies and angling for federal subsidies as well.
I have simply been trying to shed light on item 2 - in which Exxon is really not so much concerned about truth, but about how to secure the financial benefit it receives from a borken property rights regime where it can imposes costs on everyone at no costs to itself.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 9, 2006 6:17 AM
MEH:
Global warming is a tragedy of the commons problem that requires government action to create a property rights regime where previously none was existent. In that way it differs from local fisheries problems, where there were often effective private, common regimes. There is and never has been an effective private property regime with respect to global warming, nor is one at all likely to arise spontaneously - given all of the informational, jurisdicational and transaction cost elements. The government can move towards creating such a regime through a cap and trade system like the one in effect for CO2, and like the individual transferrable fishing rights that are now being implemented widely in US coastal fisheries.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 9, 2006 6:24 AM
Sione, unfortunately I haven't time in the next couple of days to send a longer response.
Perhaps it will suffice to say the following:
1. I hope you will read closely the above data with an open mind. I agree that the mere identification of a problem does not dictate the appropriate solution, if indeed one is desirable or feasible.
2. I'm sorry, but I think your "collectivist" rhetoric gets in your way. My view on environmental problems is that they arise due to property rights failures (including government mismanagement of "public" reseources, misregulation, and favoritism for statist corporations and other rent-seekers). This is an Austrian perspective; see this by Roy Cordato on this site: http://www.mises.org/story/1760.
Regards,
Tom
Published: July 9, 2006 6:34 AM
TT,
you posit: "given all of the informational, jurisdicational and transaction cost elements. The government can move towards creating such a regime..."
from myself, above: "I find it funny that the one thing the State could do: provide readily referenceable data on the pollution produced by (themselves, and) firms, linked to the products they ultimately sell, is not done. One would think that if the situation is as grave as many would care to have you suspect, surely such simple spreadsheeting would be one the first things(easiest) being done. But, "Non", "Nyet", "Nichts", "NFW".
Which is it?
Published: July 9, 2006 7:02 AM
MEH:
What makes you think spreadsheeting isn't being done?
Ever hear of the DOE's "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program", established by the DOES in 1994 as required by Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), 42 U.S.C. 13385(b)?
Of course a number of manufacturers are using these reports for PR purposes.
Published: July 9, 2006 10:40 PM
TT,
What about: "readily referenceable" and "linked to the products they ultimately sell", don't you understand?
And, seriously, I think there are many pollutants, far more serious than carbon dioxide, that we should be concerned with.
My point, to you, has been: If the "government", that already has much of the data, was really interested in a solution to environmental degradation, they would make that data readily available, to the actors in the marketplace, to help cure some of the daunting informational assymmetries that exist.
That the "government" chooses not to do so, should lead one to suspect that there is a different object of their desires: further degradation of Economic Liberty.
Published: July 10, 2006 8:11 AM
TT: ""It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries."
We know the GW enthusiasts have a "high level" of confidence in their methods. But we don't.
BTW, I was wrong in my previous post that no forecaster would use a century's worth of data to forecast a millenium. I was thinking of time-series forecasting at the time, and that's not what the global climate models are using. They're using something similar to regression, but with machine learning algorithms. Sinc they think they have data from ice cores that goes back a thousands years, their method would be legit.
But here's another problem with it: Errors in their measurements of CO2 levels from the ice samples will have some built in error. On top of that, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere can't explain 100% of the variation in temperatures. Typically, a model that explains even 60% of the variation is a good model. Because CO2 probably explain about 60% of the variation, that's all that a forecast will show. In other words, even if the temperatures in the past were much higher, or lower, than the model suggests, it can only forecast what it knows. If it can explain only 60% of the known data, its forecasts will reflect just 60% of the variation in past temperatures.
Typically, forecasters will validate their models by training them on a portion of the data and testing them against the other portion. When the makers of the climate models did this type of validation in the past, their models proved to be very poor forecasters of known data. They ignored those results and went on with their forecasts. If you know of more recent validations of those models I'd be glad to look at them, but as far as I know, they have never been seriously validated and have proven to be poor forecasting models.
As for the hockey stick issue, the problems I mentioned above will cause all models to produce the hockey stick. The hockey stick results from the fact that the previous centuries are forecasts while the last century is actual data. No model will ever change that.
As I wrote above, I have a lot of problems with the ice core data, especially the fact that they still seem to assume a ring of ice equals one year, when a ring probably equals a few months. There's an article on the net about WWII planes, like the P-38, that crashed in Iceland and were recovered recently. They were buried deep within the ice. If the ice ring assumptions of some scientists are correct, the planes crashed there several thousand years ago.
Finally, while the CO2 estimates from the ice cores is impressive work, the fact that the rise in CO2 and temperature occur at the same time suggests that no cause/effect relation exists between them; a third force is driving the two. Also, what caused the huge variations in CO2 in the past, before the industrial age?
Published: July 10, 2006 8:43 AM
MEH, I completely agree with you when you say: "My point, to you, has been: If the "government", that already has much of the data, was really interested in a solution to environmental degradation, they would make that data readily available, to the actors in the marketplace, to help cure some of the daunting informational assymmetries that exist."
This is one of the things we should be pushing for, with respect not only to GHGs but also to many pollutants on which the government and industry are already collecting data.
Why isn't it happening? Mainly because people have been looking for government mandates rather than looking for alternative solutions to environmental problems.
While I think consumer pressure via information may make a dent, I do not see that the availablity of such information otherwise provides much of value, at least in the case of CO2, as there is simply insufficient market demand for CO2 or for CO2 reductions (and no other legal pressure on Co2 producers).
For this reason, I am in favor of a cap and trade scheme that would create property rights and market incentives, which would in turn drive investments that would reduce CO2 emissions and increase sequestration. It would be much better than the apporach the US has taken to directly subsidizing investments in technology.
Perhaps you've run across material like this on how environmental regulation should be reformed:
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/richardstewartresponse.pdf
Richard A. Stewart, "A New Generation of Environmental Regulation?," 29 Capital University Law Review 21 (2001) (happy to email this to you)