Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is

March 12, 2007 11:04 AM by George Reisman (Archive)

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released the summary of its latest, forthcoming report on global warming. It’s most trumpeted finding is that the existence of global warming is now “unequivocal.”

Although such anecdotal evidence as January’s snowfall in Tucson, Arizona and freezing weather in Southern California and February’s more than 100-inch snowfall in upstate New York might suggest otherwise, global warming may indeed be a fact. It may also be a fact that it is a by-product of industrial civilization (despite, according to The New York Times of November 7, 2006, two ice ages having apparently occurred in the face of carbon levels in the atmosphere 16 times greater than that of today, millions of years before mankind’s appearance on earth).

If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them? Does it follow that there is a need to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions and the use of the fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—that gives rise to the emissions? The need for such limitation and/or rollback is the usual assumption.

Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing whatever follows from these facts. Before any implication for action can be present, additional information is required.

One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.

Modern, industrial civilization and its further development are values that we dare not sacrifice if we value our material well-being, our health, and our very lives. It is what has enabled billions more people to survive and to live longer and better. Here in the United States it has enabled the average person to live at a level far surpassing that of kings and emperors of a few generations ago.

The foundation of this civilization has been, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, the use of fossil fuels.

Of course, there are projections of unlikely but nevertheless possible extreme global warming in the face of which conditions would be intolerable. To deal with such a possibility, it is necessary merely to find a different method of cooling the earth than that of curtailing the use of fossil fuels. Such methods are already at hand, as I will explain in an article that will appear shortly.

In fact, if it comes, global warming, in the projected likely range, will bring major benefits to much of the world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time will shorten important shipping routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Strangely, these facts are rarely mentioned. Instead, attention is devoted almost exclusively to the negatives associated with global warming, above all to the prospect of rising sea levels, which the report projects to be between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100, a range, incidentally, that by itself does not entail major coastal flooding. (There are, however, projections of a rise in sea levels of 20 feet or more over the course of the remainder of the present millennium.)

Yes, rising sea levels may cause some islands and coastal areas to become submerged under water and require that large numbers of people settle in other areas. Surely, however, the course of a century, let alone a millennium, should provide ample opportunity for this to occur without any necessary loss of life.

Indeed, a very useful project for the UN’s panel to undertake in preparation for its next report would be a plan by which the portion of the world not threatened with rising sea levels would accept the people who are so threatened. In other words, instead of responding to global warming with government controls, in the form of limitations on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, an alternative response would be devised that would be a solution in terms of greater freedom of migration.

In addition, the process of adaptation here in the United States would be helped by making all areas determined to be likely victims of coastal flooding in the years ahead ineligible for any form of governmental aid, insurance, or disaster relief that is not already in force. Existing government guarantees should be phased out after a reasonable grace period. Such measures would spur relocation to safer areas in advance of any future flooding.

Emissions Caps Mean Impoverishment

The environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life, which it regards merely as one of earth’s “biota,” of no greater value than any other life form, such as spotted owls or snail darters. To it, the loss of industrial civilization is of no great consequence. It is a boon.

But to everyone else, it would be an immeasurable catastrophe: the end of further economic progress and the onset of economic retrogression, with no necessary stopping point. Today’s already widespread economic stagnation is the faintest harbinger of the conditions that would follow.

A regime of limitations on the emission of greenhouse gases means that all technological advances requiring an increase in the total consumption of man-made power would be impossible to implement. At the same time, any increase in population would mean a reduction in the amount of man-made power available per capita. (Greater production of atomic power, which produces no emissions of any kind, would be an exception. But it is opposed by the environmentalists even more fiercely than is additional power derived from fossil fuels.)

To gauge the consequences, simply imagine such limits having been imposed a generation or two ago. If that had happened, where would the power have come from to produce and operate all of the new and additional products we take for granted that have appeared over these years? Products such as color television sets and commercial jets, computers and cell phones, CDs and DVDs, lasers and MRIs, satellites and space ships? Indeed, the increase in population that has taken place over this period would have sharply reduced the standard of living, because the latter would have been forced to rest on the foundation of the much lower per capita man-made power of an earlier generation.

Now add to this the effects of successive reductions in the production of man-made power compelled by the imposition of progressively lower ceilings on greenhouse-gas emissions, ceilings as low as 75 or even 40 percent of today’s levels. (These ceilings have been advocated by Britain’s Stern Report and by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel, respectively.) Inasmuch as these ceilings would be global ceilings, any increase in greenhouse-gas emissions taking place in countries such as China and India would be possible only at the expense of even further reductions in the United States, whose energy consumption is the envy of the world.

All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.

Already, led by French President Jacques Chirac, forces are gathering to make non-compliance with emissions caps an international crime. Given such developments, it is absolutely vital that the United States never enter into any international treaty in which it agrees to caps on greenhouse-gas emissions.

if the economic progress of the last two hundred years or more is to continue, if its existing benefits are to be maintained and enlarged, the people of the United States, and hopefully of the rest of the world as well, must turn their backs on environmentalism. They must recognize it for the profoundly destructive, misanthropic philosophy that it is. They must solve any possible problem of global warming on the foundation of industrial civilization, not on a foundation of its ruins.

This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (127)

Comments (127)

Niels van der Linden

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Channel4)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

Published: March 12, 2007 11:32 AM
Stormy

If global warming meant just a few inches of sea level and balmy days, we might weather it. But there is more involved than that.

I suggest that the writer of this thread examime such effects as ocean acidification, loss of glaciers that provide reliable water sources, desertification, etc.

Unfortunately, the argument presented here is an all too simplistic view--good for the yokels, but does not carry much weight for anyone who has looked at the issue.

Of course, you could fall back on solar cycles, cosmic rays, etc. But there, too, I suspect, you might have problems.

Ocean acidification, which is a direct result of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the PH of the seas. And, as anyone knows who has a fish tank, increasing acidity is dangerous to fish life. In this regard, the effect first will be on the ability of shell fish to form shells.

For a preliminary example of glaciers as a reliable water source, I suggest you do some research on Peru--and maybe even the great rivers of India and China.

You might also want to investigate the effects on tundra, especially Russia. The quantities of methane potentially released will make CO2 look like ice cream.

These are just some tips for your next foray into global warming. Getting out the sun tan oil and zooming through the northwest passage sound delightful.

I expected a bit more from this site.

Published: March 12, 2007 1:58 PM
Mathieu Bédard

Apparently, climate change deniers will be executed;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Published: March 12, 2007 2:02 PM
Stormy

Mathieu,

First: I suggest you do some research on Timothy Ball. I have. I can impugn his motives quite easily. I will leave it at that. But we both should know that motives really have no bearing on actual scientific fact or logic.

Second: The telegraph article does not pass as real argument. Whether the threats are true or not true again is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I assume you are a well-educated individual who can make more substantive arguments.

Try it sometime. Smear from the right or from the left is senseless, appealing only to those who cannot make real arguments.

Published: March 12, 2007 2:19 PM
Mathieu Bédard

Oh, sorry, I wasn't even aware I was trying to make a point, I thought I was just sending a 'heads up' to fellow global warming infidel skeptics.

Once again I'm sorry, I thought this was a blog...

Published: March 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Brad

Stormy,

Or none of it may happen.

1) One has to accept that temperatures have risen in some areas of the atmosphere.

O.K. Most people do, though the collection of data is certainly rocky, with many modes of analyzing and collection over the last 80 years. I'm willing to concede that temperatures have gone up somewhat.

2) The cause, despite what UN Statists, is not unequivocal.

Debatable. Man's contribution to a theoretical construction of the Greenhouse effect certainly can be debated long and eloquently by both sides.

3) The result, whether man is causing it or not, IS UNKNOWN.

Not debatable.

No one knows.

What should be done? Nothing. Unless we want to unleash Faith into public policy. But our Entertainment and Statist Betters say this is a Moral issue, so I guess Faith does play a large part. Puritans have always swung a moral club (Oh for the simple days of Jonathan Edwards).

The most I concede is that one day I may wake up on a sandpile surrounded by water (with shell-less shellfish) or I may wake up dead in the fires of hell. I see no rational proof of either, and therefore would prefer that those who do live with their superstitions keep their hands off the Power Supply.

It's that simple.

If everyone with a bogey story was able to use the power of the state to coerce others, we'd have chaos. It would seem most everyone has some system of "those others had better stop their behaviors or Hell will be unleashed". I now live in a world that everyone boarding an airplane has a nuclear warhead in their ass, and every time I mow my lawn, the ecosystem goes to hell (literally).

And even if it can be proven what the cause is (greenhouse emissions) and it can be proven that the ecosystem will crumble in a hundred years or so leading the a dystopian struggle for survival, I still say our bigger issue at hand is the $47 Trillion accrual debt we've saddled ourselves with. Until we completely undo socialism's noose, we surely cannot hope to make the changes necessary to the economy (and the human behaviors that make it up) until we are disconnected at the pocket book. The accrual debt timebomb is set to go off much sooner than any forecasted effects of global warming.

Published: March 12, 2007 2:42 PM
Daniel M. Ryan

Stormy, your claim about the supposed acidification of the oceans can be experimentally tested...cheaply.

Published: March 12, 2007 3:21 PM
Yancey Ward

In regards to the acidification of the sea, I was at the beach a few months back and watched two people walk into the surf and come out as skeletons.

Ok, I made that up.

Published: March 12, 2007 3:44 PM
Larry N. Martin

Will rising sea levels put Washington, D.C. into the drink? Bring it on!

But seriously, we should take the environmentalists seriously on this. After all, they've been right so many times in the past...

Also, we know that the governments of the world know exactly what to do to abate the problems of global warming--they've been so good about providing education, health care, Social Security, and the economy, right?

Published: March 12, 2007 3:53 PM
Matt

Isn't the solution obvious? Soylent Green shows the way. At age 65, instead of collecting a pension, people are euthanised to reduce CO2 emissions. Global Warming/Medicare/Social Security in one punch. Also, since bacteria and other animals emit more CO2 than humans, the oceans and forests should be covered in Purell.

Published: March 12, 2007 4:51 PM
Brent

Stormy,

Do you know much about statistics? It's my litmust test for those who speak about this issue in with the typical condescending language you used in your two previous posts.

Published: March 12, 2007 5:09 PM
Bill,

The global warming movement is nothing but a religion. There is no science to this.

I am extremely skeptical about any theory that explains everything:
1. Dozens of "named storms" in one year: Global Warming.
2. Less than 4 named storms in one year: Global Warming.
3. Hot in France then cold in France: Global Warming.
4. Cold in US: Global Warming.

This whole thing is silly and getting sillier:
1. Al's house consumes 20times as much fuel as mine does and he believes this crap.
2. Sheep farting in NZ is causing global warming?

The climate and the planet surface more generally are not stable systems nor are they consistent. They are in fact chaotic systems where everything from solar events to single cell organisms interract. There are no averages and averages do not mean a whole lot.

Published: March 12, 2007 5:11 PM
David White

For Pete's sake, watch the powerful video that Niels van der Linden posted and THEN discuss:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

Not to mention that CO2 production is "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution":

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Published: March 12, 2007 6:00 PM
jjsmith

When ever there is a so much publicity of some sort , you can expect some divertion. Global warming could be correct and there is some thing more. see this article and wonder .
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/126103-Wake+The+World+Up+Campaign

"Global Warming" or "Sudden Glacial Rebound"

Published: March 12, 2007 10:44 PM
Walt D.

Besides the dubious claim of inventing the internet, Al Gore Jnr. son of Albert Gore Snr. aka the Oxy Moron, after being in the pocket of Dr. Armand Hammer, a communist agent, holds one dubious distinction. He invented the toilet that did not flush! Urban Legend has it that the flush toilet was invented by Sir Thomas Crapper. Does anyone know the real provenance of the flush toilet.

BTW - Thank you Niels - great reference - the truth is out there!

Published: March 13, 2007 12:30 AM
TokyoTom

Dear Dr. Reisman:

Many thanks for your latest tongue-in-cheek post on environmental issues.

For those of you who don't get the joke, Dr. Reisman is testing you, as I revealed previously in comments to his November 18, 2006 post, ">http://blog.mises.org/archives/005916.asp"> It's Over: Tokyo Tom Concedes. Dr. Reisman is simply pretending to throw Misesian principles out the window by completely ignoring the problems of (i) corporate statism, and (ii) the Misesian understanding that environmental conflicts stem from lack of clear or enforceable property rights with respect to open-access resources, while instead acting like the real problem lies not with the failures of the resource management regime, but with one side of the resource conflict - our fellow citizens who profess a concern about resource abuse but whom Dr. Reisman pretends are evil, misanthropic collectivists.

Well I hope you will allow me to continue to play along - after all, "hate the enviro, love the problem" remains my motto.

I do note that Dr. Reisman tips his hand that his "anti-enviro" position is facetious by (i) indicating the he concedes for purposes of argument that "global warming may indeed be a fact [and that] [i]t may also be a fact that it is a by-product of industrial civilization" - so readers will focus on how Austrian principles may apply to policy responses to climate change (rather than getting confused with the differences between climate and weather or bogged down with discussing matters outside of Austrian expertise) - (ii) by positing the relevant analysis as a non-Austrian, utilitarian comparison between the "valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming", (iii) by discarding Austrian analysis by conspicuously declining to even mention the words "property rights" or "commons", or to note how both corporations and enviros attempt to manipulate the climate change debate for statist, rent-seeking purposes, and (iv) by making the astonishing promise that he will propose, "in an article that will appear shortly," "method[s] of cooling the earth [other] than that of curtailing the use of fossil fuels" - methods that will likely involve the hand of government in some sort of intrusive, statist action.

Despite all of these clues, I'm sure Dr. Reisman must be rather disappointed that posters so far have declined to discuss climate change from an Austrian point of view.

Since it's my job to place the straight man here, I will be back with more comments later.

Respectfully,

TokyoTom
(that cowardly guy who pretends to be "a lower, more lunatic form of collectivist than were the old socialists", "fundamentally antihuman", the "mortal" and "philosphic enemy of mankind")

Published: March 13, 2007 3:08 AM
TokyoTom

Dr. Reisman:

Not wanting to disappoint, here are a few points in your essay where I believe you are just testing either our credulity or our understanding of Austrian principles:

1. GR: "If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it."

TT: Making a gross utilitarian cost-benefit calculations is hardly an Austrian approach, which acknowledges that natural resource disputes arise as a result of a lack of clear and enforceable property rights and focusses on finding ways to resolve.

Surely the destruction of industrial civilization is undesirable, but the implication that taking action to slow global warming will produce such a result is unsupported, as is the further conclusion that "global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress". Yes, just as we have throttled industrial civilization up to now by forcing manufacturers and other economic actors to bear the negative costs of their activities?

2. GR: "The environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life ...."

TT: Hate the enviro, love the problem. Are enviros right in pointing the destruction exploitation of resources resulting from their nature as open-access (and thus unprotected) "common", "public" or unowned resources? If so, why do I have to care about the motivations of any of the "enviros" or any others who may agree with them? In the case of climate change, this of course is not limited to enviros, but includes others who perceive a problem - including ">http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=413&idCategory=1"> Evangelicals, the ">http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm"> Catholic Churchand ">http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Campaign/energy_references.asp"> Exxon. Do they all fear and hate not only industrial civilization, but mankind as well?

3. GR: "A regime of limitations on the emission of greenhouse gases means that all technological advances requiring an increase in the total consumption of man-made power would be impossible to implement. ... To gauge the consequences, simply imagine such limits having been imposed a generation or two ago."

TT: First, this displays a misunderstanding of how markets function. Competitive markets put pressure to minimize the costs of all inputs - as long as they are priced. Because energy has a costs, global economies have steadily increased their efficiency of its use, leading to gradual decarbonization per unit of output. Policies that have the effect of putting a price on carbon emissions would simply increase the incentives to increase efficiency and find alternative energy sources and ways to decrease carbon emissions - include carbon sequestration. We have, for example, an internet today because we have largely replaced copper wires with fiber optics based on silica - sand.

Fossil fuels will of course also become increasingly expensive as the deposits most accessible are depleted. Surely you are not suggesting that civilization will grind to a halt simply as the costs of fossil fuels increase? Granted, cheap energy has been a boon, but it is merely one factor cost. Surely we can also appreciate that use of "free" resources in the environment may also have costs, and that factoring those costs into production will not cause the end of civilization - but I get ahead of myself.

4. GR: "All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible."

TT: Very nice - so imposing modest carbon taxes (even if substituted for income taxes) would be worse than the Iraq war - $1 trillion and counting, for the benefit of no one except elites? Enviros are evil, and thus make the abuse of government under the Bush administration pale in comparison?

Let's remember, too, that the atmosphere is a global, open-access commons. Will the US always be better off by shunning any international deal that would also bind our neighbors? Should cattle ranchers also never have closed ranges, and shall we also insist that all oceanic fisheries be unregulated, unowned and thus destroyed? When a population of resource users move from an unregulated, open-access system to one that is regulated through property rights and other institutions, have they enslaved themselves or created the possibility of greater wealth?

5. GR: "Already, led by French President Jacques Chirac, forces are gathering to make non-compliance with emissions caps an international crime. Given such developments, it is absolutely vital that the United States never enter into any international treaty in which it agrees to caps on greenhouse-gas emissions."

TT: Nice rhetoric! So the voluntary submission to mutually agreed international rules means the forceful imposition of the boot by foreigners? We should immediately abrogate every foreign treaty we have!

6. GR: "if the economic progress of the last two hundred years or more is to continue ... the people of the United States ... must turn their backs on environmentalism. They must recognize it for the profoundly destructive, misanthropic philosophy that it is."

TT: In other words, we can never face problems relating to the commons – we must eliminate every federal, state and local environmental law. It's profoundly misanthropic for citizens to think they can get in the way of the misuse of common or public assets by statist corporations. We should always ignore the man behind the curtain, fear Oz and obey.

Do I pass the test?

Sincerely,

TT

Published: March 13, 2007 5:52 AM
Yancey Ward

In the end, the fossil fuels will be used until their use can physically no longer be increased; at that point the price will rise until an acceptable alternative begins to really replace them. This alternative will be nuclear fission which is the only realistic alternative we have now, and will likely have for the next two hundred years. The Europeans, the most devoted to solving the global warming "problem", not only can't meet the very modest goals of Kyoto, but can't even actually cut their emissions since signing on. Throw in India, China, and the rest of the developing world, and there is zero chance of CO2 emissions actually declining. Time to move on to some other environmental issues.

Published: March 13, 2007 8:44 AM
Dan Coleman

Tokoyo Tom, there is no commons where rights can be exercised. Claiming that we live in some sort of commons in the excuse for bringing in the State's coercive power. What is needed is to strip back the State and allow individual rights to prevail, not arbitrary taxes, court rulings, and multi-national agreements based on political power.

If there is a path to resolution on environmental issues, the State is an inhibitor, not a catalyst.

Published: March 13, 2007 9:20 AM
Francisco Torres

2. GR: "The environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life ...."

TT: Hate the enviro, love the problem.

Ignoring for a moment the non sequitur, I will point out the rest of the paragraph, TT, since it is important:

"Indeed, it [the environmental movement] does not value human life, which it regards merely as one of earth’s "biota," of no greater value than any other life form, such as spotted owls or snail darters."

It is important to recognize the severe moral implications behind the environmental movement, TT. It is not just this disinterested group that points out apparent failings in human behaviour - they are bound to a code of ethics that is MISANTHROPIC in its very core. So, YES, I would prefer to HATE the enviros. About loving the problem, you are just arguing from a false dichotomy.

Published: March 13, 2007 10:48 AM
Sione Vatu

Francisco

It's not worth bothering with TT. He's wrong. He's been deomonstrated as wrong many times. Unfortunately he is a one subject collectivist crank who seems to think he can unify his variant of collectivism with Austraian economics. Despite being challenged to back his litany of claims with proof he never does. He can't. He's impotent. The guy is a hollow man. In the end I gave up on him when he proposed the imposition of severe energy taxes against individuals. That was his response to my suggestion to leave people alone to develop new technolgies and solutions to problems as they saw fit.

TT is an utter collectivist swine who already conceeded the argument anyway.

Sione

Published: March 13, 2007 12:38 PM
David White

I was able to watch the Google video that Niels van der Linden referenced above before it was pulled. I very much hope it returns, however, or is otherwise made available, as it puts Al Gore's video and the global warming movement to shame.

Keep an eye out for it.

Published: March 13, 2007 1:40 PM
Al Gore

Laugh it up guys! Within 20 years it is going to be so hot the Earth's crust is predicted to melt and incinerate us all, and that is assuming we even survive the Atlantic-spanning super-hurricane that blows down the Empire State Building, or survive the the predicted global ice age brought about by insane global warming. I am sure to have the last laugh.

Published: March 13, 2007 2:37 PM
David White

You're a hoot, Al, you really are, and I love the way you've bloated yourself with hot air to prove your point.

Published: March 13, 2007 5:38 PM
Stormy

Ryan,

There have been two key studies of ocean acidification and falling Ph levels, which are occurring by the way. The first demonstrated the actual steady fall since 1750; the second demonstrated that Ph fall is not affected by temperature.

In short, whether the planet cools or warms is absolutely irrelevant.

The only factor is the quantity of CO2 that the ocean absorbs. You do agree that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, I presume. And you do agree that the ocean is a carbon sink?

I mention this problem because it circumvents all the usual arguments contrarians like to forward.

Do a Google search on the following:

"Ph oceans acidification"

I do appreciate the responses, by the way.

Published: March 13, 2007 7:10 PM
Daniel M. Ryan

Last I checked, it was up to the proponent to supply specific references. I suppose you not doing so gets around me asking awkward questions, such as: "were any of these studies done in a lab so as to control every extraneous variable except for CO2 increase, or was they little more than glorified field trips?"

Published: March 13, 2007 7:18 PM
happylee

The google video linked by Niels van der Linden was excellent. It has since been moved. Do a goodle search for The Great Global Warming Swindle. Well worth an hour of your time.

Published: March 13, 2007 7:46 PM
Brent

If you don't believe that warming, such as that caused by the sun, causes more life on earth - especially plant life in the oceans -- which obviously increases CO2, then don't you have to provide some sort of proof that this most basic theory is wrong?? I guess I've never believed the political hype because I never seen a scientic proof of cause and effect between CO2 and global warming, respectively. It's all a crock.

Published: March 13, 2007 9:36 PM
Peter

Walt D: I don't know how it relates to this thread, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet

Published: March 13, 2007 9:51 PM
TokyoTom

Dan, thanks for the comments.

1. "there is no commons where rights can be exercised. Claiming that we live in some sort of commons in the excuse for bringing in the State's coercive power."

The are commons all around us - surely you are not denying that? While we should rightly be afraid of misuse of the state, denying the existence of commons simply because of that fear is to deny the light of logic and forever shiver in the dark as elites manipulate the state.

Bruce Yandle has a nice little essay on dealing with the commons here: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.

He concludes: "at very low levels of income, what might be called stage one, human beings cannot afford to do much about property-rights enforcement and the commons. They live in a world where custom and tradition sustain them. As incomes rise and losses from the commons expand, stage two is entered. Fences go up, and rules are set for protecting the commons. Finally, in stage three, markets evolve along with rules of law that define spheres of private and public action. Private rights replace public control, and the triumph replaces the tragedy of the commons.

Life for mankind began on a commons where tragedies were commonplace and the incentive to improve was powerful. Out of the struggle to survive and accumulate wealth evolved markets, property rights, and the rule of law-a triumph on the commons. But just as bees compete with hummingbirds in the struggle to control access to nectar, institution builders who seek to support markets and property rights compete with others who seek to redistribute wealth. Actions to redistribute wealth blunt the incentive to protect property rights and create wealth. This converts triumph to tragedy.

Human beings can and do avoid the tragedy of the commons. But doing so requires property rights and markets, which must be defended if the triumph is to continue."

2. "What is needed is to strip back the State and allow individual rights to prevail, not arbitrary taxes, court rulings, and multi-national agreements based on political power.

If there is a path to resolution on environmental issues, the State is an inhibitor, not a catalyst."

Platitudes, with which I largely agree, but where's your actual policy advice? The state is not going to whither up and die, and failure to fight over what the state should be doing, if anything, simply encourages the already rampant rent-seeking and manipulation of the state by the powerful.

BTW, Austrians have long recognized court rulings in support of property rights as an important and legitmate state function.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 13, 2007 10:00 PM
TokyoTom

Yancey, not so fast. While I certainly agree there are other "environmental" issues to discuss, Dr. Reisman is the one who keeps bringing up this topic and it deserves a fair shake despite its apparent intractability. It's a good start that you accept that climate change is a legitmate matter of concern and discussion.

1. Why can't "the Europeans, the most devoted to solving the global warming "problem", not only can't meet the very modest goals of Kyoto, but can't even actually cut their emissions since signing on"? Could it have something to do with the US refusing to accept any burden or to negotiate to bring in India, China, and the rest of the developing world? Europeans are relatively insignificant CO2 emitters relative to the US and China - is it rational for them to incur costs for the sake of protecting a resource when larger resource users refuse to?

2. "there is zero chance of CO2 emissions actually declining. Time to move on to some other environmental issues."

So shall we simply ignore this commons problem until we exhaust all fossil fuels? Why can we not discuss whether to we could make changes at the margin that will benefit us by avoiding unnecessary costs? And shall we completely dodge Dr. Reisman's promised suggestions for ways governments or concerned organizations could directly ticker with the environment to moderate any warming? And to the extent that climate change cannot be avoided but still expected, do we not also need to discuss Dr. Reisman's suggestions for more open immigration policies, changes in policies here to eliminate destructive/foolish subsidies to development of at-risk areas, and policies to avoid waves of refugees by helping developing countries to adapt and develop by moving away from kleptocracy by elites to rule of law and protection of private/common property? Might such investments be more productive than our foolish and expensive wars, that only benefit elites?

3. "In the end, the fossil fuels will be used until their use can physically no longer be increased; at that point the price will rise until an acceptable alternative begins to really replace them."

Of course nothing can replace fossil fuels in the near or intermediate future, but that doesn't mean we should stand by to allow damages caused by their use to continue unfettered.

regards,

TT

Published: March 13, 2007 10:41 PM
TokyoTom

Francisco:

Thanks for bringing that quote up. Who insisted on the Endangered Species Act, including the citizen suit provision, and signed it into law? The environmental movement or Richard Nixon? I knew there was a reason to hate that guy. I only wish that Republicans, when they had their chance, had made a serious effort at fixing the glaring flaws in that law.

As to hating enviros, haven't I stated previously that I totally agree? We should all hate enviros, and hate them fiercely. It provides a great endorphin rush, gives us a nice feeling of tribal cameraderie with fellow haters and is especially helpful in avoiding thinking about serious issues and whether statist corporations are manipulating government.

We can ignore other people who share the concerns enviros have (like on climate change, evangelicals, the Catholic Church, Exxon, GE etc.) and we can merrily ignore how common, unowned or unprotected resources (domestic or abroad) are over-exploited, as no one stands to gain from protecting them. Who really wants to waste time on these issues by trying to understand and explore common ground - which is actually quite extensive? I sure wish Dr. Reisman would stop bringing this stuff up!

Best,

TT

Published: March 13, 2007 11:45 PM
J Henderson

TT,

How do you know climate change is mostly anthropogenic instead of mostly a natural occurrence? The magnitude of anthropogenic causation (that has been alleged)is smaller than natural variation. There is no harm to the commons occurring.

Also, you seem to be assuming that warming is harming property owners. If anything, it would appear that this largely natural phenomenon is benefiting agricultural producers. A carbon suppression policy would actually harm the commons by depriving the biosphere of plant fertilizer (CO2). Meanwhile, carbon suppression would cause no perceptible cooling of the global climate, since natural factors overwhelm the contribution from man-made CO2. A deceleration of warming is the most you can hope for, and this deceleration cannot even be accurately measured.

JH

Published: March 14, 2007 7:31 AM
TokyoTom

Dear JH:

Perhaps you noticed that Dr. Reisman's thesis is premised on the following: "If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them?"

Dr. Reisman also notes that supposed gross benefits of warming may be unevenly offset by costs.

Why don't we stay with his premises for purposes of analysis? (You ask good questions, of course, that I have extensively responded to on earlier threads which you can easily locate by clicking on "other posts" by Dr. Reisman above.)

Published: March 14, 2007 8:08 AM
Yancey Ward

Tokyo Tom,

That the Europeans are not even able to meet the minimal goals of Kyoto (or, as I pointed out, not even actually reduce emissions at all) cannot be blamed on the United States, China, and India. It simply shows that such goals cannot be met at all without a significant reduction in population or standard of living. You and others continuously refuse face up to the scope of the problem of changing from fossil fuels to alternatives. The problem is far more vast than many environmentalists believe, and Reisman is correct, some understand it and simply do not care- I have had debates with many who are quite happy at the prospect of Americans living more materially deficient lives, or the world's population dropping by half or more.

I simply pointing out that you are tilting at windmills. If the Europeans are failing to cut emissions, then it will simply be impossible to cut them at all until the fossil fuels begin to run out (if they do).

Published: March 14, 2007 8:36 AM
V

You can download the video Niels posted here:
http://www.meganova.org/torrent/d8d99c84f0d1308279322885173954230c647495/the+great+global+warming+swindle+avi.torrent.

You need a BitTorrent client program for this, such as Azureus.

Published: March 14, 2007 8:57 AM
Stormy

Ryan,

Here is one link I can easily supply. It references the actual studies done with a synopsis of each.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0308-oceans.html

Unfortunately, the studies themselves require payment, unless you have access to a good university library.

Published: March 14, 2007 10:03 AM
Francisco Torres

Who insisted on the Endangered Species Act, including the citizen suit provision, and signed it into law? The environmental movement or Richard Nixon?

Richard Nixon was not clever enough to come up with the ESA all by himself, so . . .

As to hating enviros, haven't I stated previously that I totally agree?

It is irrelevant. I am commenting on your false dichotomy: "Hate the enviromentalist, but love the problem."

We should all hate enviros, and hate them fiercely. It provides a great endorphin rush, gives us a nice feeling of tribal cameraderie with fellow haters and is especially helpful in avoiding thinking about serious issues and whether statist corporations are manipulating government.

It is irrelevant whether you get a rush for hating an environmentalist. My opposition to them stems from pure principles: The principle of human life as being of more value than anything, the principle that we humans are born free, the principle that we humans are rational. It is these principles, and the act of following them through, that could have a much more positive effect on the environment than thousands of pages of useless federal code or the snakeoilish "carbon credits".

We can ignore other people who share the concerns enviros have (like on climate change, evangelicals, the Catholic Church, Exxon, GE etc.) and we can merrily ignore how common, unowned or unprotected resources (domestic or abroad) are over-exploited, as no one stands to gain from protecting them.

Not one has ignored those problems. It has been mentioned here again and again that many of those problems are in fact the result of government oolicy towards private property and collectivism/statism. However, this is not the issue, TT - environmentalists, at least the religious, Gaia-worshiping kind, are NOT our allies. Dr. Reisman is right when he says that they value human life at the same level as animal life (I am willing to bet all that for them, "animal life" does not include the termite infestations in their own homes). Consider just how destructive the policies that originated from their "recommendations" have become to human life, and how they made problems worse for humans AND animals.

Who really wants to waste time on these issues by trying to understand and explore common ground - which is actually quite extensive? I sure wish Dr. Reisman would stop bringing this stuff up!

The only common ground we can have is that we agree that private property rights solve most of the environmental problems. Where we disagree is in considering the atmosphere as a "commons", since the atmosphere itself is NOT a scarcegood (it is non-rivalrous, you cannot set up a fence on it), nor is the effect of CO2 emission that big of a problem.

Did you watch the documentary linked here?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

By the way, why is it, tell me WHY, that the environmental movement in the US is soooo concerned about CO2 emissions, and yet so adamant about NOT allowing new nuclear electric powerplants be built in the US and in many parts of the world? I would think, for the sake of CONSISTENCY (i.e. not being hypocrites), that they would EMBRACE this ZERO-CARBON technology. Can you explain to me WHY this is not so, before seeing a longer discourse on CO2 and the evils of human progress??

Again, I hate the enviros, but not because they point out environmental "problems" (if they exist at all), but because they insist on really scary and sometimes downright EVIL "solutions" to these problems (remember the DDT ban)?

Published: March 14, 2007 10:59 AM
Dan Coleman

TT, thanks for the response.

I agree with you that there are commons all around us. Education, health care, the atmosphere and environment, roads, the oceans, utlities like drinking water. . .these are all commons and humans suffer accordingly because of it.

The point is that commons do not exist -- or will not exist for very long -- where property rights are recognized and people are able to homestead property. Notice that all of the commons listed above are areas where humans are capable of homesteading and working out property rights, with the ability to sue for aggression following closely behind it.

The oceans are a perfect example of this, if I can step away from global warming for a moment. News headlines recently read that about 90% of the fish will be depleted from the oceans in 50 years. It turns out that government-calculated and negotiated fishing quotas, international boundary lines, and other regulations aren't working (imagine my surprise upon reading this!).

Why not allow people to homestead areas of the ocean, to use technology to develop the sea and cultivate populations of fish? Why make nationalist claims upon waters and leave them untouched? Why allow fisherman to plunder in the sea up to certain standards created by the government on political grounds? Doesn't it seem obvious that the government won't be able to calculate the proper ways to use the oceans?

The environmental movement is using as its starting point the basic idea that commons exist *without* State coercion(!!!) and that the State is needed to arbitrate proper use of land, sea, and air. This is asserted as if commons are incapable of being homesteaded and divided into private property.

Governments can't calculate, whether they are trying to give their population chairs, food, health care, policing and defense, court systems, or effective environmental regulations.

I do not deny that commons are all around us. But this is a symptom of a larger disease, namely, government coercion. It is not a problem to be solved by the State.

Which seems to lead you to say:
"Platitudes, with which I largely agree, but where's your actual policy advice? The state is not going to whither up and die, and failure to fight over what the state should be doing, if anything, simply encourages the already rampant rent-seeking and manipulation of the state by the powerful."

The State should be reducing itself. That is the best possible thing for it to do in every area right now.

What are my policy recommendations? Make the United States a decentralized nation where property rights reign in all economic (praxeological) affairs. Allow society to organize itself so that courts recognize property rights and invasion when they see it. Don't allow big corporations to buy off or eek out vague 'common good' based rights that let them pollute on others' land, cause harmful air pollution, and do many of the things that they are currently doing. Privatize roads so that people aren't wasteful in their transportation, as they currently are.

When the UN wags its collective finger at our nation, pay no heed. Can you imagine how effective nuclear power would be without the current regulation? If there are alternative sources of energy, American entrepreneurs will likely be the ones to make it appealing to consumers and put it in wide-spread use.

The point is that my 'policy recommendations' have little to do with the State aside from its getting out of the way. I often converse with people who like seeing poverty dealt with through welfare; when I suggest pulling back the government they immediately say "well, *what's* going to replace it?" For some reason 'property rights' is never a satisfying enough answer, and they quickly dismiss further explanation.

"BTW, Austrians have long recognized court rulings in support of property rights as an important and legitmate state function."

Certainly not the Austrians that I'm familiar with. Rothbard explicitly denies that this is a proper function of the State, for example. Do a quick search on Mises.org and you will find a legion of Austrians that are in accord with him.

Even Mises, who believed that the State had a legitimate role in defense and courts, believed very strongly that any community seeking to leave behind its ties to the State could do so at any time. He said that, should it be feasible to extend this right even to individuals, it would have to be done. You can find this in Liberalism, Chapter 3, Section 2:

http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp

Sure, we can call court systems and police systems a "state" if you'd like, and describe their proper functions as you have. The point is that Austrians think no coercion should be involved. This is as true for global warming and environmentalism as it is for health care, education, and roads. This is the weakness that I see in your position.

Published: March 14, 2007 12:11 PM
Al Gore

See Link; the rising pH of the oceans has already eaten a hole in the Atlantic's seabed. If we don't take action within the next year to stop CO2 emissions, the hole will be too big to plug and all the worlds water will slowly leak out.

Published: March 14, 2007 12:37 PM
TokyoTom

Yancey, thanks for the comments.

1. Size of problem: "You and others continuously refuse face up to the scope of the problem of changing from fossil fuels to alternatives." I totally agree with you on the size of problem - I continually refer to intractability and difficulty; where have I said that anything would be a cake-walk? We are looking at a long-term problem that it makes sense to get an early, gradual start on.

2. Europe: I draw a different lesson. Why would we expect the Europeans to behave anti-rationally and to accept costs that would undermine their competitiveness when the heaviest CO2 emitters are on the outside laughing?

3. Living standards: I am not advocating a program of reduced living standards, and if some are that does not mean we should simply stand by and let problems fester. As Yandle as pointed out, we actually increase our wealth by developing institutions (which need not be states) to manage commons, and our taking private, group, local, state and federal action to cope with pollution problems has certainly not reduced our welfare, despite consistent apocalyptic moaning from statist corporations.

BTW, I do agree that as to unowned or "public" resources that are defended by no one, markets do a great job of destroying wealth for private gain, while shifting costs to others. We are voracious, self-interested and short-sighted.

4. What should we do? It helps to face our problems. Given the size of the problem, doesn`t it make sense to be discussiong incremental measures such as those recommended by Nordhaus at Yale, and even Dr. Reisman here?

BTW, I just saw this by Tyler Cowen over at Cato Unbound this morning, what do you think?

"We need to recognize that some of the current threats to liberty are outside of the old categories. I worry about pandemics and natural disasters, as well as global warming and climate change more generally (it doesn’t have to be carbon-induced to be a problem). These developments are big threats to the liberty of many people in the world, although not necessarily Americans. The best answers to these problems don’t always lie on the old liberty/power spectrum in a simple way. Defining property rights in clean air, or in a regular climate, isn’t that easy and it probably cannot be done without significant state intervention of some kind or another.

"Yes, I know some of you are climate skeptics. But if the chance of mainstream science being right is only 20% (and assuredly it is much higher than that), we still have, in expected value terms, a massive tort. We don’t let people play involuntary Russian roulette on others with a probability of 17% (one bullet, six chambers), so we do need to worry about man-made global warming."

Published: March 14, 2007 8:10 PM
gamito

TT, did you or did you not watch the documentary being linked here? Did you see the NON correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the GREAT correlation between sun activity and temperature? Will you still think that man-made CO2 is going to fry us?

Published: March 15, 2007 12:05 AM
Scott D

"Yes, I know some of you are climate skeptics. But if the chance of mainstream science being right is only 20% (and assuredly it is much higher than that), we still have, in expected value terms, a massive tort. We don’t let people play involuntary Russian roulette on others with a probability of 17% (one bullet, six chambers), so we do need to worry about man-made global warming."

This just struck me as odd. That's like saying that the chance of price controls leading to shortages (as a general theory) is 56%. Either the science is sound or it isn't. Either the CO2 emitted by human activity is a significant factor in global average temperatures, or it isn't. Probability has nothing to do with it.

Published: March 15, 2007 1:27 AM
TokyoTom

gamito (and Niels, Walt, V, Francisco) - thanks for your question about the "Great Swindle" video.

1. Of course I've seen it, and since you've asked and half the posters here seem hung up on it, I'll address it, but first let me ask you the questions that I asked JH above:

"Perhaps you noticed that Dr. Reisman's thesis is premised on the following: 'If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them?' Dr. Reisman also notes that supposed gross benefits of warming may be unevenly offset by costs. Why don't we stay with his premises for purposes of analysis?"

If Dr. Reisman can make the stretch to actually begin to think about what policy implications might be entailed by climate change, can you as well - or does that entail too much effort?

2. Swindlers? Okay, you've seen a well-done screed parading as a documentary. Perhaps you care to read further - here are just a few links the shred the Ch4 screed; the first two have extensive informed commentary:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2032570,00.html

Read these and then tell me how accurate, balanced or fair you think the Ch4 video is.

While you're at it, let me point you to similar criticism of an "article" yesterday by William Broad in yesterday's NYT:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419. Please also see the other linked criticisms.

"Will you still think that man-made CO2 is going to fry us?" Sorry, but no one can do the heavy lifting for you, and I'm not going to wrestle with your sarcastic strawman. But you might enjoy this latest report by FOX News, linked here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/14/122052/207.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 15, 2007 2:04 AM
TokyoTom

Francisco, thanks for the note.

1. Surely you should have learned something from the response of the nation and Administration to 9/11 that hated and black-and-white portrayals of supposed enemies may be satisfying, but they are laughably shallow and lead us into all manner of stupidity - and very often so in ways that benefit manipulative elites.

The hatred and fear that fuelled our inept invasion of Iraq was intense and palpable - and what did it get us? Besides being tremendously counterproductive to resolving the very problem it was purportedly intended to solve, it's given us a field day for armchair warriors, unlimited cost-plus spending by the defense establishment ($500 billion totally outside normally appropriations and running at the tune of $150 million PER DAY) for an open-ended war, tremendous concentration of power in the White House, evisceration of important checks and balances, and a loss of civil liberties. That money is all going into the pockets of elites, at your cost, mine and our children's (since it has been largely borrowed).

But it sure FELT good, didn't it?!

Now I'm not sure what your position was on the war, but the least it should do is to help you realize how hatred and seeing others as EVIL is both (i) an predilection of the human mind (an evolutionary byproduct of the fact that man's most mortal enemy has been other men) that easily leads us astray and (ii) in these days of large states, easily manipulated by others for their personal gain.

One might also observe that the hallmark of this Administration has been the way it has sold fear and contempt for the purposes of power and to cower opposition - fear of ragheads, of fear of gays, fear of critics os all kinds, fear of the UN and fear of climate change green Nazi-Commie enviros and scientists. They point to conspiracies everywhere while robbing us blind. Think, man, think!

Yes, we need to be careful not to blindly swallow so-called panaceas that anyone is offering. But we should be trying to think clearly, which is a damned hard thing to do. Sorry, but in my view anyone whose focus on any debate on the EVIL of the other side is simply not thinking clearly.

2. "Commons". The atmosphere is an open-access resource and subject to all of the problems Hardin pointed out in the "tragedy of the Commons" paradigm. At low levels of use, the resource seems boundless, but as use increases users see that clearly that it is not and tha their use may have negative impacts. To avoid the tragedy of ruinous overexploitation, users find ways to work together either by jointly managing the resource (while excluding others), through developing private property institutions or statist regulation.

Recognizing that there is a problem does not dictate particular solutions, even in the case of climate change. Some links here if you care to chew:

http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/saleska/docs/Engel.Saleska05_subglobal_ELQ.pdf
http://www.issues.org/20.2/stewart.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+73

3. Nukes. I think that there is no doubt that reflexive antinuclearism has cost our environment plenty, and not chiefly in carbon but in the heavy metals, particulates, radioactivity and groundwater pollution stemming from use of coal. Why the reflexivity? An easy answer is simply distrust of large corporation and large government. I would think that right-thinking libertarians could get their heads around that. And there are plenty of enviros willing to rationally discuss, or even advocate, nuclear, which inescapably invoves a huge amount of government involvement, starting with the Price-Anderson Act liability caps: http://volokh.com/posts/1172634949.shtml

Regards,

Tom

Published: March 15, 2007 3:06 AM
TokyoTom

Dan, many thanks for the long (and non-hostile!)post. I hope it does not surprise you to know that I largely agree with you. That means that generally, at least conceptually, there ARE useful Austrian approaches to environmental problems.

However, why always disavow the state? Why shouldn't libertarians and conservatives be involved in pushing the state in the right directions, instead of simply screeching at block-headed enviros (while ignoring corporate rent-seeking)?

1. I think that Stephen Hayward at AEI has a great summary of the overall problem, even while he points out that many issues really do need attention:

"Slowly I have come to the view that the sweeping portentous language we hear from orthodox environmentalists ... 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 and repair behind gauzy bromides such as Al Gore’s call, in Earth in the Balance, for a "wrenching transformation" of society, or Gus Speth’s call, in Red Sky at Dawn, for "the most fundamental transition of all, a transition in culture and consciousness." These are not serious, thought-out views on what should be done--they are cries for help. This kind of rhetoric should be regarded clinically rather than philosophically.

"In other words, what this kind of Rousseauian language really represents is the limitation--one might even say the bankruptcy--of the conventional environmental imagination.
But this also means that conservatives 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."

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp

2. Fisheries. I agree with you. Fortunately, at least for domestic fisheries, we are fianlly starting to go in the right direction by moving to individual transferrable quotas. See Ron Bailey at Reason here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html
And Don Leal here: http://www.aims.ca/library/FencingTheFishery.pdf.

3. Courts: You yourself state that we should "Allow society to organize itself so that courts recognize property rights and invasion". What are courts, except instruments of coercion? Perhaps I need to do more reading on what some Austrians think, but in the context of environmental issues I've seen plenty of acknowledgement that courts play an important role:

Rothbard: http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
Walter Block: http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf
Yandle (fish/air/water): http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml
Cordato/Adler et al. in the context of climate change:
www.perc.org/pdf/mar05.pdf (pp. 5-11)

Rgeards,

TT

Published: March 15, 2007 4:35 AM
TokyoTom

Scott, here's the link to Cowen's comments:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/11/tyler-cowen/the-paradox-of-libertarianism/.

You say: "Either the science is sound or it isn't. Either the CO2 emitted by human activity is a significant factor in global average temperatures, or it isn't. Probability has nothing to do with it."

But I disagree - we make personal and political decisions all the time on the basis of the imperect information we have available to us about the future - what to wear, whether to buckle our seatbelts (or make our children), purchase insurance, drill an exploratory well, invest in ski lifts or water slides, invade a foreign country, put in a tsunami warning system, monitor volcanoes, build for the possibility of earthquakes or floods, etc.

Published: March 15, 2007 4:46 AM
Yancey Ward

From Tokyo Tom:

Why would we expect the Europeans to behave anti-rationally and to accept costs that would undermine their competitiveness when the heaviest CO2 emitters are on the outside laughing

Why? I don't know, Tom, perhaps it is because the said they would, signed and ratified a treaty verifying this intention, and are spectacularly failing to meet even the modest goals of the Kyoto Protocol. The proper lesson to take away from this example is that, as you implicitly stated in the quote above, significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions today is economic suicide.

We will have to find alternatives in the future, but that will occur when the fossil fuels can no longer supply our increased energy requirements. I support carbon taxes, properly assessed, and with the entire revenues distributed on a per capita basis, as a way to spur the beginnings of this eventual switchover, but I can never support cap and trade or carbon taxes used to fund more government activities. However, I don't see even this happening in a significant way, and ten years from now, when the weather is not noticeably different than today's weather, the entire issue will begin to fade away because your side has been overselling the doom and gloom scenarios, as some of the scientists involved are already beginning to acknowledge.

Published: March 15, 2007 9:22 AM
Gamito

TT, do you ever read those links you place?

First one:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

"Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. [Huh????] The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small.[But they can??? You mean since it is small, it is not there, or what do you mean???] The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more."

Of course there is NO feedback! What, these guys have never heard of hysteresis? Do they really think there is no correlation between the increase of temperature and the RELEASE of CO2 from the sea? How do they explain the rise of CO2 and then the REDUCTION of temperature, in the lag?

Second link, from Dr. Carl Wunsch:

"I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future. [Gee, you think???]"

Mr. Wunsch criticized the documentary for taking his words out of context. Did they really? He explains the carbon cycle of the ocean - how an increase in temperature increases the release of CO2 from the ocean, much like fizzy water behaves when hot. When the ocean cools, the ocean can ABSORB more CO2. This explains the lag between temperature and CO2 PERFECTLY, because as the temperature rises, the ocean releases more CO2 but only after a long time (since the ocean is HUGE, it has what we engineers call a lot of Thermal Inertia). When temperature lowers, the ocean is able to dissolve CO2 from the atmosphere, again after a long time due to its thermal inertia.

So in this case, the documentary only showed THE SCIENCE behind CO2 absorption and release, and was NOT concerned about the good doctor's preoccupation with man-made CO2, as it should since it was entirely irrelevant.

Third link (this is the most fascinating):
"Scientists [Which ones????] have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ [???????] the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

"The Sun's contribution is negligible". Really? You mean that big thermonuclear furnace in the sky??? Pshaw, a mere candle, compared to Man-Made Climate. We humans are omnipotent, it seems.

The other part is interesting:

From RealClimate:

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend.

Gee, these guys just stood the concept of "lag" on its head. If you have an 800 year lag, and the CO2 leves rise at the same S-P-E-E-D (rate) as the Temperature, you DO NOT HAVE A CORRELATION! You have the temperature LEADING the CO2, not the CO2 "feedbacking" the temperature.

The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

Right. More CO2 DUE to temperature, ergo, CO2 provoked the temperature! Talk about a Post Hic, ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

So basically, at some time, the temperature magically started to rise, but then the CO2 said "Hey, wait for me!" and rised the temperature more than the phenomenon that kick-started it in the first place.

So, now we know thanks to TT and his links, that the sun is NOT the MAIN contributor of climate and temperature on this Earth, but that CO2 and Big Bad humans are.

Did teh documentary shoehorn a couple of facts? You bet they did! Starting with that 1940-1970 temperature chart Did realclimate do the same just to attack the documentary? You betcha! And they will continue to shoehorn the evidence even more, just to prove the unprovable.

To prove it, consider that the documentary did nothing DIFFERENT that what the Global Warming doomsayers have been doing for years: Take an extraordinary event and convert it into a "trend". Remember the year of Katrina? Everyone in the media was asking "Did Global Warming did this?" It is the same thing.

Thanks for the links, TT. They were surely hilarious.

Oh, by the way, you did not answer my question - why do enviros hate nuclear power so much? It is zero-carbon, yet they oppose its use.

Published: March 15, 2007 10:31 AM
Gamito

Sorry, it is Post hoc, ergo Propter Hoc

Published: March 15, 2007 10:34 AM
Gamito

This person commented about the Guardian article linked by TT, in regards to the commentary by George Moniont:

"Which raises the further question of why, if such a warming/CO2 increase/more warming cycle had been established, during those periods, the climate did not just carry on warming until everything on the planet was burnt to a crisp."

This is a good question. Consider for example the temperature graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Why don't we see a steady increase of temperature from the last Ice Age, if CO2 is this great and powerful temperature engine? The comment in my last post, made by "scientists", that on 5/6 of the time between the Ice Age, and today, CO2 should account for the temperature increase, does not explain either the Temp. fluctuations, nor the Little Ice Age, or the warming period of 700-1200.

See, for example, that at those points where the temp. is high, the CO2 levels are high. Why, then, does the temperature DROP after a few thousand years? Should not the CO2 trap enough heat for this NOT to happen??

The explanation for the Ice Ages is that the Earth rotational axis shifts and tumbles as it travels around the sun. This is fine, but once applying the CO2 as heat trap hypothesis, the explanation begs the question - why does it not the CO2 trap enough heat to compensate for these tumbles? So either CO2 affects temperature dramatically, or it does not.

Published: March 15, 2007 10:54 AM
Gamito

"you DO NOT HAVE A CORRELATION!"

Sorry, meant to say: You do not have a CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature, but a lagging correlation beteen increasing temperature and CO2.

Published: March 15, 2007 12:15 PM
Mark Humphrey

Gamito's comments are interesting, informative, and unusually illuminating. While I lack a background in science, I have done some reading about the global warming science. I'm interested, not just because of my opposition to socialism, but because I'm involved in farming and ranching in the northernmost lattitude of continental US. I've concluded that the case for anthropological warming is green politics masquerading as science, although I fervently wish we could look forward to warming temperatures, longer growing seasons, rising crop yields, and....more money.

The global warming hypothesis seems riddled with logical problems, and--even conceding my own ignorance about a lot of this--a fundamental implausibility. For example, that the historical record apparently demonstrates temperature changes leading co2 changes is an obvious red flag, as is the fact that the ocean is a co2 sink. So, as earth emerged from the Little Ice Age temperature trough of 500 years ago, the oceans warmed and eventually co2 levels began to respond. Another possibility that might contribute to rising co2 releases from the ocean is the phenomena of (apparently) rising volcanic activity, 2/3 of which is submarine. Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of carbon, as illustrated by a large blowoff in the Phillipines in '92 that apparently released as much co2 as all of human activity over the preceeding century!There exists a long submarine mountain chain some ways south of the north polar ice cap that has been recently discovered to be highly active. Since volcanic basalt is around 3,000 degrees Farenheit, a large area of such heating might account for Greenland and Polar ice caps melting around their perimeter, although growing thicker from above due to rising levels of precipitation. Meanwhile, most of the Antarctic Continent hosts thickening ice.

Another global warming hypothetical implausibility
involves the ratio, by volume, of co2 and that giant gorrila, water vapor. By volume, co2 accounts for about 2% of total greenhouse gases; water vapor for roughly 97% or 98%. A famous Polish climatologist, whose last name is (approximately) Jarowaski, explained in an article a few years ago that due to this lopsided ratio, a 1% increase in water vapor, which is to say, in cloudiness, would offset a doubling of co2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. That is, increased cloud cover blocks incoming solar heat from entering our lower atmosphere, thereby offsetting the heat trapping effects of more co2.

Another source of the hypothetical implausibility of global warming is the tiny portion of total greenhouse gases for which man is responsible, at least based on my reading to date. My understanding is man kicks in roughly 5% of total co2 emissions, while Mother Nature contributes about 95%, mostly through volcanic eruptions.

Still another implausibility about the notion that man is delivering himself into the Valley of the Shadow of Death is revealed by a cursory reading of geological and climatelogical history. Whenever earth undergoes a major ice age, once every 10,000 years or so, all hell literally breaks loose, featuring massive species extinctions, massively rising and preciptously plummeting ocean levels, mountains that literally walk across the landscape or rise like steaming monsters from the seas, huge and violent precipitation events that might bring 100 feet of snowfall in a few days, colossal volcanic activity, and more--any part of which would likely dampen one's Carribean Ocean cruise. Moreover, recent science has proven that climate changes are sudden and violent--say 2 to 20 years--rather than benign and slow moving over, say, 2,000 years. In fact, ocean fossils have been discovered in lakes atop 10,000 foot Andean Mountain peaks.

In light of such violent and natural unpleasantness, I find it difficult to believe that man's activities will alter the course of climatic events in the slightest. I am much more worried about the prospect of an approaching miniature ice age, based on fluctuations in solar magnetic activity.

I'm about to begin reading "The Manic Sun", a book authored by the nefarious Danish scientist who is pilloried and skewered in the Guardian article linked in TT's post above. I hope the thesis of approaching little ice age is mistaken, but I doubt that taking the word of Guardian on this subject would be advisable.

Finally, Dr. Reisman's central point that whatever the side effects of man's heroic productive achievments, the solution is capitalism and individual liberty, not enslavement to the state with its guaranteed outcome of endless poverty and murder.

Published: March 15, 2007 4:14 PM
Mark Humphrey

Chris, the "Chilling Stars", which I have not read, was published a few years ago. It presented Friis-Christenson's and Svenmark's prelimminary science on the subject. The "Manic Sun" is an updated explanation of the science, in light of subsequent discoveries, including that gamma rays that penetrate the earth's magnetic shield during cyclical minimums of solar activity, create ionized particles around which water vapor droplets form. When the "Chilling Stars" was published, skeptics challenged the new idea that water droplets that make clouds could form around ionized particles. The Danish boys then proved, under laboratory conditions, that this phenomenon is, in fact, possible. They also tried to prove that predictable cycles of solar activity, lasting from a few to many years, correlated almost perfectly with past climate shifts from warming to cooling.

I read the Guardian article yesterday, so I am well aware that the piece characterises the Danish Boys as churlish and dishonest Deniers and Twisters of the Received Wisdom. Forgive me, but I'm skeptical of the sweeping Guardian dismissal of discoveries that other scientists whom I have read have characterized as important, even momentuous. So I'll investigate for myself if the Guardian's unfootnoted references actually do constitute sound refutation of this attempt at scientific understanding.

The reason that I do not take the criticism of the Guardian at face value, is because this is an issue that is emotionally and politically charged, to put it mildly. Tax dollars fund or subsidize funding for most research these days; and the governments of the USA and Europe have poured an ocean of many billions of tax dollars into promoting this crusade so warmly favored by political elites. So the idea that the editors of Nature, or National Geographic, or Science would be somehow immune to the pull of this Great Crusade is naive.(Some might even call it
"Denial".) And so, the idea that a left-wing green writing for THE GUARDIAN(!) would be a reliable source of advice on this subject is really pretty ridiculous--especially in light the Left's long and documented history of shameless lying.

Published: March 15, 2007 6:01 PM
Peter

Sorry, it is Post hoc, ergo Propter Hoc

Minus the capitalization. But I rather liked your original version; "post hic", as in "after the booze-up"

Published: March 15, 2007 8:23 PM
Mark Humphrey

My reference to "gamma rays" penetrating the earth's magnetic shield is incorrect. Cosmic rays penetrate the shield and form ionized particles around which water droplets form.

Published: March 15, 2007 9:03 PM
TokyoTom

Yancey, thanks for your note.
I support carbon taxes, properly assessed, and with the entire revenues distributed on a per capita basis, as a way to spur the beginnings of this eventual switchover, but I can never support cap and trade or carbon taxes used to fund more government activities.
Good for you, Yancey. That's rather gutsy, especially here. Sione, have you noticed that I'm not the only evil person here?

I have a different takeaway from the EU noncompliance with Kyoto, and one that's quite understandable given that the atmosphere is a commons establishing effective climate change policy (other than domestic no-regrets measures such as eliminating energy subsidies) is a multiplayer game that must include the US. Given that the US played a lead role in drafting the treaty, signed it, and the high level of participation set before the treaty would become binding - the Europeans and others did not think that they would have legal obligations until the US joined. When the US dropped out, but the treaty became effective due to a desire by Russia to pick up free payments (selling credits because its own emissions had tanked), the Europeans did what makes perfect sense - they found ways to avoid doing any heavy lifting at home by overallocating emissions credits.

Noncompliance with Kyoto - a very flawed treaty - does nothing to show that "significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions today is economic suicide." However, please understand that no one with any understanding is really advocating or expecting "significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions today" - just getting started gradually.

My "side"? I'm in the middle. My mission here is to make sure Miseseans don't just stay at home while an important policy discussion is underway.

Regards,

Tom

Published: March 16, 2007 2:53 AM
gene berman

Maybe it's just me--but I get instantly suspicious of people like "Stormy" who talk a blue streak in technical terms about complex systems and interactions, sort of "If you can't beat 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit!"

Especially when he starts off equating "increasing
pH" with "acidification." These are exactly opposite phenomena: from a neutral pH of 7, any rise is "alkanization" ("acidification" would entail a lowering of pH). Learned that about 60 years ago and don't think they changed it on me. Surprised that some of the smart fellers here hadn't picked up on that blooper.

Someone may intercede--it's just a slip, a momentary, innocent, and innocuous mistake. Mebbeso. But no more than the difference between
"the sky is falling" and "it ain't." When you're dealing with scientific stuff, you've gotta watch your "Ps and Qs" and especially your plusses and minuses. And, if you don't, you ought'nt be surprised if the harder-headed and harder-nosed dismiss everything else you say as a bagful of flatulence.

Me?--I'd say the weather is always changing a bit but it's mostly pretty much the same stuff. Learned that--mostly--by just lookin' out the window for 70 years. I'm just a little bit surprised that nobody's claiming that "Global Warming" is a right-wing conspiracy--after all, ain't Bush's initials "GW?" Oughtta be a tip-off!

Published: March 16, 2007 6:45 AM
TokyoTom

For those of you who like being "Swindled", here's a small tidbit: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece
"In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt. ...

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Christensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed .... Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” "

Durkin's pithy response is noted above.

The whole exchange can be seen on the web site of MIT's Dr. Carl Wunsch, who provided hours of taped commentary for the program and is considering suing Durkin for his cherry-picking misrepresentations: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails.htm.

The exchange has a few other interesting bits, such as these from Dr. Leroi:

"Now, I am no climate scientist -- but I can read these graphs; there's nothing complicated about them. And what Laut has to say is shocking and convincing (see attached summary article but there's also a much longer, and much more damning, technical article). He says that Friis-Christensen repeatedly engaged in "unacceptable handling of observational data". To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked, for they were wrong in several different ways. And if you correct the data, the correlation in recent years goes away.

"Fascinatingly, Laut points out that Friis-Christensen's data, far from having been suppressed, have received widespread media coverage (and they've been cited over 300 times in the scientific literature). Indeed, in 2001, Friis-Christensen and colleagues were the subject of a Danish TV doc in "The Climate Conflict", which presented them as an "ingenious mavericks who...now fight a scientific establishment represented by the IPCC." "

I do think that Dr. Wunsch is worth reading on how he was "Swindled": http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417

Published: March 16, 2007 6:50 AM
TokyoTom

Mark, the real difficulty is that for most of us, climate change is not tangible, and so our mental maps of the world are not easily tested for how well they conform to reality. And so we could better pass on our genes, evolution has made us cognitive misers, with built-in filters to block out wierd s**t that doesn't fit in with the map we've gradually built up an invested in.

But you gotta perhaps wonder when not merely practically the whole scientific establishment, from the AAAS to the NAS to the American Geophysical Union and foreign academies of science from hell to breakfast all think that there's a serious issue, with Lomborg to boot, but also committed libertarian climate change skeptics like Ron Bailey change their mind. Even Dr. Reisman is willing to throw his hands up in the face of this and start discussing policy.

But beyond that, it is indisputed that CO2 is greenhouse gas, that we are hell-bent on liberating all of it from fossil fuel deposits, that this is having a dramatic effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, and that the physical world around us is indeed changing: the Arctic is melting, as Dr. Reisman acknowledges, the Great Lakes no longer freeze, N Hemisphere growing seasons are starting markedly sooner, and we are getting more frequent heavy precipitation events.

No, we don't know everything yet - and we never will. And yes, I'd like to pare government back too. But we know that this is a classic tragedy of the commons problem, with no private property rights in sight. So why don't we be good Austrians, like Dr. Reisman, and start thinking about what policies - if we are to even touch the levers of government - make sense. Yancey has one proposal above. Care to discuss it?

Published: March 16, 2007 7:12 AM
TokyoTom

Gamito, I call and raise you Exxon, Stephen Hawking, Lomborg and Ron Bailey.

Now do you at all care to take up Dr. Reisman's invitation to discuss economics and p o l i c y?

Published: March 16, 2007 7:16 AM
Dan Coleman

TT,

The flaw that I see in your thinking is that you only ascribe "policy" status to people who are talking specific government-mandated steps to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Then, you keep pushing discussion toward "policy" and steer away from general Austrian theory. All of this, I assume, is in the name of being practical or realistic, or some other like virtue that you see present in the mainstream global warming debate but not in Austrians.

You must understand that for a libertarian this kind of thinking would be both a strategic and a tactical error.

Most fundamentally, you make the mistake of granting State-supporters a few presuppositions before starting the conversation. To grant that we find ourselves naturally and inextricably living in commons, for example, is to allow unchecked the idea that government is essential in dictating how we ought to live. After all, if we can't find, determine, and enforce property rights in the air, how else would such matters be settled?

To you, it seems obvious that government is our means for steering human action with respect to climate change, whether we like it or not. Thus, the question isn't, "Should the government(s) regulate the nation(s)' general industry and development, with the intention of avoiding some global catastrophe?", but rather, "How will the government(s) regulate the nation(s)' general industry etc. . . "

Using this starting point, your attempts seem to be to bring Austrians up to that level of discussion. Yet at that point, i.e. once we have granted several flawed assumptions, what principles are the Austrians left with to use in a debate?

So please save your rationale that you are trying to motivate Austrians to some positive action for a different audience. It is clear that you have entered the debate with some presuppositions that you are unwilling to test, modify, or drop, and so we can predict how fruitless this "debate" is going to be. Your position as an agitator is no more noble than that of Dr. Reisman continually pointing out the flaws in environmentalists' thinking.

It is not very hard to find libertarians' public policy recommendations that will help solve social problems. Global warming, climate change, and the tragedy of living in an atmospheric commons are no exceptions. That you appear to be so well read in the global warming debate, and yet seem to ignore the entirety of libertarian writing on the subject, baffles me.

Published: March 16, 2007 8:01 AM
Gamito

If you think about it, why should believing that certain specific human activities cause environmental damage automatically make someone a socialist?

No, it does not. What it does is question the sanity behind such allegations. For instance, that crass dismissal of the most powerful of all climate engines for this earth - the Sun - makes me think the so-called "scientists" are shoehorning evidence to fit an already established mindset that man HAS to be (HAS-TO-BE) the perpetrator here. So no, I do not think alledging that man is altering climate is akin to being a socialist... it is akin, however, to being a crank and a mountebank.

Published: March 16, 2007 11:05 AM
Francisco Torres

3. Nukes. I think that there is no doubt that reflexive antinuclearism has cost our environment plenty [...] Why the reflexivity? An easy answer is simply distrust of large corporation and large government.

Uh, it is not an easy answer, it begs the question: Enviros distrust the government and large corporations, yet they trust them enough to deliver "carbon credits" and wind turbines? Nah, I do not think so.

And there are plenty of enviros willing to rationally discuss, or even advocate, nuclear, which inescapably invoves a huge amount of government involvement, starting with the Price-Anderson Act liability caps: http://volokh.com/posts/1172634949.shtml

"Huge amount of government involvement" is what started the problem in the first place. You are not answering the question. There are plenty of environmentalists willing to "discuss" about use of nuclear energy? So, what, they own us now? Do you realize how conceited that sounds?

Really, you still have not got the concept of liberty yet, TT - nobody has the right to dictate to YOU or ME how our energy is going to be generated. As long as we do no harm to others (and HARM implies demonstrable and factual, not fuzzy or mythical), each of us has the right to prefer and buy nuclear-generated electricity from whoever wants to provide it. It seems easy for you to accept in such sickening and pusillanimous way that OTHERS dictate our lives (the proof is in the nonchalant way you write on such matters). But let it be reminded to you that others like me are not willing to aquiesce in such manner just because a few cranks wish it.

Published: March 16, 2007 11:48 AM
Kevin B.

"Considering it is the position held by the overwhelming majority of people who hold a position on this.."

This is the same majority who, when asked about the facts, will answer that they point to Lincoln having been a fantastic president. In 30 years they'll probably be praising Bush for fighting terrorism. Cranks? Maybe. Foolish? Definitely.

Thank God they can add and subtract.

Published: March 16, 2007 2:01 PM
Kevin B.

Chris,

I'm sorry. I should have been more to the point:

Do not assume that if you are in the majority then you are more likely to be correct. The majority of people are quite foolish, but at least they can add and subtract.

crank - an unbalanced person who is overzealous in the advocacy of a private cause

I believe many global warming alarmists fit this bill.

Published: March 16, 2007 2:28 PM
Kevin B.

Chris,

"talk of "cranks" came up when I put forward the mainstream view"

Incorrect. Collectivist cranks were discussed before you joined the conversation.

The meaning of the word "crank" isn't necessarily mean the minority. The world can be full of cranks, unbalanced people who are overzealous in the advocacy of their private causes. The US is full of them. Would you disagree?

Published: March 16, 2007 3:08 PM
Kevin B.

*doesn't*

Published: March 16, 2007 3:11 PM
Francisco Torres

Considering it is the position held by the overwhelming majority of people who hold a position on this, as well as by most climate scientists [...]

Science does not work by concensus, Chris, but by workable/testable theories. The concensus at one time was that the earth was the center of the known universe. The consensus at one time was that there could not be a vacuum. The concensus at one time was that PLATE TECTONICS was impossible. The consensus at one time was that Natural Selection was bunk (some still think so). But the OBSERVABLE evidence was enough to create paradigm shifts.

Global Warming by Human Action theory, however, rests not on science but on a series of assumptions that have little to do with science. First, that CO2 is the main contribuitor to heat in the atmosphere (this is incorrect: it is the Sun); second, that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (false, it is WATER VAPOUR). Third, that humans are dumping so much gas, that the temperature is rising because of it (the risk here is that the hypothesis suffers from Post hoc reasoning), AND, that at the current rates of economic growth, the amount of CO2 will be such that we will all be extra-crispy. This last part is the predictive part of the theory, which until now, has failed to materialize in any way except in computer models... and since computers are SOOOOO GOOOOD at predicting the weather, well...

The theory not only ails of shaky science, it also ails of poor economic thinking - it simply is absurd to think that humans will continuously do the VERY SAME THING these years to come, without ANY sort of invention or change. This is the worst part of the prediction, the lack of economic understanding. This tells of a crass disregard for human ingenuity and love for improvement. This tells ME as well that the GW proponents could care less about the welfare of human beings.

I think you've just attempted to change the meaning of the word "crank," which is kind of ironic.

The word is being used exactly as the definition implies.

Published: March 16, 2007 3:36 PM
Mark Humphrey

Tom, No rudeness intended, you're obviously a bright well-read man, but it is difficult to take your comments seriously. For example, you lecture Professor Reisman on proper application of Austrian economic insights, seemingly detached from the reality that Reisman wrote the 1,000 page masterpiece "Capitalism". I know no one, incuding Reisman, is omniscient, but still...

Similarly, your posting of the damning indictments
of Svensmark and Riis-Christensen is unpersuasive. None of us has read their book "The Chilling Stars", which directly challenges the anthropological global warming hypothesis and presents new thinking that should be interesting. Forgive me, but I get the impression that the inspiration for this virulent denunciation of the authors--both their ideas AND their ethics--reflects fear of where those ideas might lead. Anyone who has ever persisted in his pursuit of understanding out-of-favor ideas knows of the ease with which a critic, supported by a large cheering crowd, can launch a seemingly airtight indictment of an unpopular thinker. If onlookers lack access to crucial facts and understanding, a characterization that at this point I think applies to most of us, how easy it is to fall for the sophistry of charletans. There will be plenty of time to assess whether or not The ideas in the Chilling Stars have merit. The same thought applies to the accusations now being hurled at the much maligned producer of the "Great Global Warming Swindle".

You express kind concern that I resist the Dazzling Light of Conversion on global warming, even as reasonable people from all points on the ideological spectrum supposedly embrace the inevitable and begin to "discuss policy." But, I'm not persuaded, as you seem to be, by what most other people think. I know all about pollution as invasive of properly defined property rights and the tragedy of the commons. Reisman's point is not that global warming is probably caused by man, but that even if this were true, the "solutions" demanded by the Enlightened among us would be toxic to human well-being.

As other commentators on this thread have observed, the science supportinhg the hypothesis of global warming is partly unproven conjecture, and partly missanthropic Green ideology. This thread is bulging with intelligent points about unproven conjecture, so there's no further need to go there. As to Green ideology, this world view reduces to a crude and primitive ethos: man is wicked, untouched nature is "good", therefore man's productive activity is shameful, and threatens nature's supposedly "precarious balance". If global warming turns out to be a dud, if the earth moves into, say, an ice age, then I guarantee you the Greens will blame mankind.

Chris, as you pointed out, I had my book titles confused. "The Manic Sun, which I have not read, is by another author--a writer on science--and was published a few years ago. I seem to recall reading an article by its author recently, who explained that the book discussed the Solar Activity theory of Svensmark and Riis-Christensen. I'll have my copy of the Chilling Stars in about two weeks, which--to me, at least--falls under the heading of imminent.

Published: March 16, 2007 5:22 PM
Mark Humphrey

Chris, I am in your debt for straigtening me out on this important point. Now I understand how I confused the two titles, having recently read an article by "another author", Nigel Calder.

Many thanks!

Published: March 16, 2007 6:33 PM
Vince Daliessio

As someone WITH a science background, I only have one comment; Correlation is not Causation. I don't have time to wade though all the work that has been done on climate.

I DO know one thing about climate change - it is an EXCELLENT warhorse for regulatory capture by the dominant players in the soon-to-be-regulated industries, and for that reason it will NOT reduce CO2 emissions, only re-apportion them among the already-dominant major energy players while institutionalizing their power and market share. As a cartellization strategy, it has no equal.

Any sort of emissions-trading or control scheme is invariably reduced to a few fatcats trading privileges with each other in a conspiracy to keep out pesky competition from smaller, faster, more innovative firms. If we let this nonsense continue, we will be locked into an archaic, technologically backward, corrupt oligopoly on a worldwide scale. There will be no progress on the environment once this happens.

Really though, a real property-rights regime, (where all property is either owned or capable of being homesteaded or usufruct by a private owner) would rapidly eliminate any threat from CO2, real or imaginary.

In a true property-rights regime, just as with any other pollution, any emission of CO2 beyond personal respiration would theoretically be a tortious trespass against the property or body of another. It is my opinion that Rothbard himself would support such a system as adjudicated through private courts or dispute-resolution organizations.

In practice, small CO2 producers would spend very little time in courts, while large producers would more or less continuously attend sessions in which they would be shown to have tortiously damaged others and made to pay restitution.

Very quickly however, the practice of burning large amounts of hydrocarbon fuel for electricity would decline dramatically, replaced by 3rd or 4th generation inherently safe nukes of every imaginable size, as well as solar, wind, geothermal, and every other form of power imaginable. It will not require any government intervention at all - indeed, government will need to disappear completely for this to occur. It will be a completely economic solution, because it is based entirely on private-property rights.

The world cannot escape the consequences of economics. Either we realize this, and fundamentally change the current neo-fascist/ socialist / statist model, or else we bind ourselves with regulatory chains in perpetuity for the good of the powerful and at the expense of everyone else. There isn't a middle way.

Every policy the global warming claque suggests will never achieve the intended effect, but because the time horizon for measurement is so vast, there won't even be anyone alive who will be able to point this out. It's a brilliant coup for the corporate statists of the world, who will, after an esoteric "debate", gain control of virtually everything and never have to show any benefit!

Published: March 16, 2007 11:16 PM
N. Joseph Potts

Stormy:
You say: "Motivation has no bearing on scientific fact." True enough, but being mortal, we are unfortunately denied the knowledge of complete truth - forever. What we are left with - the best we can do (and about as often, the worst) - is scientific FINDING. Stabs, if you will, at whatever the full truth of a matter really is.

And this, I fear no contradiction in saying, is the direct outgrowth of motivation. Theirs, ours, mine, and yours.

If you don't think so, you're not being scientific. If you don't admit it, you're not being honest.

Published: March 16, 2007 11:34 PM
Francisco Torres

"I just think that simply dismissing the science out is not a reasonable move."

Chris, it is not so much the science as the normative policies that stem from it, even if the science was good. The recommendations are either preposterous (like the "carbon credits" idea, which will rapidly become just another form of market barrier for many upstart, smaller companies) or downright criminal, like denying poor countries the possibility of economic progress through industrial production or not allowing them the truly workable technologies, like nuclear energy (remember Iran???)

Published: March 16, 2007 11:55 PM
TokyoTom

Dan, thanks for your note - but it seems to me that you have been reading what I`ve written, but simply what fits with your own preconceptions. Yes, I know, we all do this.

1. "you keep pushing discussion toward "policy" and steer away from general Austrian theory."

I am aware of what the wheel is - I have been asking what happens when it hits the road - in other words, how readers here think general Austrian theory applies to understanding climate change and what we/government should do about it, if anything at all.

Instead, I am disappointed that the reflexive reaction here is simply to deny that there is any problem to discuss at all, to denigrate and cast aspersions, ignore existing rent-seeking, and to fail to acknowledge the roots of the problem in lack of clear and enforceable property rights.

2. "To grant that we find ourselves naturally and inextricably living in commons, for example, is to allow unchecked the idea that government is essential in dictating how we ought to live."

I fail to see how acknowledging that we find ourselves naturally and inextricably living in commons, allows unchecked the idea that government is essential in dictating how we ought to live - I certainly don`t see a necessary linkage, and see many cases where government simply gets in the way and makes thing worse for the benefit of the politically powerful (this is the Austrian explanation for the rise of environmentalism BTW). I have linked a number of times to Bruce Yandle, Terry Anderson and others on how civilization is all about how we find ways to deal with commons - and the lesson isn`t that we ignore them.

I don`t see that we need the government regulating the internet, BTW, which is a commons.

3. "To you, it seems obvious that government is our means for steering human action with respect to climate change, whether we like it or not."

It may seem obvious to you that that`s what I think, but I haven`t been insisting on anything. I am very interested in hearing Austrians explain just how purely private actions can effectively address this global commons failure.

4. It is not very hard to find libertarians' public policy recommendations that will help solve social problems.

Yes, but it is very difficult to get them to say anything about climate change which is not a sheer dodge. If they had the confidence of their principles, they`d forthrightly acknowledge they understand the institutinal underpinnings of the problem, explain the reasons why they think government is not a solution but just more of the same - rent-seeking by the powerful and shrieking by those with the short stick - and offer directions for policy that would improve the situtation (eliminating energy subsidies, etc.)

Instead we usually get denial and name-calling. Sometimes we get really wierd, statist proposals, such as those by Dr. Reisman here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp#comments

Enough with the whining - got the nerve do anything besides parroting back basic principles?

Regards,

TT

Published: March 17, 2007 5:00 AM
TokyoTom

Gamito, afraid YOU never asked me why enviros hate nuclear power, but if you read more closely you`ll see that I had responded earlier to FRANCISCO.

BTW, has Francisco granted you rights to use his patented phrase, a "crank and mountebank"?

Or is there more here than meets the eye, but is readily inferred?

As to science, I`ve already spent a year here through thoroughly discussing it, as others can attest. You can Google those discussions or find most of them by clicking on Dr. Reisman`s other posts. But if you are really interested in having your questions answered, why don`t you pose them at RealClimate, ClimateAudit and Roger Pielke Sr`s http://climatesci.colorado.edu/?

And are you unwilling to take up Dr. Reisman`s invitation to discuss Austrian policy prescriptions?

Published: March 17, 2007 5:36 AM
TokyoTom

Francisco:

Calm down man, get a grip and then maybe you`ll be able to respond to what I write instead of the demons that are haunting you.

I agree that many on the left have a reflexive and irrational dislike of nukes. That might make them stupid, but it doesn`t make all of them evil. Nor does it necessarily make them all wrong - I`ll bet there are many here who don`t like the government involvement in nuclear power. And many are starting to reconsider in light of climate change.

I do think that distrust of big government and big corporations has alot to do with distrust of nukes - on top of theb irrational fears about radiation. Can`t you see the difference between nukes and wind power? And on "carbon credits", I think most people in favor of government actoin just want something done that shifts the market and haven`t seriously consider exactly WHAT should be done. That what could be as a substitution of carbon taxes for income taxes, as Yancey supports.

Spare me the crap about conceit, Francisco - do you know how hysterical YOU sound? My intention was to show that there is no monolithic opposition to nukes, even among evil "enviros". These people don`t run our government and don`t "dictate" anything to us. Those who do that have alot more money and influence in Washington and Wall Street - you sure seem to eb willing to acquiesce to those folks, though, despite the fact that their ripping us off blind.

Cranks and mountebanks everywhere, Francisco.

Published: March 17, 2007 5:58 AM
Daniel Coleman

TT, please. If you can't find libertarian views that are policy-specific then you aren't looking. Spare me the parrot talk and challenge to my "courage" -- you're only proving my point.

It's a lovely Saturday where I am. I'm going to enjoy it by spending the day reading. If you do the same with an eye for libertarian / environmental literature, you'll get everything out of it that you were hoping to find (or ridicule the absence of) in these comment threads.

My guess, though, is that you prefer posturing as victor to finding answers. Whatever floats your boat.

Published: March 17, 2007 9:07 AM
Mark Humphrey

To Vince Daliessio: Your observation that dumping of one's waste on another's property--i.e. pollution--is correct, of course. But I question some of the conclusions you've derived from that observation.

To sue another to collect damages would require two pre-conditions. First, the unhappy plaintiff must demonstrate that his rights were violated, which means that the plaintiff must prove that some pollutant had been dumped by another within the boundaries of the plaintiff's property. If the Plaintiff owned a house in Detroit, or a ranch in Wyoming, and if he thought another had spoiled the atmosphere within his boundaries and skyward for some reasonably defined legal limit, then he could haul the defendent into court.

But, of course, this raises an interesting question: what is a reasonable boundary limitation skyward? It's not clear that the limit extends endlessly to the heavens, for one acquires property through use, and through demarcating boundaries. Of what use is the air 200 feet above one's house or other property? If you posit some indefinte right to unobstructed sunlight, or blue sky, or some other vaguely subjective value, what would be the distinction between these air rights and, for example, one's "right" to permanently unobstructed views, or to absolute peace and quiet, or to the right to exercise one's horses and dogs, or to hunt and fish, on unhomesteaded acreages surrounding one's fenced homestead farm? I submit that, just as unhomesteaded acreage surrounding one's wildnerness farm is unowned, so is the greatest part of the sky above one's house or ranch.

Consequently, I doubt that except for air immediately over one's property, that one has a right to the airspace over one's property. If true, then the right to sue a coal company or electrical utility for providing the fuel that heats homes and powers industries would be pretty limited. How much damage would a slight or even large increase in co2 inflict on the air quality of one's 20 acre suburban home, or 20,000 acre ranch? Less than the damage imposed by the neighbor's barbecue?

This leads into the second pre-condition for successfully using the courts to force another to restrict his activities to suit one's personal tastes: proving damages. Where is the evidence that co2 damages anyone? No one has proven that co2 causes global warming. On the other hand, evidence does exist that co2 has supplied big benefits to various other property owners. Since 1982, plant growth on earth has increased, as I recall, by about 7%--an increase attributable in part to increasing co2 plant nutrition.

And finally, what is the source of your enthusiasm for wind and solar power? Neither is competitive with other forms of energy production, for obvious reasons: they cost multiples per KWH of the costs paid for coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power generation. I'm sure you're aware that these "sustainable" forms of power generation exist today primarily because of coercive mandates imposed on electrical utilities, and taxpayer subsidies extended to wind and solar.

One last thought. Because coal/oil affords much cheaper electricity than the PC alternatives, an electric utility that was threatened by angry troublemakers could refuse to sell its product to people and firms that harrassed the utility with frivilous law suits. Other utilities in the area, or other areas, could form a combination to uphold a joint defense, by peacefully boycotting green troublemakers across the country.

Of course, nothing in my comments should be construed as supporting real pollution, or any other form of rights violation. But the idea that co2 is a pollutant is unproven; and in light of the enormous benefits that carbon based fuels provide toward our prosperity, pretty misguided.

Published: March 17, 2007 4:18 PM
Dennis

As far as the validity of any alleged “scientific consensus” regarding global warming is concerned, two examples from other disciplines may shed some light on the issue.

For many years, almost the entire economics profession claimed that Ludwig von Mises’s thesis that economic calculation in a socialist society is logically impossible was wrong. Despite the irrefutable logic of Mises’s argument and the overwhelming experience of the 20th century, the consensus argued, and maybe still argues, that economic calculation in a socialist society is possible.

Perhaps even more illustrative is the name given to the war that occurred in the United States from 1861 to 1865. Based on the generally accepted definition of civil war, by no stretch of the imagination can this conflict be considered a civil war. The Confederacy did not attempt to control the U.S. government or the North, but instead wanted to establish a separate government. What the southern states did was secede from the U.S., just like the colonies did from the British Empire in 1776. This conflict should not be called the Civil War, but the War over Southern Secession, or something similar. However, the overwhelming political and historical consensus, in Orwellian fashion, continues to refer to the conflict as the Civil War.

Using accurate terminology to describe this conflict apparently is beyond the integrity of those that comprise the academic/political consensus.

Published: March 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Doyle

TT: maybe spend less time at http://www.realclimate.org and more at http://www.climatescience.org.nz

Published: March 17, 2007 10:50 PM
David White

Here -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/robinson1.html -- is Arthur Robinson, President and Research Professor at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, on the supposed global warming consensus:

Contrary to the endless claims by Al Gore and his retainers, there is not and has never been any consensus among scientists in favor of either of these hypotheses. Some years ago, my colleagues and I circulated a petition among American scientists. In less than a month, with very limited resources, we obtained the signatures of 18,000 Americans with university degrees in physical science to a petition which states:
----------
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
----------
The fact that more than 18,000 Americans with university degrees in physical science – including many very eminent men – signed this statement does not prove that the statement is scientifically correct. Scientific truth is not determined by polling. It does prove, however, that there is not a consensus of scientists – with only a handful of skeptics – in the United States who believe the opposite. The human-caused global warming industry with its billions of dollars in annual operating funds has never been able to assemble a group of scientists even one-tenth as large as this to sign a statement in support of its position. This indicates that, if a consensus exists at all, it is on the side of this petition.

Even now, when we are not soliciting signatures, we have a continual modest stream of scientists asking to sign this petition. The claim that virtually all scientists agree that humans are warming the earth and thereby severely damaging the environment is entirely bogus. It is a myth generated by a well-funded group of self-interested elitists for the purpose of avoiding discussion of the science opposed to their schemes for gaining additional political power.

Published: March 18, 2007 8:59 AM
Vince Daliessio

Hi Mark,

Part of the intent of my post is to get the conversation started on the regulation of pollution in general, not necessarily to endorse regulation of CO2 as such, but to point out that if it WERE a harmful pollutant it would be just as amenable to a property-rights solution. Before a polluter could cause global harm with CO2, for example, he would first have to get it past his neighbors. And the technology already exists to track pollution back to the polluter, even with CO2 (using isotopic ratio analysis for example).

As far as solar, wind, etc being viable energy sources, I submit that in certain applications they already are, that if a truly economic (as opposed to state-regulated) power-production paradigm were allowed to occur, their application would naturally expand to fit their relative economic utility.

As for safe, inexpensive nuclear energy, again, the technology already exists to create them in nearly any size, the problems with nuclear power still remain; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Price-Anderson Act, The US Department of Energy, and the state public utility regulation commissions. Clear away all that regulatory overhang, brought about not for protection of the public but for protection of utility company profits, and substitute a true property-rights regime, with unlimited tortious liability for accidents and waste - presto! - a safe, well-run nuke in every region or even neighborhood.

Or not - maybe the technical obstacles are still insurmountable, though I submit that the state obstacles are significantly more onerous.

Published: March 18, 2007 9:09 AM
TokyoTom

Vince, thanks for your interesting comments.

You say that "climate change - it is an EXCELLENT warhorse for regulatory capture by the dominant players in the soon-to-be-regulated industries" - can you elaborate?

First, I`m afraid I don`t see how it applies to a carbon tax/income tax reduction policy such as Yancey has said he would support.

Second, you`re saying that efforts in favor of climate change policy are really efforts by the fossil fuels industry and major users like utilities and auto manufacturers, even these industries - already heavily regulated - have been the ones kicking and screaming and doing all they can to delay any government policy (other than to continue the current subsidies or provide new ones)?

I agree that the time frames are long - this is one of the factors that leads politicians here to talk about climate change but to delay - costs of mitigation policies (other than no-regrets, low-hanging fruit - of which there is plenty) are felt now, but benefits won`t be seen for decades.

I also think we could have a much more rational energy system if we got the state out of the subsidies, liaibility protection and other rackets, and I am encouraged to see someone here actually advocate it - instead of the big energy puff pieces like those from ex-libertarian Robert Bradley.

As to applications of litigation to CO2, I think you`re being more than a tad facile when you say tht\at "Before a polluter could cause global harm with CO2, for example, he would first have to get it past his neighbors." You are ignoring not only all of the factors that have prevented private litigation in the US (only public nuisance actions of the kind that Dr. Reisman has condemned) - the CO2 has little immediate effects, the CO2 circles the globe and has an impact over a century or so (so that damages now are the result of myriads of polluters gloablly over decades) - and also ignore the hurdles to international litigation. How does anybody sue China? What litigation resource do Europeans have against us? Etc.

Your further thoughts are appreciated.

Tom

Published: March 18, 2007 10:27 AM
TokyoTom

Dan, sorry that my last post was a bit snarky.

There have been a few people who have come out of the woodwork on this thread to hazard policy-specific libertarian views on climate change, but it takes an awful lot of coaxing before it happens, and only with a few. The others prefer to take refuge in aspersions and in finding conspiracies in the findings of heterogenous scientific organizations around the world.

I do notice that you are not among the few who have been willing to make any specific comments on policy.

As for "libertarian / environmental literature", perhaps you haven`t notice that I link fairly regularly to it and have been doing so consistently over the past year - like a broken record, some might say.

I`m curious that you perceive me as "posturing as victor". A bit sarcastic occasionally, but as a victor? Anyway, I do hope to here more of your views. Perhaps your thoughts on Dr. Reisman`s most recent proposals might be a good place to start? http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 10:52 AM
Vince Daliessio

Tom,

Your last point first - I am arguing that the neighbors of the polluters would get first whack in a real property rights system. In all likelihood the neighbor wouldn't even have to sue for CO2 pollution - mercury, cadmium, lead, and sulfur dioxide would probably be enough to start stacking the economic deck against coal-fired plants, for example. Basically I am tackling the assumption of a Coasian property-rights construction head-on, something Professor Reisman doesn't do, but that Rothbard did very well.

To your first point - whatever regulatory regime arises out of the current alarum over CO2, and whatever the big oil and power producers do or say against it now, the policies will have to be written into laws and regulations. This is the step where the major players will exert their evil influence, where they will write themselves lavish subsidies, and where they will terminate the opportunities of their rivals with extreme prejudice. Look at the example of the big tobacco companies, they have basically allowed themselves to be cartellized, guaranteeing their profits and market share while locking smaller producers (whose relative regulatory burdens are far higher) out of the market permanently. "Cap and Trade" already does the same thing now, when it becomes mandatory it will be even worse.

Another aspect that hasn't been examined here is the actual operation of a carbon tax - businesses' demand for power is nearly perfectly elastic, individuals' (except the conspicuously-consuming Al Gore and similar) is relatively inelastic (poor people have to have heat and middle-class people have to go to work). Energy prices for these folks will skyrocket, while businesses whose energy demands become unsustainable for that business will simply close. These effects are never even considered in most analyses, but they will certainly be felt.

Bottom line is that any government solution will be dominated and controlled by those powerful interests who will benefit from it.

Published: March 18, 2007 11:00 AM
Francisco Torres

"Gamito, afraid YOU never asked me why enviros hate nuclear power, but if you read more closely you`ll see that I had responded earlier to FRANCISCO."

Both are the same guy, TT: ME, only from different computers. Sorry for the confusion. You did answer the question except it lead to an unavoidable inconsistency.

Published: March 18, 2007 11:13 AM
TokyoTom

Mark Humphrey:

Mark thanks for your comments.

1. You say that I "lecture Professor Reisman on proper application of Austrian economic insights, seemingly detached from the reality that Reisman wrote the 1,000 page masterpiece `Capitalism`."

Sorry, but I think I`ve been doing is to sum up what I have gleaned from my own reading, both to show others here I`m not the blithering idiot commie nazi fascist evil greeine that they would prefer me to be, but also to ask Dr. Reisman to clarify how the views that he expresses on climate change specifically and environmental issues generally comport with Austrian precepts.

2. You misinterpret and call unpersuasive what you call the "damning indictments" I posted of
of Svensmark and Riis-Christensen. I said nothing about Svensmark on this thread, and what I posted about Riis-Christensen was a quote by an extremely well-regarded scientist who had a working relationship with the "Swindle" producer Martin Durkin, clearly going to the question of how imbalanced the film was.

"I get the impression that the inspiration for this virulent denunciation of the authors--both their ideas AND their ethics--reflects fear of where those ideas might lead."

I hope that in addition to having impressions you will also consider reading the scientific literature that addresses both authors`s work. I don`t think that it it all so virulent. The point is that Durkin was aware of the serious questions about Riis-Christensen`s work but chose to mislead his viewers by not mentioning the questions at all.

3. "I'm not persuaded, as you seem to be, by what most other people think."

Good for you. But obviously I`m the kind of guy who doesn`t think for himself. But no rudeness intended, right?

To follow through with your point about beginning to "discuss policy," I make the suggestion simply because that is precisely the premise of Dr. Reisman`s post - assuming arguendo that the "alarmist" view may be correct, what should policy be? Please address complaints about Dr. Resiman`s premises to him.

4. "Reisman's point is not that global warming is probably caused by man, but that even if this were true, the "solutions" demanded by the Enlightened among us would be toxic to human well-being."

Thanks for the synopsis of Dr. Resiman`s views.

Do you agree with his analysis and conclusions, and suggestions for policy, such as those he proposes on the next thread? http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp. Maybe it`s just me, being all gullible and such, but I have a hard time figuring out how he goes from Austrian principles to his conclusions. Maybe you can help me?

5. "the science supportinhg the hypothesis of global warming is partly unproven conjecture, and partly missanthropic Green ideology."

First, the science is the science - none of it is Green ideology. Second, what part of the science is unproven conjecture? Simply anything that is inconsistent with your mental map of the world?

Third, why do you and others devote so much of your time to Green ideology, so so little time actually examining climate change from an Austrian perspective?

If I asked you to take a look at the proposals of Greg Mankiw (former head of Pres. Bush`s Council of Economic Advisers) and others for Pgouvian taxes to address climate change and otehr issues, would you address these proposal from Austrian perspectives or dismiss them as part of "Green ideology"?

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html

Sincerely,

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 11:46 AM
TokyoTom

David White:

On the Oregon petition scam, allow me to quote from an earlier long post on it here: http://blog.mises.org/mt/comments?entry_id=5248

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.

All of the above was quoted from my earlier post. Misesians ought to be a bit more skeptical when convenient little packages like this are trotted out. It`s not easy to find rent-seeking fingers all over it.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
TokyoTom

Vince:

Thanks for the substantive comments.

1. On coals, I agree with you theoretically - the environmental damage done by the heavy metals released by coal is much more substantial and direct than the CO2-climate change aspect. But where are all the lawsuits? The polluters shut down much of the litigation through legislation that preempts most state law and private claims and gives industry rights to pllute. But it`s largely the Greenies who get bashed here, even though there`s no way the utilities and others are willingly going to give up their protections.

BTW, even with a rollback of environmental laws and a shift to private litigation - which I have said before I favor in principle - that still leaves us with international aspects of CO2 - like China/India etc. What litigation is possible?

2. I understand what happened with the tobacco cos, but fail to see what relevance it has for alternative energy. Shifting prices affect the whole economy and give no rights to anyone. Of course the big utlities/fossil fuel producers might be hoping for permits - so they can get them for free, I don`t see how rent-seeking on permits would at all affect innovators in low-carbon technologies or alternative energy. And under a tax structure, the rent-seeking is more obvious and harder to maintain.

Regards,

Tom

Published: March 18, 2007 12:21 PM
David White

Tom,

AGW has "Crisis and Leviathan" written all over it -- http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=15 -- meaning that we have far more to fear from a trumpted up War on Climate Change than we do from climate change itself. All you have to do is look at the War on Drugs and the War on Terror to know that this is so.

In other words, you are promoting unfreedom on a monumental scale.

Published: March 18, 2007 1:15 PM
Dennis

So, industry-funded research is likely to be biased, if not fraudulent. However, no bias or fraud is involved when the funding comes from the government or non-industry special interest groups. My 13-year old son can easily spot the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy of these assertions.

My experience is that government and academia are the worst in perpetuating lies and in crushing viewpoints that don’t coincide with theirs. After all, the government view of things is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, as is the ultimate source of government funding, i.e. taxation and inflation. And as I have said more than once on this site, the more that government funds scientific research and education, the more that research and education will be driven by political considerations at the expense of the truth and an accurate understanding of the phenomena under study.

We can look at scientific research in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as perhaps the extreme examples of what happens when it is completely funded and controlled by government.

Published: March 18, 2007 6:10 PM
Vince Daliessio

Tom,

Long-settled "case law", as well as almost all environmental regulations make it all but impossible to get a hearing in a pollution trespass suit. Indeed, so-called "standards" for "clean air" explicitly pre-empt any legal suit brought by individuals - their only relief comes in administrative courts where the innocence of the polluter is assumed.

But as for our point of agreement on coal - the legal burden of a restored property-rights regime on polluters will press down so hard on them as to make mass-burning of coal for power prohibitively expensive, IF OTHER MEANS OF PRODUCING POWER ARE FREED FROM REGULATION. The remaining few coal plant's CO2 will be absolutely NO matter for other nations, though the World Court will possibly provide a venue if it is necessary.

As for the tobacco example, it illustrates how the makers of even a nearly universally reviled product were quite easily able to sidestep the worst possible impacts on their business, AND turn the "draconian" measures to be imposed upon them into a major profit center.

The unfair economic burdens of a carbon tax or cap and trade system would be shifted off onto the poor and middle class, it certainly will NOT affect everyone in a national economy evenly, just as our fiat money / inflation system doesn't affect everyone evenly, the few benefit while the many pay, dearly.

The super-rich who control the big companies and the government will be affected hardly at all by a Kyoto-caused crisis in our economy. They won't like it, but when you get right down to it they won't really suffer much.

Published: March 18, 2007 9:03 PM
Vince Daliessio

For the latest unbelievable chapter in the Big Tobacco regulatory capture saga, read this;

Philip Morris Enthusiastically Supports Restrictions On Cigarette Smoking?!?

http://www.libertyguys.org/home/detail.asp?ArtID=1537

Published: March 18, 2007 9:06 PM
TokyoTom

David:

You say "AGW has "Crisis and Leviathan" written all over it .... All you have to do is look at the War on Drugs and the War on Terror to know that this is so. In other words, you are promoting unfreedom on a monumental scale."

What I am promoting is a frank assessment and open eyes to the real world, where it is painfully apparent that the capture of government by industry is the real source of the problem, not supposed evil enviros. Vince correctly states is the problem on coal pollution, and this has long been the Austrian view of the causes of environmental abuse and the politicization of it.

I am no fan of big government, and am entirely with you on the perverse evils of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. But these ought to remind you that government is being manipulated by an elite, not by the evil enviros. Just who has been running the government for the past six years, anyway?

So just who is "promoting unfreedom on a monumental scale" - those who point to real environmental problems resulting from this rent-seeking, or those who accept the "skeptic" PR line from the rent-seekers who have misused government and dodge discussion of the existing mess because of the ideological infirmities of one slice of those calling for change?

Austrians who oppose the use of government climate change may have very good reasons to do so, but they ought not to be denying that there are problems, but calling out those who are most responsible - industry and big government - and calling for further deregulation and responsibility for industry. That's an agenda that I support whole-heartedly.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 9:47 PM
TokyoTom

Dennis:

"My experience is that government and academia are the worst in perpetuating lies and in crushing viewpoints that don’t coincide with theirs."

Do any of Vince's comments above on how utilities and coal interests have captured "clean air" regulation at the cost of property rights, liability for the costs they impose and alternative energy resonate with you, or is he also "perpetuating lies" and "crushing viewpoints"?

And are the academics and enviros the ones in power who have been perpetuating lies and crushing viewpoints that are readily apparent in the War on Drugs and the War on Terror? Are the benefits of big government flowing to them, or to other elites who are no friends of property rights or the environment?

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 10:01 PM
TokyoTom

Doyle, thanks for the additional reference. I had heard of this new group, but hadn't really looked at them yet.

I note that they have shut off the comment feature, so the don't really offer informed debate or discussion, like at climateaudit or realclimate.

Here's some background information on them:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/owen_mcshane_goes_quote_mining.php
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition

The initiating press release made these claims for the few founding members who are "scientists":

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, "an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China."

But apparently Gray has never been published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. His last peer-reviewed scientific work was on coal 17 years ago: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, "geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand)".

But apparently Van der Lingen has not published any peer-reviewed research on climate change. http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1117

- Prof. August H. Auer, of Auckland, "past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand."

But apparently Auer is a TV news weatherman and retired professor from the University of Wyoming. Auer has not published any peer-reviewed research since April 1997; what he has published relates to meteorology, not climate research.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

More on Carter here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php
http://timlambert.org/2005/04
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

YMMV.

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 10:56 PM
TokyoTom

Francisco, try typing in the same name when you log in. That might help me to avoid confusion.

"You did answer the question except it lead to an unavoidable inconsistency."

And what inconsistency is that?

BTW, it sounds like Vince is concerned about big government involvement in nuclear power too. Is he also a green enviro that wants to destroy capitalism? In any case, let's focus on his motivations, rather than his arguments.

Best,

TT

Published: March 18, 2007 11:08 PM
Vince Daliessio

Tom,

Don't turn me into an apologist for sincerity, honesty, and scientific integrity in academic or government science - Dennis' statement resonates with many of us because it is so often true.

Academic and government scientists, while often honest and sincere, are still subject to the corruptions of the grant process and the goals of the heads of their departments, and too often they and their work are hopelessly compromised, EXACTLY in proportion to the politicization of the subject at hand. Few subjects are as politicized as AGW.

I don't know how we can fix that, except to decouple science from government. Until that happens, any science issue with any political impact whatsoever must be questioned to the extreme. And since most of the academic establishment is "on board" so to speak, it is left to the cranks and amateurs to continue to ask some very important questions. Perhaps some of these folks are compromised by their associations with various interested groups, but on the other hand we KNOW the AGW consensus is.

So please, have some sympathy for the skeptics here Tom. Many of them are questioning AGW, or else witholding judgement for very, very good reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

Published: March 18, 2007 11:40 PM
FRANCISCO TORRES

TT
"
ME: "You did answer the question except it lead to an unavoidable inconsistency."

TT: And what inconsistency is that? "

That you state the environmentalists do not trust the government and big industry. However, they do trust it enough to have them 1)implement Kyoto and carbon credits and b)build the "alternative" energy sources (like wind turbines and such). That speaks of an inconsistency, which makes me conclude that the reason you give for their distrust is incorrect. It has to be something else.

Published: March 19, 2007 12:14 AM
TokyoTom

Vince, give me a break.

I'm not asking you or anyone to assume the sincerity, honesty, or scientific integrity of academic or government science.

I'm just pointing out that, for many of the "skeptics" here for who you are requesting sympathy, their so-called skepticism is simply a cop-out - a rather transparent effort to avoid the hard work of thinking through climate change. So they'll question merely one side of the science, gobble up all kinds of crackpots, ignore the motives of most by casting aspersions at the motives of a few, and completely ignore fundamental Austrian lessons about the difficult problems with catallaxy in the face of open-access resources and about how elites have hijacked elites - even if the face of the appalling corruption of the past six years.

They've got fingers in their ears even when I point to all of the support for climate change science from Exxon and others, and all of the private activity to monitor and cut CO2 emissions, to develop and market new technologies, etc.

Attempts at reasoned discourse are greeted hostilely, if not laughed away, while Dr. Reisman's suggestions for the use of nuke and grandiose construction projects drawn kid gloves or silence.

I'm certainly not trying to lead anyone down a primrose path to KoolAid, but rather that people use their critcal faculties a little more rogrously.

So maybe the skeptics of the skeptics might deserve a little sympathy? (Or is that too much like asking for sympathy for the Devil?)

Tom

Published: March 19, 2007 6:38 AM
David White

Tom,

It's not fingers in ears; it's eyes wide open to the kind of hysteria from which nothing good comes, especially when the world has two massive and intimately intertwined problems that it remains blissfully ignorant of and for which it has hell to pay accordingly:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213

http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/economics/2007/03/financial_armag.html

Published: March 19, 2007 7:03 AM
Dennis

TT,

Please do not twist what I said. I never said or implied in my comment that industry and industry supported groups can not be biased or do not lobby for their own interests. In fact, I used the word “worst”, which implies that other groups partake in this type of activity. Interest groups from all parts of the political spectrum “capture” the government regulatory apparatus, not to mention all the funding and power that flows to the regulatory apparatus itself.

And regarding the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, I believe that many from the Left of the political spectrum are supportive of both of these. In fact as far as wars are concerned, over the last 100 or so years Democrats arguably have more blood on their hands than Republicans.

Published: March 19, 2007 7:56 AM
Vince Daliessio

Sorry, Tom, I didn't mean to insult or upset you. I think you are a valuable part of this discussion, I am just asking for a bit of empathy for the skeptics.

Published: March 19, 2007 5:56 PM
Dennis

I have mentioned this previously in other posts on this blog regarding AGW, but it has been ignored. In the mid-1970s, I was an undergraduate geology major, and at that time we were taught that the earth was entering another ice age and that only international government action could save earth and man from catastrophe.

Then within roughly 10 years, the consensus shifted 180 degrees, and the earth was heating up, with this caused by human fossil fuel consumption. And of course, the same type of action was required to prevent the new catastrophe.

Call me what you may, but I know what I was taught, and I am not a liar. I am sorry but this 180 degree about face by the supposed experts in a space of 10 years (the earth is over 5 billion years old), was a bit too much for me to accept from a common sense viewpoint.

No one take this personally, but I do not believe many of this site's bloggers were even attending grammar school in 1976 or 1977.

Also, how do the supporters of AGW explain the fact that roughly 10,000 years ago the earth was so cold that almost all of Canada and a notable part of the United States were covered by glaciers? Somehow, the earth warmed up considerably with virtually no human CO2 emissions for all but the last few hundred years of this period. In fact, the last glaciation period is generally not presented for popular consumption by the supporters of AGW.

Published: March 19, 2007 8:03 PM
David White

ChrisB (and Tom and ... )

One more time, watch this -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 -- and chill out.

Published: March 19, 2007 8:08 PM
Dennis

Chris,

Mises, Hayek, Lachmann, and Rothbard, are all considered outliers, if not unscientific cranks, by the mainstream economics profession. Since you have shown admiration for their work, just possibly, you might want to rethink the veracity of what is considered the consensus in climate science regarding AGW.

In particular, Mises, arguably the twentieth century's greatest theoretical economist, was treated like garbage by the mainstream economics profession in the United States, overwhelming because his economics and methodology did not conform to the consensus. So much for the integrity of academia.

Published: March 19, 2007 9:02 PM
Vince Daliessio

To reiterate, academia, across not just the US, but across the West is thoroughly compromised by its intimate association with the state. I can't put it any plainer than that. This means that any purportedly scientific explainations of the association (if any can be shown) between anthropogenic activity, increased atmospheric CO, and rising global temperature must be held in extreme skepticism, particularly by people familiar with a priori reasoning and the corrupt habits of government.

I for one cannot see how anyone can express any real sympathy for the Austrian position and at the same time unquestioningly embrace a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data.

And please, don't question my interest in science, or the environment, it's where I have made my living for my entire career.

Published: March 19, 2007 10:33 PM
Vince Daliessio

Chris;

Please give an example of how Rothbard's arguments in "The Ethics Of Liberty" are "badly thought out". I don't see any.

Published: March 19, 2007 10:37 PM
TokyoTom

Dennis, your impression that I've twisted anything you said seems to me a perfect example of how good we are at avoiding thinking in defense of our existing views. We all do it; it's reflexive and comes naturally and subconsciously.

All I've done is to ask you a few questions that make you examine how your views actually apply. Care to actually look at and respond to my questions, instead of treating me like I'm a torturer?

Tom

Published: March 20, 2007 12:42 AM
TokyoTom

Vince, thanks for the kind remarks.

Actually, I do empathize with the skeptics and think that my posts generally manifest that. For what it's worth, I consider myself a skeptic, and certainly know what it's like to argue from an outlying position.

I think I understand better than most that we all have trouble changing our minds, and for that reason hate the direct questioning of bona fides. We are all quite flawed and susceptible to self-delusion and tribal patterns of thinking and behavior.

Published: March 20, 2007 12:52 AM
TokyoTom

Dennis:

Again you bring up cooling.

1. I'm not sure how many commenters on this blog were even here 11 months ago, but didn't we already have this discussion?

April 13, 2006 WSJ Article "Climate of Fear"
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004905.asp

a. "Dennis: Links to detailed explanations concerning the 70's fears of cooling (and other concerns about the existing science) can be found at this "climate bingo" page: http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/. To summarize, it was clear that climate forcing could be caused both by CO2 (warming) and sulfates (cooling) from air pollution; as it was not clear that we would actually enact laws and regulations relating to air pollution [draconian measures that lead us to serfdom, ruined the economy, etc.!], some scientists predicted, that IF sulfate levels QUADRUPLED, it may force an ice age. That of course did not occur, as the Western democracies took measures that sharply reduced sulfates.

"It is thought that the cooling in the 70's was partially attributable to sulfates and soot from industrialized nations, as well as to particulates thrown into the air by atmospheric nuclear testing."
Posted by: tokyo-tom at April 16, 2006 9:22 PM"

b. Earlier to you on the same thread:

"Ah, yes, the global cooling canard. It pops up every year like the spring flowers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94"
Posted by: M1EK at April 13, 2006 8:47 PM

You didn't respond to either of us at that time, but your response is of course always welcome (next year too?).

2. You can find more support for this from RogerM, who on Dr. Reisman's more recent thread has the following to say:

"During the 3 days that the 9/11 disaster grounded all air travel in the US, a California scientist measured temperatures across the country and found them 3 degrees warmer than normal. He thinks airline contrails block 3% of the sun's energy and cool the earth.

In India, pollution reduces the average temp by 10 degrees. So all we need to do to reduce the effects of global warming is fly more and pollute more."
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp

Can I provide any further help?

Regards,

TT

PS: You really make me feel like an old dog - in 1976/77 you were in grammar school?!

Published: March 20, 2007 1:34 AM
TokyoTom

David, the Peak Oil guys tend to forget that there are many more BTUs in the form of coal than there was of oil, and the US sits on most of them. As the real price of oil rises and technology costs fall, there will be a natural switch to coal liquefaction and to other energy sources.

Published: March 20, 2007 1:44 AM
TokyoTom

Vince:

You're a tough nut.

1. Okay, academia "is thoroughly compromised by its intimate association with the state. ... This means that any purportedly scientific explainations of the association (if any can be shown) between anthropogenic activity, increased atmospheric CO, and rising global temperature must be held in extreme skepticism, particularly by people familiar with a priori reasoning and the corrupt habits of government."

So let's try some other sources:

ExxonMobil’s response to publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp

"The release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Climate Science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important contribution to informed debate on the issue of climate change. The IPCC report process is valuable in that it facilitates the sharing of global scientific knowledge and encourages further inquiry on the important issue of climate change.

"The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides an extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth's climate. It describes the scientific basis for concern regarding the risk of climate change and attempts for the first time to characterize the probabilities for change. ...

"As in past IPCC assessments, scientists from ExxonMobil have participated directly as lead authors, as well as in the review process and workshops contributing to the development of AR4.

"Climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. We are constantly learning and reassessing the science and policy aspects of this important issue, and the company’s views and actions will consider the best information available at the time.

"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.

"Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."

Please also consider these links:
http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/response/index.cfm
http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/program.cfm

2. "I for one cannot see how anyone can express any real sympathy for the Austrian position and at the same time unquestioningly embrace a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data."

Have you no sense of irony? You ask me to sympathize and empathize with "the skeptics here" who can't rouse themselves to discuss policy measures even when the explicit premise of Dr. Reisman`s post is to assume arguendo that the "alarmist" view may be correct, and then you trot out this strawman? Who is "unquestioningly embrac[ing] a purely metric causation conclusion based upon models and little to no discrete experimental or other empirical data"?

And is this not empirical data?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html

To paraphrase you, I for one cannot see how an Austrian position requires either "sympathy" or that its self-professed proponents focus on dismissing all scientific support for climate change rather while ignoring Austrian understandings of incomplete catallaxy with respect to open-access resources and of rent-seeking.

Regards,

Dr. EvilTokyoTom

Published: March 20, 2007 2:48 AM
Dennis

TT,

If you do not believe that you twisted what I said, you can believe what you want. My words speak for themselves, and you have yourself to live with.

Given some of your tactics, I am beginning to believe that what others have posted about you is true.

And in a general sense, your side of the debate, whether its AGW or global cooling, always emphasizes that that man is at fault. There is little if any acknowledgement that natural causes are at work, and likely drawf any POSSIBLE effect man's activities have had on climate.

Published: March 20, 2007 7:03 AM
Dennis

Chris and others,

My reference to my comparative age was not meant to imply that age has anything to do with correctness or to belittle those who are younger. The reference was only meant to illustrate that I am old enough to remember when the consensus regarding climate change was the opposite of what it is today, and in a span of 10 years the consensus had changed 180 degrees.

I apologize if my reference was taken the wrong way.

Published: March 20, 2007 7:34 AM
David White

TT,

I would agree with you about alternative fuels (though you've got to admit that coal liquefaction would require mining on a monumental scale) except that the oil industry, having been juiced for nearly a century by non-asset-based credit, has been able to keep the price of oil artifically low. Thus have alternatives been stymied, and thus will the world have to suffer through ruinously high oil prices even as Peak Credit wreaks havoc on the global economy.

And by the way, this will render AGW moot, as the world will have its hands full dealing with REAL problems.

Published: March 20, 2007 10:32 AM
TokyoTom

Dennis, you continue to dodge. But I`m willing to examine my evil tactics:

1. You say I twisted your words; I said that all I did was to ask you a few questions that make you examine how your views actually apply. Let`s go to videotape:

Dennis: "So, industry-funded research is likely to be biased, if not fraudulent. However, no bias or fraud is involved when the funding comes from the government or non-industry special interest groups. My 13-year old son can easily spot the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy of these assertions.

My experience is that government and academia are the worst in perpetuating lies and in crushing viewpoints that don’t coincide with theirs. After all, the government view of things is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, as is the ultimate source of government funding, i.e. taxation and inflation. And as I have said more than once on this site, the more that government funds scientific research and education, the more that research and education will be driven by political considerations at the expense of the truth and an accurate understanding of the phenomena under study."

TT: Although I think you have good points about the biases of academia and government, your criticism is clearly incomplete and does not vitiate all climate change science (in which industry is also involved) and downplays that there are other unclean hands as well. So I asked you to consider the RELATIVE importance of the academic/government bias you refer to -

"Do any of Vince's comments above on how utilities and coal interests have captured "clean air" regulation at the cost of property rights, liability for the costs they impose and alternative energy resonate with you, or is he also "perpetuating lies" and "crushing viewpoints"?

"And are the academics and enviros the ones in power who have been perpetuating lies and crushing viewpoints that are readily apparent in the War on Drugs and the War on Terror? Are the benefits of big government flowing to them, or to other elites who are no friends of property rights or the environment?"

Rather than straight responses to these questions, we get whining, a grudging concession of relatively minor rent-seeking by industry and a remarkable attempt to ignore the rent-seekers and elites behind the War on Terror and the War on Drugs by pointing to some political support for these from Democrats (remarkable in that Democrats haven`t run the government for the past six years and provide the greatest political support for ending both counterproductive "wars"):

Dennis: "Please do not twist what I said. I never said or implied in my comment that industry and industry supported groups can not be biased or do not lobby for their own interests. In fact, I used the word “worst”, which implies that other groups partake in this type of activity. Interest groups from all parts of the political spectrum “capture” the government regulatory apparatus, not to mention all the funding and power that flows to the regulatory apparatus itself.

"And regarding the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, I believe that many from the Left of the political spectrum are supportive of both of these. In fact as far as wars are concerned, over the last 100 or so years Democrats arguably have more blood on their hands than Republicans."

What is this last comment, anyway? What have I said that has made you think I`m a Democrat? I have criticized Republicans because they`re the ones in charge. (And why stop at 100 years, when the bloodiest war was Lincoln`s the War against the Southern Secession?)

2. "Given some of your tactics, I am beginning to believe that what others have posted about you is true."

You continue to complain that I`m being unfair or underhanded in some way, without specifying how. Well, to repeat you, you can believe what you want. My words speak for themselves, and you have yourself to live with. I`ve openly set out the dialogue and my views on it for you and others to consider - is that simply another dirty tactic on my part?

3. "And in a general sense, your side of the debate, whether its AGW or global cooling, always emphasizes that that man is at fault. There is little if any acknowledgement that natural causes are at work, and likely drawf any POSSIBLE effect man's activities have had on climate."

More whining by complaining about "my side". How about a direct criticism of MY comments? Have I denied that there are natural causes at work? Further, your strawman hides much more than it reveals. Even a cursory look at RealClimate shows a deep awareness and discussion of natural causes among the scientists posting and commenting there. The point of course is that they think they`ve teased sufficient evidence to establish that NOW man`s cumulative impacts (and the IPCC clearly discusses all manner of forcings) are having a discernable impact on climate.

Among the relatively uninformed and in the policy debate, there does seem to be a focus on CO2 rather than other factors, but this is understandable (let me know if you want clarification).

4. As another example of my unfairness, let`s not forget the question of cooling, which you say you "have mentioned this previously in other posts on this blog regarding AGW, but it has been ignored."

I unfairly point to how I and others directly responded to you almost a year ago, and provide links both to that response and to places where you and others can go to read more.

From you? No peep of acknowledgement. Just whining about how I twist your words and try to undermine discussion. Care to tell me again about who is being open, straightforward and responsive?

Tom

Published: March 21, 2007 12:35 AM
Vince Daliessio

Chris,

Understand your skepticism re: Rothbard laying out a unified system of libertarian ethics, but he DOES address many objections to his points in the text. Still, he is laying this out a priori in part for the purpose of the inevitable critique, a common technique.

As for a free market in children, I have asked the question here before - what is Rothbard advocating (as opposed to what he is often misread as advocating) on this topic? To my reading he is simply acknowledging the failure of the current social-welfare system in dealing with the problem of unwanted or neglected children. He does so in a manner that while consistent with libertarian ethic, appears to be shocking to us. Until you read of this case, and others like it;

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040213_childabuse_collingswood_report.html

In action, Rothbard's formulation of a market in children, while conjuring mental images of white slavery and abuse, would IN PRACTICE result in better treatment of unwanted children. The current system could hardly be a worse one.

Published: March 21, 2007 12:48 AM
TokyoTom

Dennis, I note that you seem to have misposted your response to me on Dr. Reisman's other thread: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp.

I think that your conclusion, quoted below, is partially correct:

"In closing, one issue that permeates the entire debate over AGW is that neither side accepts the objectivity, motives, and veracity of the other side’s scientific analysis. Given this situation, any attempt to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW is extremely problematic."

First, precisely because it is very difficult for nonscientists to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW science, it is helpful for analytical purposes to make some assumptions, such as those Dr. Reisman has made in this and his following post - IF AGW is occuring, what are Austrian insights as to the institutional underpinnings of the assumed problem and for approaches to address them?

Second, as I've acknowledged to you and others, a huge part of the difficulty that we're having on this topic ties into our very human penchants to avoid cognitive dissonance by filtering out, ignoring or minimizing informaton that is at odds with our mental maps and to fall into tribal behavior patterns - where those not perceived as in "our tribe" are view with suspicion, if not hostility. For that reason, we all need to be careful that we are making a conscious effort to overcome these handicaps to rational discussion.

Sadly, for some this is too difficult - and I am simply the devil incarnate, along with all greenies/nazis/communists with whom I am lumped. Say, did anyone besides me notice that Martin Durkin, maker of "Swindle" is a self-avowed and committed Marxist?

This phenomenon is also apparent in those who refuse to accept Dr. Resisman's premises for this post, and would rather attack the science than to engage any any substantive Austrian analysis.

Third, as to the "other side's scientific analysis", I don't perceive that there is any one side at all, but rather an ongoing endeavor to which many scientists are making contributions, although there are efforts by some organizations to try to summarize trends and characteristics of this flow. It is clear that views that are not in the "mainstream" are simply dismissed by some (typically by lay persons who are not placed to critically examine it), but that others in the scientific community make every effort to analyze and respond to new views, analyses and proposals. The debate among scientists is definitely not an echo chamber.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 21, 2007 9:34 PM
Dennis

TokyoTom,

Thank you for pointing out that I misposted the below comment.
*************************************************

TokyoTom,

I am glad that you reproduced my comments; they represent what I actually said and implied, and are not someone else’s interpretation. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

You are correct in one of your criticisms: my not including the “Civil War” and other earlier conflicts was arbitrary. Since the Civil War has now been mentioned, I would add that at the time of this conflict the Republican Party was the party of (relatively) big and interventionist government and remained so for roughly 40 years. And for the record, I am certainly not a Republican, or Democrat for that matter.

In closing, one issue that permeates the entire debate over AGW is that neither side accepts the objectivity, motives, and veracity of the other side’s scientific analysis. Given this situation, any attempt to come to some type of agreement regarding AGW is extremely problematic.

Published: March 22, 2007 6:48 AM
TokyoTom

Chris B:

Sorry, but I think your overstating things a bit, which is bound to press a few buttons here. Yes, while there are only a few scientists who would disagree that climate change is occurring now and that humans are causing/contributing to it, but the scientific debate is not and will never be over - as long as there are scientists. We`ve made great progress in figuring out mechanisms and principles, but the climate and other Earth systems are tremendously complex, so there is now and hopefully will always be a scientific debate about climate change. Without such a debate, there will be no more progress.

Still, it`s clear that enough is known to merit action, proof of which lies in the growing private entreprenurial and corporate action to reduce CO2 and methane emissions and increase energy efficiency, such as this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.html.

Regards,

TT

Published: March 22, 2007 9:40 AM
TokyoTom

Chris, only because I am evil AND contrary.

Don`t take it personally.

TT

Published: March 22, 2007 10:48 AM
No Name

I don't care what was posted before this or what will be posted after this, but I believe global warming is real and that the only reason people are making such a big deal about it is because we continue to do nothing to stop it.

Published: April 5, 2007 1:24 PM
David White

Thanks, No Name, for your No Brain comment. You may leave now.

Published: April 6, 2007 8:25 AM
gk

In Litigation, lawyers contesting with corporations often try to avoid technical debates since the side with the most money can hire the best and most expert witnesses (the side with the most money wins any technical debate). This is clearly how the “consensus” on global warming has been achieved. And the stakes in this contest are huge; we are talking about global regulation (anti-competitive regulation of production), barriers to entry for small scale bio-energy, taxation of the poor in the OECD and developing nations who wish access to relatively inexpensive Carbon energy, and of course “Carbon Trading”, a mechanism for financial intermediaries to scam billions in transfers of permits and emission rights from the First to the Third World.

This last motivation is very important to understand in context; the slave state China is exempt under Kyoto from production regulation but may create permits. This is a huge subsidy to European joint ventures and Euro-Oil companies aligned with the PRC, e.g. BP-Shell. This is why you’ll find these organizations as charter members of the International Emission Trading Association, and indirectly supporting, and coordinating the distribution of propaganda related to global warming, including Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth-a film distributed and managed by fronts linked to the CFR; itself a front for the BP-Shell consortium. See:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=geo+karras&hl=en

And follow the links there.

Published: April 20, 2007 12:35 PM
concerned citizen

To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists” who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.

90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in a field related to climatology or any complementary studies. Most of them are completely unrelated subjects and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming.

I don't go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climage change.

There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because it’s been so plumped up with air.

If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.

Not to mention the organizers include people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks.

PS - meteorologists are weathermen.

Published: August 31, 2008 6:08 AM

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is

Comments (127)

Blog Search

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is

Comments (127)

Blog Search

Subscribe

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises