Global Warming: Environmentalism’s Threat of Hell on Earth
It is customary for old-fashioned religion to threaten those whose way of life is not to its satisfaction, with the prospect of hell in the afterlife. Substitute for the afterlife, life on earth in centuries to come, and it is possible to see that environmentalism and the rest of the left are now doing essentially the same thing. They hate the American way of life because of its comfort and luxury, which they contemptuously dismiss as “conspicuous consumption.” And to frighten people into abandoning it, they are threatening them with a global-warming version of hell.
This is not yet so open and explicit as to be obvious to everyone. Nevertheless, it is clearly present. It is hinted at in allusions to the possibility of temperature increases beyond the likely range of 3.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit projected in the recent United Nations report on global warming. For example, according to The New York Times, “the report says there is a more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a risk that many experts say is far too high to ignore.”
Environmentalist threats of hell can be expected to become more blatant and shrill if the movement’s present efforts to frighten the people of the United States into supporting its program of caps and reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions appear to be insufficient. Hell is the environmentalists’ ultimate threat.
So let us assume that it were true that global warming might proceed to such an extent as to cause temperature and/or sea-level increases so great as to be simply intolerable or, indeed, literally to roast and boil the earth. Even so, it would still not follow that industrial civilization should be abandoned or in any way compromised. In that case, all that would be necessary is to seek out a different means of deliberately cooling the earth.
It should be realized that the environmentalists’ policy of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is itself a policy of cooling the earth. But it is surely among the most stupid and self-destructive such policies imaginable. What it claims is that if we destroy our capacity to produce and operate refrigerators and air conditioners, we shall be better protected from hot weather than if we retain and enlarge that capacity. What it claims is that if we destroy the energy base needed to produce and operate the construction equipment required to build strong, well-made, comfortable houses for hundreds of millions of people, we shall be safer from hurricanes and floods than if we retain and enlarge that energy base. This is the meaning of the claim that retaining and enlarging this capacity will bring highly destructive global warming, while destroying it will avoid such global warming.
In contrast to the policy of the environmentalists, there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists.
Ironically, the core principle of one such method has been put forward by voices within the environmental movement itself, though not at all for this purpose. Years ago, back in the days of the Cold War, many environmentalists raised the specter of a “nuclear winter.” According to them, a large-scale atomic war could be expected to release so much particulate matter into the atmosphere as to block out sunlight and cause weather so severely cold that crops would not be able to grow.
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of the internet, describes the mechanism as follows:
Large quantities of aerosol particles dispersed into the atmosphere would significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that reached the surface, and could potentially remain in the stratosphere for months or even years. The ash and dust would be carried by the midlatitude west-to-east winds, forming a uniform belt of particles encircling the northern hemisphere from 30° to 60° latitude (as the main targets of most nuclear war scenarios are located almost exclusively in these latitudes). The dust clouds would then block out much of the sun's light, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically.
Certainly, there is no case to be made for an atomic war. But there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. The detonation of these bombs would operate in the same manner as described above, but the effect would be a belt of particles starting at a latitude of 70° instead of 30°. The presence of those particles would serve to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching most of the Arctic’s surface. The effect would be to maintain the frigid climate of the region and to prevent the further melting of its ice or, if necessary, to increase the amount of its ice. Moreover, the process could be conducted starting on a relatively small scale, and then proceed slowly. This would allow essential empirical observations to be made and also allow the process to be stopped at any time before it went too far.
This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.
If there is any remnant of the left of an earlier era, which still respected science and technology, and championed industrial civilization, it might be expected to offer additional possible solutions for excessive global warming, probably solutions of a kind requiring grandiose construction projects. For example, one might expect to hear from it proposals for ringing North Africa and Australia with desalinization plants powered by atomic energy. The purpose would be to bring massive amounts of fresh water to the Sahara Desert and the deserts of Australia, with the further purpose of making possible the growth of billions of trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Another possibility would be an alternative proposal simply to pump an amount of sea water into confined areas in those deserts sufficient to provide an outlet for a growing volume of global seawater other than heavily inhabited coastal regions. (I would not be ready to endorse any such costly proposals, but they would be a vast improvement over the left’s only current proposal, which is simply the crippling of industrial civilization.)
Once people begin to put their minds to the problem, it is possible that a variety of effective and relatively low-cost solutions for global warming will be found. The two essential parameters of such a solution would be the recognition of the existence of possibly excessive global warming, on the one side, and unswerving loyalty to the value of the American standard of living and the American way of life, on the other. That is, more fundamentally, unswerving loyalty to the values of individual freedom, continuing economic progress, and the maintenance and further development of industrial civilization and its foundation of man-made power.
Global warming is not a threat. But environmentalism’s destructive response to it is.
In claims to want to act in the name of avoiding the risk of alleged dreadful dangers lying decades and centuries in the future. But its means of avoiding those alleged dangers is to rush ahead today to cripple industrial civilization by means of crippling its essential foundation of man-made power. In so doing, it gives no consideration whatever to the risks of this or to any possible alternatives to this policy. It contents itself with offering to the public what is virtually merely the hope and prayer of the timely discovery of radically new alternative technologies to replace the ones it seeks to destroy. Such pie in the sky is a nothing but a lie, intended to prevent people from recognizing the plunge in their standard of living that will result if the environmentalists’ program is enacted.
As I’ve written before, 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.
Comments (57)
Gamito
Well, the nuclear winter idea was proved to be an exaggeration, however the idea that cooling the earth by blocking the main engine of climate energy - the Sun - with particles or aerosols is more rational than trying to reduce carbon emissions.
However, I believe that such an idea will immediately find critics amongst the Gaia worshipers who are hell bent in making humans retreat to a state of pre-industrial tribalism.
Published: March 16, 2007 11:49 PM
TokyoTom
Dr. Reisman, thanks for you further post.
Here I thought I`ve been playng the straight man, but surely you are taking this jest too far.
On the one hand (1) you condemn outright any governmental actions in the form of Pigouvian taxes or rights that would place prices on CO2 emissions, and thus steer individual economic decisions towards CO2-light technologies, but (2) on the other, you seriously suggest that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs to use hydrogen bombs and "grandiose construction projects" to directly and intrusively try to manage the climate through geoengineering.
This raises a host of questions, including the following:
How are your interventionist geoengineering suggestions in (2) at all consistent with Austrian principles?
If they are not, why are they more acceptable than the Pigouvian approaches in (1)?
If it is acceptable to discuss whether we ought to do anything about climate change, how is it that those who make proposals such as (1) are necessarily "profoundly and destructively misanthropic", while those who make proposals such as (2) are "unswervingly loyal to the values of individual freedom" and "the American way of life"?
Finally, how can you manage to avoid, in offering solutions, discussing any of the institutional underpinnings of the problem that concerns you? Cordato, in his piece An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics, http://mises.org/daily/1760, states that "conflict, that ... cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices." And that "irresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. … In the absence of clearly defined and strictly enforced property rights this [exchange] process breaks down and the conflict becomes irresolvable through the market process. Under all three Austrian approaches to welfare economics, therefore, the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights."
Is all this discussion of "catallactic inefficiency" just a crock used to fudge the clear moral distinctions between large statist corporations and their governmental mouthpieces and the evil greenies who find their attempts to express their preferences in the market fustrated?
Published: March 17, 2007 3:44 AM
David White
Watch this -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 -- to understand what a swindle human-caused global warming is. Then read this -- http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm -- to understand why increases in atmospheric CO2 are “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
Published: March 17, 2007 9:16 AM
RogerM
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.
Published: March 17, 2007 11:16 AM
David White
The tragedy is that untold billions in cap-and-trade corporate welfare; a global, UN-administered carbon tax; and a concomitant loss of much-needed funds for environmental restoration will be the result, the only winners being the countless millions of "watermelons" around the world -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- who are simply using the environmental movement to advance their world socialism ends.
A massive swindle, in other words, just as the above-referenced documentary makes clear.
Published: March 17, 2007 11:40 AM
eric lansing
first off, check this out on global warming:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
then read this outrage:
http://www.thelongwaveanalyst.ca/news/2007/07_03_15_economy.htm
Published: March 17, 2007 12:15 PM
Sione Vatu
An aside: There was a civil engineer in Australia who suggested desalinating water by solar means. The method works well in test plants. It would require significant investment (and getting the govt out of the way) to build it in useful scale.
We build a canal (or rather many of them) from the sea to wherever required. Each canal has a central dividing wall right up the middle (the "spine"). In effect you have two parallel canals. Only one canal is open to the sea at one end. The other is not. The entire show is covered over with transparant panels (like a greenhouse). Radiant energy from the Sun (which we got plenty of in the lucky country, Oz) causes the salty sea water to evaporate. The water vapour condenses on the transparent panels (mainly at night) and is collected in a network of drip gutters from where it flows into the canal that is not open to the sea. Hence we end up with plenty of fresh water where we want to take it. The longer the canal, the more fresh water we take.
Variants of the scheme rely on the usefulness of brine left over (you can control how concentrated it gets) and on the humid atmosphere generated inside the transparent panel "tent" covering the canal. In the second case you build the "greenhouse" large enough to include plenty of area to grow commercial crops and useful plants. The best schemes appear to be hydroponic but that's not the only option.
Anyway, that scheme neatly avoids irrigating land known to have soil salination problems, it would certainly absorb the CO2 that Prof Reisman suggests Australia could easily absorb and it would make certain investors a nice return.
Another scheme is known as the "Power Tower". That one uses the known temperature difference between the ground and 1000 metres up to generate electricity directly. A greenhouse is used at the bottom to grow useful crops.
Nuclear electricity remains an option (Aust has plenty of fuel for that).
And there are plenty of other technologies presently competing for R&D and investment funding. All that is required is for the govt to keep away and for enviromentalists and their ilk to be completely ignored. That would leave the rest of us to get on with raising the investment capital, purchasing the resources and services necessary for the task and getting on with it.
The Professor's point is correct. IF Man's productive enterprises were proven to be creating necessarily harmful climate changes, then there are the means to deal with it without embracing environmentalism, collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks and other such idiocies.
Sione
Published: March 17, 2007 12:16 PM
Sasha Radeta
I get sick to my stomach when I hear how G8 countries are now all of the sudden concerned about global warming when it comes to CO2 emissions from the large “developing” countries, like Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa. Even many of my environmentalist friends actually realize what really drives this hysteria.
Published: March 17, 2007 12:22 PM
Francisco Torres
Sasha Radeta:
"I get sick to my stomach when I hear how G8 countries are now all of the sudden concerned about global warming when it comes to CO2 emissions from the large "developing" countries, like Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa."
And from China and India... the main "competitors" from the point of viw of G8 politicians. Is it not obvious that what the G8 want is to further their protectionists policies, except cloaked in a concern-for-the-evironment façade, with lots of useful idiots to give them ample help?
It is the perfect ruse! The G8 politicians can use AGW hysteria to impose trade restrictions on countries that do not comply with Kyoto or any other dubious agreement that comes in the future. This would put them at the eyes of the sheeple as people who "take action". If the policies fail to stem temperatures, or generate economic downturns, well, they can always blame the scientists and environmental wackos, cannot they?
Published: March 18, 2007 11:40 AM
Michael A. Clem
I don't think Reisman seriously intends nuclear bombs or massive engineering projects as solutions to global warming. Instead, he simply intends to point out that the environmentalist crowd is simply using global warming as their latest scare tactic against human productivity and technology, without considering the possibility of using that very same productivity and technology to address any potential warming problems.
A truly "Austrian" approach would have to recognize that there may be no single way of dealing with it, and, of course, that current governments and their policies are a hindrance to resolving the problems, not an answer. Government-imposed carbon taxes, for example, are a restriction, not an incentive for innovation. Once and for all, we must recognize that governments have no legitimate business engaging in economic investment, environmental change, or anything else that does not involve the protection of individual rights. I suspect that global warming seems like such a difficult problem precisely because we have not yet worked out the nature and extent of the problem. Solutions based on false premises are unlikely to be of much help.
Published: March 18, 2007 1:22 PM
TokyoTom
Michael Clem:
Your second paragraph is a fairly balanced Austrian approach. However, you fail to note that the current US governmental approach is pretty much tilted in favor of the utilities and coal interests and does not protect individual rights, as Vince has noted on the related thread. Rather than doing nothing, do you want to recommend any regulatory rollback that addresses exsiting distortions, or do you believe they should be left in place?
Your first paragraph, in which you downplay Dr. Reisman's proposals to use nuclear bombs or massive engineering projects as solutions to global warming, is rather puzzling. It is very clear that Dr. Reisman intends that he intends that these proposals be taken seriously:
"This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."
Do you care to seriously address his suggestions from an Austrian viewpoint?
TT
Published: March 19, 2007 2:01 AM
TokyoTom
Mr. Vatu concludes:
"The Professor's point is correct. IF Man's productive enterprises were proven to be creating necessarily harmful climate changes, then there are the means to deal with it without embracing environmentalism, collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks and other such idiocies."
Yep, and Dr. Reisman's suggestions that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government in the form of atmospheric modification through the detonation of nukes or through grandiose construction projects clearly do not involve the embracing of collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks or other such idiocies.
Is this the same Mr. Vatu who adamantly insists on "proofs" that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring before anyone can have a discussion of the application of Austrian principles to dealing with the situation? Hmm, why no insistence on proofs here?
Is this the same Mr. Vatu who has said the following?
“The "corrective measures" you write of with evident fondness represent coercion, force and ultimately violence initiated against other people. Now, how do you know that your great plan is going to work? How do you know it is any good? By what standard? WHY should ANY individual be forced to obey your orders and ideas?”
“I for one want nothing to do with the likes of this type of nonsense. It is a criminal enterprise you are promoting and one that should be resisted in determined manner.”
“Futuristic technology is always just around the corner, except it isn't. Relying on it as some sort of a panacea is foolish.”
“The threat of some bad weather sometime, somewhere, somehow, perhaps, possibly, at some point, is no justification for coercive collectivism.”
“The lesson in this debate has been the shallow and wilfully dishonest nature of those who would justify the initiation and use of coercive force against other individuals. It all comes down to the conceit of assuming to know better than another man how he should live HIS life. Answers to problems are not to be found in that manner; only more problems.”
“[Dr. Reisman] already has a logical and self-consistent philosophical system developed (an important part of it is in the public domain and has been published). You lack a coherent system of thought from which to examine his position. And that is becoming more and more obvious with each post...”
Inquiring minds want to know more not only about about Dr. Reisman's logical and self-consistent philosophical system, but Mr. Vatu's as well.
Published: March 19, 2007 3:50 AM
Francisco Torres
Yep, and Dr. Reisman's suggestions that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government in the form of atmospheric modification through the detonation of nukes or through grandiose construction projects clearly do not involve the embracing of collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks or other such idiocies.
Dr. Reisman never mentioned "government". You just assumed it he meant it because he mentioned the use of nukes.
Is this the same Mr. Vatu who adamantly insists on "proofs" that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring before anyone can have a discussion of the application of Austrian principles to dealing with the situation? Hmm, why no insistence on proofs here?
TT, because the point of the article is not finding proofs - the article assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Global Warming theory is correct. It simply examines more rational ways to deal with the supposed threat than to cripple the economy of countless people by the use of the potentially elitist "carbon credits". Actually the more rational alternative is to switch from coal-burning or oil-burning powerplants to nuclear powerplants, but that is still considered a big no-no by the true believers.
Published: March 19, 2007 10:13 AM
Francisco Torres
TT:
Dr Reisman: "This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."
Do you care to seriously address his suggestions from an Austrian viewpoint?
TT, Dr. Reisman tasks the believers in Global Warming to come up with solutions that will maintain the current levels of economic progress. Mr. Reisman is not giving credence to the idea of AGW, he is simply requiring from those true believers that they remain consistent with their beliefs.
Published: March 19, 2007 10:18 AM
Francisco Torres
And, yes, the nuclear weapons idea is not one consistent with market principles. Since when did nuclear weaponry ever have anything directly to do with the market economy?
Why is it not consistent? You are allowing recent history to bias your thinking - just because governments financed the first weapons does not mean the market itself would not come up with nuclear explosives, as complement to the conventional explosives already in use in industry. Think mining operations; think geophysical seismic mapping.
Published: March 19, 2007 10:22 AM
Sione Vatu
Gentlemen, TT is at it again. Now he is really desparate. I wonder how many hours of effort his latest contribution took! How much hate his wee mind must be filled with!
He writes that Prof Reisman suggests that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government. That's BS and he knows it. Prof Reisman does not support govt interventions of this kind at all- ever (BTW neither do I). I'll challenge TT for a direct proof of his latest contention shortly. In the meantime note how TT employs selective quotations, always taken out of context. Not very convincing. Very dishonest.
And he still can't validate his underlying premise (about climate change) as he has no proofs. Not even one... How long has it been since he was asked to so do? Where are those proofs.....? Gosh, I guess he still aint got any.
An aside and some background: I am very careful about futuristic technology. Since my career is commercialisation of technology and research I have to be careful. If I get things wrong I will lose my accumulated capital and be working on the tools again. That's OK for a twenty year old but these days I am not as physically fit as I once was. I'm a skeptic when it comes to the new tech and the claims of those who hawk it about the shop. Nevertheless I'll take a punt when it suits and invest in certain high tech new starts.
When it comes to digging canals and building greenhouses and growing crops I'm confident we are not dealing with futuristic technologies at all. All well understood and conventional enough. Hence my investment (modest though it is ) in this idea. So far, we already have had several off-season tomato crops out of the scheme and there are plans for new things to be tried in a logical step-wise fashion. There is a reasonable chance of success since the cash burn rate is correct and the results are coming in to schedule. I'm confident I'll be able to recover my capital and a useful profit besides. Then we'll be ready to really compete in this business with the Brits and the Dutch (who it would appear are the leaders in the field).
Now as it happens, should this business really take off in a BIG way (who knows, it may well do and that's the general idea) then there would be lots of crop produced by the method in the lucky country of Oz, and incidently it could be arranged to absorb plenty of CO2 in all likelyhood (fancy that!)- actually that'd happen anyway regardless.
Of course then TT will demand that we exploiter-investors pay the govt a tax for all the CO2 we will be taking away from "the commons". What a turd!
I wrote: "The Professor's point is correct. IF Man's productive enterprises were proven to be creating necessarily harmful climate changes, then there are the means to deal with it without embracing environmentalism, collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks and other such idiocies."
I stand by that. Apart from anything else, it's worth considering that the best means for dealing with problems are Man's productive enterprises of which my investment is but a small example.
Sione
Published: March 19, 2007 2:15 PM
Sione Vatu
TT
You assert that Prof. Reisman supports the notion of direct intervention and spending by the government. Please prove your claim or retract it and apologise for being dishonest.
Sione
Published: March 19, 2007 3:09 PM
Michael A. Clem
Rather than doing nothing, do you want to recommend any regulatory rollback that addresses exsiting distortions, or do you believe they should be left in place?
What self-respecting Austrian would want to maintain the status quo? Of course I would want to address the existing regulations that distort the market...
Published: March 19, 2007 3:16 PM
TokyoTom
Francisco, thanks for your various comments.
1. "Dr. Reisman never mentioned "government". You just assumed it he meant it because he mentioned the use of nukes."
I think that my inference is both obvious and fair. Dr. Reisman must fully understand how unlikely it is that either (1) governments will allow private markets for nuclear weapons to develop in the short and medium-term or (2) a private market will develop to use nukes for the purposes he suggests.
2. "the point of the article is not finding proofs - the article assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Global Warming theory is correct."
I am quite aware of the premises, and I think it is an entirely appropriate basis on which to discuss a difficult scientific matter.
My point was directed to Mr. Vatu, who has made it clear that he violently disagrees that it its appropriate for anyone to discuss climate change on a provisional basis such as this - they first pass through a number of proofs satisfactory to him.
3. The article "examines more rational ways to deal with the supposed threat than to cripple the economy of countless people by the use of the potentially elitist "carbon credits"."
I am aware that Dr. Reisman posits this as a strawman that he makes no effort at all to support. He focusses his attacks on the profoundly destructive, misanthropic enviros but somehow seems to forget that a whole list of his economist colleagues, starting with Greg Mankiw, formerly head of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, support Pigouvian taxes as an approach to climate change:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html
He also ignores that mankind hating organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, evangelical groups, and a long list of corporations (Boeing, GE etc.) support action on climate change. One wishes he would extend his analysis a little more widely, and with a little less hysteria.
4. "Dr. Reisman tasks the believers in Global Warming to come up with solutions that will maintain the current levels of economic progress."
An interesting point. On the use of nukes, I think it is reasonably clear that Dr. Reisman has proposed, assuming that climate change is shown to be a problem, that nukes should be seriously considered: "If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."
In the case of other proposals, going back to his article, I do see that he has suggested attempted to put his suggestions into the mouth of a "remnant of the left of an earlier era" rather than to claim these "grandiose construction projects" as his own. This is more than a little facile, since not only is it clear that most of the support for the geoengineering proposals that are being bandied about is in fact coming from the right, but even more to the point, Dr. Reisman stresses that these proposals should be seriously considered:
"there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists."
"Once people begin to put their minds to the problem, it is possible that a variety of effective and relatively low-cost solutions for global warming will be found."
I certainly do not object to suggestion that various geoengineering proposals should be considered to deal with climate change, but I am puzzled both (1) how Dr. Reisman can suggest that proposals such as these merit serious consideration even as it is apparent that they would involve serious government interference in the economy and (2) why he rejects out of hand the proposals of Pigouvians and others that would also involve government, but from an approach aimed specifically at improving catallaxy and leaving to the market the appropriate behavioral changes, including the development and deployment of new technologies.
TT
Published: March 20, 2007 12:16 AM
TokyoTom
Mr. Vatu's "wee mind" is full of "desparate" thoughts. I don't know why I bother, except that no one likes having scatalogical remarks hurled at them.
My post took no time. There is some nifty and inexpensive technology out there that I guess he is unaware of. But Google can easily confirm the context of the remarks I've quoted. I note that Mr. Vatu does not consider his self-defense to be worth such an investment.
I also note that he proves my point about his argumentative avoidance and inconsistency: he "adamantly insists on "proofs" that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring before anyone can have a discussion of the application of Austrian principles to dealing with the situation", while neglecting to apply such requirements to Dr. Reisman's arguendo adoption of precisely the same analytical approach:
"And he still can't validate his underlying premise (about climate change) as he has no proofs. Not even one... How long has it been since he was asked to so do? Where are those proofs.....? Gosh, I guess he still aint got any."
Mr. Vatu, you keep threatening to leave the game if it's not played by your rules, rules that even Dr. Reisman does not accept. I won't stop you.
Published: March 20, 2007 12:33 AM
Sione Vatu
TokyoTom
I specifically asked you to respond to a particular question. You didn't. You evaded it. What you have done is more wriggling and fibbing already!
You asserted that Professor Reisman supports the notion of direct intervention and spending by government and that he suggested that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs. You were asked to provide proof for your claim. You provided nothing to back it. Instead you dissembled and evaded. You couldn't back your claim, because it is untrue. You know this to be the case.
In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that you, Thomas, are a liar. Dishonesty is your primary intellectual attribute. How low.
Sione
Published: March 20, 2007 5:13 AM
Walt D.
Global Warming is a tax hike for fools
The purpose of the state is to devise new ways to extract money from the people so that it can be spent on causes that they deem to be worthy. The best taxes are those which people do not see or recognize as taxes - inflation, ATM etc. A CO2 tax is a marvelous scam. Dr Reisman exposes the Global Warming movement for the religion it is.
Statements of the for "Scientists believe" are a dead giveaway - Scientists know. As with any other religion, it is pointless coming up with scientific arguments - the adherent's epistemological choice is to believe what they perceive as the authority. Few, if any, have the technical background to do anything else.
Thus our CO2 tax becomes a tithe to the church.
In the same way that there is no scientific problem with millions of childhood deaths from malaria in Africa, there is no scientific problem with CO2 emission. Nevertheless, millions of people in Africa are without electricity or running water. The fact that the US and Europe refuse to address either problem in a rational way, DDT for one and nuclear energy for the other, indicates the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of the Environmental/Socialist movement.
I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me. Yet I am able to convince myself and others that I am truly sorry for his plight and that I would do anything to lighten his burden - except by getting off of his back.
Published: March 20, 2007 8:54 PM
TokyoTom
Mr. Vatu:
Okay, okay.
I didn`t respond before since you did not support your own claim, and have never yourself responded to the questions I`ve posed to you over the past year, while subjecting me to a continuing stream of abuse that has gotten you banned in the past.
But I suppose that your inability to answer my questions doesn`t produce a similar infirmity on my part.
1. Your accusations:
- "You asserted that Professor Reisman supports the notion of direct intervention and spending by government and that he suggested that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs."
- "You were asked to provide proof for your claim. You provided nothing to back it. Instead you dissembled and evaded."
- "You couldn't back your claim, because it is untrue. You know this to be the case. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that you, Thomas, are a liar. Dishonesty is your primary intellectual attribute."
2. My statements, in chronological order:
a. To Dr. Reisman, I stated/asked:
- "you seriously suggest that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs to use hydrogen bombs and "grandiose construction projects" to directly and intrusively try to manage the climate through geoengineering."
- "How are your interventionist geoengineering suggestions in (2) at all consistent with Austrian principles?"
b. To Michael Clem, I stated/asked:
- "Your first paragraph, in which you downplay Dr. Reisman's proposals to use nuclear bombs or massive engineering projects as solutions to global warming, is rather puzzling. It is very clear that Dr. Reisman intends that he intends that these proposals be taken seriously ...."
c. To Mr. Vatu, I ironically stated:
- "Dr. Reisman's suggestions that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government in the form of atmospheric modification through the detonation of nukes or through grandiose construction projects clearly do not involve the embracing of collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks or other such idiocies."
d. To Francisco, I stated:
- (Francisco, in my point 1:) "Dr. Reisman never mentioned "government". You just assumed it he meant it because he mentioned the use of nukes."
me: "I think that my inference is both obvious and fair. Dr. Reisman must fully understand how unlikely it is that either (1) governments will allow private markets for nuclear weapons to develop in the short and medium-term or (2) a private market will develop to use nukes for the purposes he suggests."
- (Francisco, in my point 4:) "Dr. Reisman tasks the believers in Global Warming to come up with solutions that will maintain the current levels of economic progress."
me: "An interesting point. On the use of nukes, I think it is reasonably clear that Dr. Reisman has proposed, assuming that climate change is shown to be a problem, that nukes should be seriously considered: "If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.""
me: "In the case of other proposals, going back to his article, I do see that he has suggested attempted to put his suggestions into the mouth of a "remnant of the left of an earlier era" rather than to claim these "grandiose construction projects" as his own. This is more than a little facile, since not only is it clear that most of the support for the geoengineering proposals that are being bandied about is in fact coming from the right, but even more to the point, Dr. Reisman stresses that these proposals should be seriously considered:
""there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists."
""Once people begin to put their minds to the problem, it is possible that a variety of effective and relatively low-cost solutions for global warming will be found.""
me: "I certainly do not object to suggestion that various geoengineering proposals should be considered to deal with climate change, but I am puzzled both (1) how Dr. Reisman can suggest that proposals such as these merit serious consideration even as it is apparent that they would involve serious government interference in the economy and (2) why he rejects out of hand the proposals of Pigouvians and others that would also involve government, but from an approach aimed specifically at improving catallaxy and leaving to the market the appropriate behavioral changes, including the development and deployment of new technologies."
3. Conclusions:
a.1. Have I "asserted that Professor Reisman supports the notion of direct intervention and spending by government"?
No. In my comment to you, I observed that "Dr. Reisman[] suggest[s] that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government".
a.2. Have I "asserted that Professor Reisman ... suggested that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs"?
Yes.
a.3. What is the truth of my suggestions?
Has Dr. Reisman (i) suggested that we rely on direct intervention and spending by the government, or (ii) suggested that the acceptable approach is statist, large-government programs?
Yes, although he has been a bit slippery about it, as I noted to Francisco.
On the use of nukes, "I think it is reasonably clear that Dr. Reisman has proposed, assuming that climate change is shown to be a problem, that nukes should be seriously considered": "This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."
Would the use of nukes be a "statist, large-government program" involving "direct intervention and spending by the government"? Self-evidently, yes. (Francisco suggests a remote out for Dr. Reisman on this, which I addressed above.)
On other geoengineering proposals, as I stated to Michael Clem, I think it is very clear that Dr. Reisman intends that these proposals be taken seriously, even though (1) he couches them as proposals that he hopes that some "remnant of the left of an earlier era, which still respected science and technology, and championed industrial civilization," might offer and (2) he says that he "would not be ready to endorse any such costly proposals."
Would the projects that Dr. Reisman discusses be "statist, large-government programs" involving "direct intervention and spending by the government"? Self-evidently, yes. Please let me know if I can help spell that out for you.
Does Dr. Reisman "suggest" these programs? I think it is fair to say that he does, even though he puts them (except for his direct proposal to use nukes) in the mouth of the left. He posits the need to seek out "rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary" and "means of deliberately cooling the earth" that will not "abandon" or "compromise" industrial civilization (his emphasis), then brings up proposals to use nukes and various "grandiose" geoengineering projects, and makes it very clear (as I noted to Michael Clem prior to my comment to you) that he "intends that these proposals be taken seriously". I have already laid out for Francisco the many statements Dr. Reisman makes that support that position.
I think it is completely fair to use "suggests" as a shorthand for the proposals that Dr. Reisman raises as examples of "rational" "means of deliberately cooling the earth" that will not "abandon" or "compromise" industrial civilization, and that he indicates deserve serious consideration.
So have I lied? No.
Anybody besides Sione who cares to disagree? Dr. Reisman, do you care to say a word in defense of yourself or Mr. Vatu?
b. "You were asked to provide proof for your claim. You provided nothing to back it. Instead you dissembled and evaded."
Yes, I ignored you the first time.
But did I provide nothing to back it, dissemble and evade? No. Did you not read my response to Francisco?
c. "You couldn't back your claim, because it is untrue. You know this to be the case. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that you, Thomas, are a liar. Dishonesty is your primary intellectual attribute."
I have backed my claim. The evidence fully supports me. If you don`t like what Dr. Reisman suggests, why don`t you take it up with him?
Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that you, Mr. Vatu, are a blowhard who refuses to engage on the substance, and that bluster and intellectual inconsistency are your hallmarks - the very reasons that you have been banned before.
4. My turn.
- Please demonstrate or retract and apologize for your statement that I am "a liar. Dishonesty is your primary intellectual attribute."
- Please demonstrate or retract and apologize for your statement that I "employ selective quotations, always taken out of context. Not very convincing. Very dishonest."
- You suggested a private project that would grow commercial crops and "absorb plenty of CO2" - but self-evidently would not sequester carbon on a medium or long-term basis, and then claim that "TT will demand that we exploiter-investors pay the govt a tax for all the CO2 we will be taking away from "the commons". What a turd!"
Please demonstrate or retract and apologize for this statement.
- You stated that "The Professor's point is correct. IF Man's productive enterprises were proven to be creating necessarily harmful climate changes, then there are the means to deal with it without embracing environmentalism, collectivism, superstition, quasi-religious faiths, cranks and other such idiocies."
I then asked you, although you adamantly insist on "proofs" that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring before anyone can have a discussion of the application of Austrian principles to dealing with the situation, why you do not insist on proofs from Dr. Reisman. You don`t respond, but come back with the same insistence that I "validate my underlying premise (about climate change)".
I challenge you again to explain why it is perfectly appropriate for Dr. Reisman to assume, for the sake of argument, that man`s productive enterprises are creating harmful climate changes, but why it is wrong for me to try to engage in discussion of the application of Austrian principles on the same basis.
- If you care at all to make any substantive point on this thread, please demonstrate how Dr. Reisman`s suggestion that we use hydrogen bombs to cool the Earth are remotely consistent with Austrian principles.
Let`s what you are made of, beside bluster and scatological references.
TT
Published: March 21, 2007 3:46 AM
Kevin B.
Suppose an ecologically responsible entrepreneur creates a profitable enterprise that reduces CO2 emissions. If, after spending millions of dollars on capital equipment, the climate position is reveresed and there is a worry of global cooling, then will the entrepreneur be punished for the CO2 being prevented from entering the atmosphere?
Published: March 21, 2007 1:19 PM
Sione Vatu
TT
Yes you have lied- more than once.
I stand behing what I've concluded and stated for the record about you. You are indeed a liar. Wriggling and dissembling about the meanings of words deliberately taken out of context do not assist your cause. You wrote what you wrote with the full knowledge that the Prof was not promoting govt interventions of the kind YOU were. You have not retracted or apologised. You've made up some poor excuses and attempted to wriggle away instead. Hence TT, you are, and remain, a liar.
It is no surprise that you lie, as you are a demonstrated collectivist who is on the record supporting the imposition of energy taxes and the negation of individual property rights by various convoluted means (among other things). I note your previous attempts to justify a grand unification of environmental collectivism and Austrian Economics (as if you could unify freedom with its antithesis!).
Tom, there is no point in discussing the specifics of your grand economic/political schemes in the absence of the proofs you were asked for. One may as well debate the attributes of fairies. In the end the whole edifice of your thought and schemes is baseless.
There has been over a year of evasion, smearing and furfies on your part. Recall that we are still missing the SERIES of proofs you were originally asked provide in order to validaye your wild claims. Stop misrepresenting what you were asked for as merely a request for a single proof (that anthropogenic climate change is actually occurring) before anyone can have a discussion of the application of Austrian principles. That's another lie on your part (two actually). You were asked for something quite different than that- much more were you expected to establish and prove. Yet you failed to supply anything of substance. The conversation (such that it was) stalled at that point and no progress can be made until you admit your error.
I gave up on you long ago when it became clear you actually have nothing to offer. You're a one subject crank. Your system of thought is a baseless faith- less than a cargo cult. But this new low of mis-attribution of ideas to others is going too far.
I note your claim that I've been banned for abusing you in the past. Really? I say not so. I say you are telling lies again! Proof please.
Sione
Published: March 21, 2007 2:38 PM
Sione Vatu
Gentlemen
I guess I should have stuck to my own advice and not bothered with further engagment of TT. He is a collectivist who engages in debate in a dishonest manner. He utilises polemic tools such as altering context and mis-representing the ideas and positions of others to suit his own purposes. However never once has he provided a validation (or attempted one) for his assertions and for his system of thought. Over a year have we waited and for over a year he's evaded.
That is bad.
Too bad.
In the end it is he who is on the record as promoting coercive violence and taxation against individuals and their property. Yet he can't provide a consistent philosophical (and moral) basis for his opinion.
I prefer the approach where people are left alone, free to get on with their lives unhindered by the TT's of the world with their terrible collectivist ideologies. When I suggested that people be left alone to solve their problems, he disagreed and responded that they should be taxed on energy. That's a shame as it is indeed Man's productive enterprises that solve problems and improve life (I strongly concur with Prof Reisman on this). On the other hand TT's taxes and imposts deny options and hinder ability.
In the end TT is indeed a collectivist to be avoided or resisted- don't be fooled by him! The challenge I originally made to him still stands unanswered. He has nothing.
Sione
Published: March 21, 2007 2:59 PM
David White
Having read this piece a little while ago -- http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0321-22.htm -- I emailed its author as follows:
Mr. McKibben:
You couldn't be more wrong in stating that CO2 "makes up 72% of greenhouse gases." It doesn't, as water vapor makes up fully 95% of all greenhouses gases -- http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html -- precisely as this British documentary says -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 -- during the course of revealing what a swindle human-caused global warming is.
Moreover, since CO2 is vital to plant growth, atmospheric increases of it constitute "a wonderful and unexpected gift of the Industrial Revolution" -- http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm -- the more so as the revolution continues.
Granted, the coming end of cheap oil -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 -- not to mention the end of the cheap credit that has fueled oil's rapid depletion -- http://www.netcastdaily.com/fsnewshour.htm (scroll down to the Peter Schiff interview) -- are likely to slow the revolution considerably in the near term, with humanity paying a heavy price accordingly. But insofar as technology continues its exponential growth in areas like solar technology, we can expect it to power a clean, green Second Industrial Revolution in the not-too-distant future:
"We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences, such as global warming, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem." -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html
For the love of this planet and all of its inhabitants, then, either cease your participation in this terribly misguided campaign, as well as your neo-Luddite war on technology, or prepare to suffer the consequences of perpetrating a fraud that can only result in a monumental loss of life and wealth.
David White
Founder & President
Sustainable Dynamics LLC
Published: March 21, 2007 4:18 PM
David White
ChrisB,
The "nanotechnology idea" doesn't dismiss the idea of "tackling climate change now"; it merely says that if solar technology continues to advance as rapidly as it HAS been advancing -- i.e., in accordance with Moore's Law, which shows no signs of abating -- then within twenty years, we will have weaned ourselves off of fossil fuels, nullifying whatever (real or imagined) effects the industrial production of CO2 might have insofar as global warming is concerned.
In other words, let the market do it work vis-a-vis Peak Oil (which we would never have arrived at if cheap, non-asset-based credit hadn't greased the skids of its depletion), and human-caused global warming (real or imagined) will become a non-issue.
That said, what's your reply regarding CO2's percentage as a greenhouse gas, the point being that the industrial production of it is so miniscule as to be utterly irrelevant.
Published: March 21, 2007 5:25 PM
David White
In other words, ChrisB, you don't know and you don't care; human-caused global warming is a reality, so don't confuse me with the facts.
Look, I'm no scientist; I'm merely pointing you and others TO scientists. Did you watch the British documentary? Did you check out the other links? If not, why not?
As for my "one-way discussion with whomever," Bill McKibben is a rock star in the "deep ecology" -- i.e., humans are the ultimate pollutant -- community. So when he lies through his teeth about the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, he's perpetuating a fraud that could -- and may well, given that it's primarily "political science" -- result in an untold lose of life and wealth, even as our REAL environmental restoration needs go wanting.
And you want a piece of that?
Published: March 21, 2007 6:46 PM
David White
ChrisB,
"My views are based on the work of climate scientists, who I believe are credible."
Same here.
"If Bill McKibben isn't a climate scientist, then what he has to say is of no interest to me."
It is to me, as he, like Internet Al, have a lot of political clout, hence the "political science" that attends them.
"The British documentary is a piece of garbage: Google to find out why."
I did and can't find anything other than ad hominem attacks that only highlight the fact that "deniers" can't be refuted on scientific grounds. (And I'm still awaiting you reply about the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.)
"At the end of the day, in the words of the most famous skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, 'global warming is real and man-made' (written testimony for the House Energy and Commerce Committee). Denying this means that you are rejecting science."
Must have happened before he saw through the truly hot air -- http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
"But if you feel that you know something that the entire field of climate science doesn't..."
The entire field of climate science believes no such thing, as the British documentary, the Petition Project, and books like this -- http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232 -- make abundantly clear.
"Out of interest, what could make you change your mind?"
Persuading me that the state doesn't feed off of crises -- http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=15 -- whether unintentional or, like this one, invented.
Published: March 21, 2007 7:51 PM
Dennis
YokyoTom,
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 21, 2007 8:02 PM
TokyoTom
David, I thought that your response to Bill McKibben was very interesting, especially what you point to in terms of possbile new technology.
But let me show my ignorance in saying that this is the first time that I have heard of McKibben or the "deep ecology" community. Need to do more reading, obviously.
But beyond that (and what you perceive as his lying about CO2 and his nefarious agenda), what he writes about how we've become increasingly alienated along with our growth in material wealth seems to be a fair point, and his suggestions for changes in the energy grid seem to parallel what a number of posters on threads here have also called for. In fact, it seems entirely consistent with what you think will in fact happen, "if solar technology continues to advance as rapidly as it HAS been advancing -- i.e., in accordance with Moore's Law, which shows no signs of abating".
However, while it seems to me that technology is indeed moving in the direction you point, do you really think you are not being overly optimistic when you suggest that (1) sufficient new technology will be installed within twenty years to wean us off of fossil fuels and that (2) this will entirely "nullify[] whatever (real or imagined) effects the industrial production of CO2 might have insofar as global warming is concerned"? CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations continue to grow globally at increasing rates, and if CO2 does have a climate forcing effect then to "nullify" that effect (ignoring other athropogenic forcings) massive work will have to be done to pull carbon from the atmosphere or to otherwise mask its effect.
Do you think that a carbon tax such (as has been floated and supported on the other thread) would help the transition to nanotech solar and other technologies, and to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels before the Peak Oil problem you point to hits us?
Regards,
Evil, lying Tom
Published: March 21, 2007 10:12 PM
Kevin B.
Well, if the global environment is so easily affected by man, than in a generation or two we should easily have advanced to the point where we are both SURE of the causes and have many more resources available to allocate to the job of adjusting it back to "Gaia." Taxes will be as effective as usual, so we can toss that idea right out with the rest of the garbage. Once it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is a pollutant, then tort can be used to get things moving, right? Then, if doubt resurfaces, and the original judgements are deemed premature, the victims of the undue law can sue for damages. What's wrong with these ideas?
Published: March 21, 2007 10:26 PM
N. Joseph Potts
Kevin B. - The irony is, a carbon tax, if sufficient to have an effect, may have a MASSIVE, long-term effect of the kind desired (reducing human emissions of CO2). The ineffectiveness of taxes you have in mind is their ineffectiveness in HELPING economic growth.
THIS tax, although not so advertised, MUST have the purpose of THROTTLING economic growth to gain its immediate desired effect. Taxes, as we all know, are excellent for this purpose. If high enough, and adequately enforced, they could drive the world economy into a downward spiral more than sufficient (someday) to greatly reduce not only the human contribution to greenhouse gases, but the human population itself.
A more profoundly anti-human "environmental" initiative, I do not think I could concoct by way of any exertion of my imagination.
Published: March 21, 2007 11:05 PM
TokyoTom
Sione, you are a barking worm, without the honor to support your accusations, much less logical consistency in your attacks.
I have directly responded to you, but you have entirely failed to respond to any of my requests that you SUBSTANTIATE your accusations, rather than simply repeat them, over and over, like a trained parrot.
But that of course is exactly how you have behaved whenever you make accusations - I respond civilly (with much less digust than I am expressing now) and request substantiation that you always refuse to provide.
This is how you are.
You simply have no honor, and lack the courage to trouble yourself to support your accusations. Instead you heap up more calumny. I challenge you to back each of the accusation I noted above, your additional accusations, and the accusations made in your previous posts noted below.
You and others are welcome to peruse my past efforts at dialog and inquiry here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005916.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005667.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005248.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004842.asp
As to your desire to avoid any principled discussion on the basis that certain Vatu-"proofs" are first required, this is absurd and belied not only by Dr. Reisman's two recent articles here - which adopt exactly my premises - and by the host of discussion that has ensued. This discussion is productive, but you refuse to play, but instead to rebuke ME while ignoring the fact that I am doing PRECISELY what Dr. Reisman recognizes is useful in order to explore Austrian principles.
If you wish condemn me, one would hope that you would at least have the courage to be consistent and to tell Dr. Reisman, and the others who have take up his suggestion, that the very task on which they embark is morally and logically bankrupt - at least until they meet your proofs.
Finally, I had thought that you were banned before - not specifically for abusing me as you say - but I may have mistaken you for Graeme Bird. Am I indeed mistaken? Please confirm. If so, I will apologize unreservedly.
I do note in my defense that that the last time you made an ad hominem attack against me you did not respond to my question of whether you have been banned or cautioned for making ad hominemn attacks. Please confirm whether or not you have been cautioned.
Let's see if you have any sense of honor whatsoever.
Published: March 21, 2007 11:46 PM
Mike D.
Chris B.
If you do not know any physics and you rely on the information from a "scientist" to obtain advice, how can you judge whether the information he/she gives you is correct?
A better approach would be to learn a little physics for yourself.
Lesson1: Take 2 bottles of beer (or champagne if you are a liberal). Place one in the fridge. Set your oven to 200F and place the second in the oven and leave overnight.
In the morning, open each bottle and observe what happens. Now ask yourself what caused the oven to warm or the fridge to cool. Was it the release of CO2 from the bottles? Once you've conducted this simple experiment, you'll have learned more than reading all the Global Warming propaganda pro an con and won't have to rely on "experts".
Lesson2: To combat global warming all that needs to be done is for Al Gore to turn the air conditioning on full blast in his house and his Suburban and open the windows, and for everyone else to do the same. If you don't have A/C open the fridge door and open the windows. Will this work? Find out for yourself. Open the fridge door before you go to bed and see how much it cools the kitchen.
Published: March 21, 2007 11:51 PM
TokyoTom
Dennis, thanks. I note that I've replied to on the other thread, where I think you were trying to respond to me.
Published: March 21, 2007 11:51 PM
Kevin B.
N. Joseph Potts,
Not only will taxes result in unintended consequences, but I highly doubt that if they could be used correctly (and that's a big "if") that those administering them would do so in that manner. Let's face it - politicians behave like selfish clods. No, the state must not be involved.
Besides, what if they turn out to be wrong? Who will pay restitution? The State? HA!
Published: March 22, 2007 1:19 AM
TokyoTom
Joseph:
"The ineffectiveness of taxes you have in mind is their ineffectiveness in HELPING economic growth.
THIS tax, although not so advertised, MUST have the purpose of THROTTLING economic growth to gain its immediate desired effect."
You may be correct about the first point, but we certainly can and will continue to improve our energy intensity (energy consumed per unit of GDP)as Pres. Bush has noted, even without any new taxes. This is a result of improving energy efficiency (the flip side, GDP per energy consumed), which is motivated strictly by existing costs of energy. Some stats are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity, based on EIA data from 2004.
As to the second point, would you argue that Japan and other countries with higher energy taxes have set them higher precisely for the "purpose of THROTTLING economic growth"?
You also fail to grasp the basic Austrian point, which is that if AGW is occurring and imposing costs, then the use of fossil fuels (if CO2 contributes to the problem) imposes costs, costs that are not reflected in the prices of fossil fules. In order words, there is a failure of catallaxy. You might continue to argue that this is a problem that you do not want or trust government to try to fix, but you should then make an effort to describe how you think that private efforts will be sufficient to resolve the problem.
even carbon taxes would be unlikely to move US energy costs close to those in Japan, the EU and other countries that heavily tax fuels.
Published: March 22, 2007 3:59 AM
TokyoTom
Mike D:
On your suggestion that litigation might be any kind of panacea, can I suggest that you consider not only the difficult questions of how one chooses defendants and establishes a causal connection between them and one`s own losses, but also the fact that Vince points out on the other thread - that industry has used the Clean Air Act to preempt the common law and to acquire in effect a license to pollute: it`s his contention that without such protection dirty coal plants would have been phased out long ago.
TT
Published: March 22, 2007 9:05 AM
David White
ChrisB,
OF COURSE "Having political clout has nothing to do with being a good scientist." That's precisely why AGW is bunk, as it's politicized in the extreme -- indeed, so much so that ad homenim attacks are made against AGW's critics, serving only to highlight the fact that the science is laughable.
And it IS laughable. I mean, how can humans' contribution of 0.28% of total greenhouse gases possibly be enough to send the planet into a runaway warming frenzy? Sure, the planet has warmed a tiny bit of late, but it's entirely natural, as is already apparent from the non-politicized research.
No, that may not stop this madness from continuing -- to the added misery and early death of millions (mostly Africans, so no big deal, right?) -- but mark my words, this will go down in history as the biggest scientific fraud ever.
TT,
I've not the slightest problem with our weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and therefore don't criticize McKibben or anybody else in this regard.
As for our rampant consumerism, it's a direct result of our runaway monetary fraud and the absurd notion that a nation can consume its way to prosperity. While our idiot president exhorts us to "go out and shop," John Wesley was right on the money when he said, "Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can." And had we but stayed with that ethic, we wouldn't be in the financial mess we're now in.
As for technology, my faith in it may be misplaced, but so far so good on the solar front -- http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18415 -- the point being that if we just let the market work its magic, we'll be fine even in the highly unlikely event that AGW is real.
Published: March 22, 2007 11:41 AM
Kevin B.
N. Joseph Potts et TokyoTom,
"The ineffectiveness of taxes you have in mind is their ineffectiveness in HELPING economic growth."
Actually the ineffectiveness I had in mind was the effectiveness of taxes to solve any intended problem without resulting in a splash of new unforeseen problems. Taxes have an intimate relationship with politics, gentlemen.
"...describe how you think that private efforts will be sufficient to resolve the problem."
Let's see...where could private efforts take us without the State stepping in? Well, without the "aid" of the State, we could finally continue putting nuclear reactors online. What else? Hmm...How about removing the other oh-so-useful taxes so that we can afford to invest more in technology? Say, solar harnessing?
The government is doing anything but helping as it is.
Published: March 22, 2007 12:18 PM
Scott D
"Above all, I think you need to address the issue of your supporting your argument with the contents of the British documentary, which we now all know was (*snigger*) produced by a Marxist."
ChrisB, please do a search on "Revolutionary Communist Party UK 1978". I was admittedly surprised to discover that this organization, which started out devotedly communist, eventually turned into a group that is basically right-wing conservative/libertarian in its political and economic leanings. This is the same Marxist organization that Martin Durkin used to be a part of before it disbanded. Interesting, no?
Published: March 22, 2007 12:46 PM
David White
ChrisB,
So show them, then, and make sure they attack the science not the man, especially Marxist-cum-libertarian ones.
As for your worrying about libertarianism hurting itself, fear not; by not getting caught up in this global warming madness it is only proving its muster.
Just wait, you'll see.
Published: March 22, 2007 2:45 PM
David White
ChrisB,
Once again, you can't get to the real issue -- the SCIENCE -- and revolve instead around the obfuscating orb of ad homenim attacks.
But if 2 + 2 = 4, then it matters not who says so. Similarly, if a mere 0.28% of greenhouse gases consists of manmade CO2, then it matters not who says so. Can global warmers refute the calculation? Can they provide proof that, on the contrary, CO2 "makes up 72% of greenhouse gases," as McKibben proclaims?
You said I could google all manner of refutation of the British documentary, yet when I asked you to provide some links (unable to find any myself), you couldn't do so.
What gives?
Published: March 22, 2007 8:13 PM
TokyoTom
David:
You said to Chris - "You said I could google all manner of refutation of the British documentary, yet when I asked you to provide some links (unable to find any myself), you couldn't do so."
Isn't this more than a little bit precious? You must have noted that I saved you even the effort of Googling by posting links and commentarry about the "Swindle" on the other thread. Shall I give you a link to that thread too?
To me you say - "if we just let the market work its magic, we'll be fine even in the highly unlikely event that AGW is real."
Can you please explain how the market works its magic with respect to open-access resources that are UNOWNED? Isn't there a failure of catallaxy, as I noted to Joseph Potts?
And, on behalf of Dr. Reisman, can I ask the favor of your comments on his suggestion/review of "rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary"?
Regards,
TT
Published: March 22, 2007 9:29 PM
TokyoTom
Kevin B:
I agree almost completely with you that "The government is doing anything but helping as it is" - my point of disagreement being the funding of climate research and the government's voluntary programs to collect emissions information and to award recognition to private efforts that are improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.
You mention a few ways to get government out of the energy business; I largely agree with you in principle, but practically speaking we are unlikely to see the state remove Price-Anderson liability caps or leave spent fuel rod disposal to industry. (You might also note that there are lots of private initiatives related to climate change that I have linked to elsewhere.)
But you have failed to directly answer my question - can you describe how you think that private efforts will be sufficient to resolve the problem (assuming arguendo there to be one, as Dr. Reisman does)? Is there not a failure of catallaxy at present, due to the prohibitive transaction costs of trying to get all affected/interested parties to coordinate?
Regards,
TT
Published: March 22, 2007 9:41 PM
Mike D.
ChrisB
It seems pretty obvious that the bottle in the oven would either explode or its top would blow off during the night.
Well done! Now you already understand that CO2 comes out of solution when the temperature of the beer/champagne rises. So the key point of "The Global Warming Swindle" was the same - that as the ocean temperature rose that the CO2 would come out of solution.
However, the thermal capacity of the ocean is so large that it takes hundreds of years for the temperature to rise. They claim to verify this on the graph of temperature vs CO2 - that CO2 increase lags the increase in temperature, whereas Al Gore et al. claim the opposite.
How can we check this? We know the volume of the oceans, and we know the solar flux constant, so we should be able test the plausibility of the assumption that increases in CO2 are causing the oceans to warm.
Published: March 22, 2007 10:57 PM
TokyoTom
Mike D.
Does atmospheric CO2 have any impact on temps? If it has any positive effect, as the oceans warm and it comes our of solution, does it exert no influence on climate?
And how relevant is the past anyway to our ongoing experient, where we load alot of CO2 in the atmosphere ahead of oceanic warming?
Published: March 23, 2007 4:01 AM
David White
I just read the following in a financial newsletter that I subscribe to:
"While it’s true that the carbon dioxide that cars, trucks, fossil fuel power plants, and the like spew out represents around 75% of the greenhouse gases released by all mankind-related sources, other gases -- like the methane and nitrous oxide that livestock rearing generates in copious quantities -- have a “greenhouse” effect many times more powerful than CO2. In fact, methane’s actions in the atmosphere account for 23 times more GWP (global warming potential) than CO2, and nitrous oxide nearly 300 times as much!
"What this means is that if Earth’s current warming trend is indeed caused by mankind (despite what Gore and friends say, there isn’t a scientific consensus), and if the U.N. report is accurate, then cows, pigs, and chickens are more to blame for it than cars…
"This is what PETA has latched onto and successfully penetrated the mainstream media with. On the strength of this U.N. report and the high profile of Al Gore’s movie, PETA is calling for eco-minded Americans -- and, specifically, Gore himself -- to go vegetarian in the name of Mother Earth. And indeed, it has a point.
"According to researchers from the University of Chicago, if someone really believed that reducing their personal “carbon footprint” (more accurately called a “greenhouse footprint”) would make a difference in the global temperature, eschewing meat would make far more of an impact than buying a Prius. Around 50% greater, the U of C scientists estimate."
Granted, I think AGW is total bullshit, but PETA has inadvertently "stepped in it" with regard to the importance of auto emissions vis-a-vis GHG production. For you may be assured that the AGW movement isn't going to let the above facts get in the way of penalizing urban-industrialism for the crime of existing. Not that I don't think we should wean ourselves off of fossil fuels; on the contrary, had it not been for nearly a century of easy, fiat-based credit -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 -- we would have avoided the geopolital fix we're now in and likely moved on to alternative fuels, modes of transportation, and modes of development years ago.
But such are the unintended consequences of government intervention (e.g., the suburban sprawl that followed the building of the Interstate Highway System and its tributaries) that the problems it creates are never understood as such. Instead, "market failure" gets the blame, and the state is asked to intervene accordingly.
And with that, I bow out of the present discussion, leaving TT, ChrisB, and all other AGW advocates to ask themselves why THIS time, never mind all the false environmental scares of the past (e.g., "global cooling") the Chicken Littles are right.
Published: March 23, 2007 8:05 AM
Kevin B.
TT,
Wouldn't the solution lie in private property? If greenhouse gas emissions were found to be pollutants, then wouldn't private property owners be able to file suit? As I said, for various reasons the solution, whatever it is, should take some time to be reached.
Published: March 23, 2007 1:19 PM
TokyoTom
Kevin:
The problem is that you do not directly suffer from anyone's contributins to climate change - changes being felt now are to CO2 emitted decades before, and there are many other forcing factors at work (carbon black, changes in albedo, cooling effects from particulate pollution etc.). Public nuisance cases are now being brought by attorney generals of various states, but the difficulties of bringing in the right parties, establishing dmages and causation are nearly insurmountable, even for parties in the US.
Even assuming you could establish that some infinitesimal portion of the damages you are suffering is due to damages from a particular factory or power plant in China, how could you possibly bring them to court?
This does not mean that there are no damages, but simply that the peculiarities make it practically impossible to resolve through litigation.
Published: March 25, 2007 9:29 PM
Kevin B.
TT,
Assuming you could establish that carbon dioxide emmissions are more than an insignificant source of global warming damage, who would be the recipient of the carbon-damage funds, whether from carbon taxes, lawsuits, etc?
I doubt victims would see even as much as 10 cents on the dollar if the funds were collected by Uncle Sam "on their behalf."
I argue against employing the State as a means, unless you value an actor with a bounteous history of jumping to conclusions and hastily enacting cures worse than alleged diseases.
Perhaps doing nothing (besides learning) is the best possible course of action for a while.
Published: March 26, 2007 3:03 PM
TokyoTom
David W. -
1. If government intervention is the enemy, then why can't AGW be used to roll back decades of damaging government programs? I largely agree with you here:
"had it not been for nearly a century of easy, fiat-based credit -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-596805984521272213 -- we would have avoided the geopolital fix we're now in and likely moved on to alternative fuels, modes of transportation, and modes of development years ago.
"But such are the unintended consequences of government intervention (e.g., the suburban sprawl that followed the building of the Interstate Highway System and its tributaries) that the problems it creates are never understood as such. Instead, "market failure" gets the blame, and the state is asked to intervene accordingly."
So why, when AGW comes up here, do not other libertarians see a wonderfully opportunity to find political allies to work at undoing very significant damage that statist energy corporations and government programs have done to
the economy? Why not attack real problems?
2. You ask me to wonder "why THIS time, never mind all the false environmental scares of the past (e.g., "global cooling") the Chicken Littles are right." Do you think that you pose a new, insightful question? Isn't the answer simply that the "false" environmental scares reflected a misunderstanding of environmental problems, and that if adequately clear and enforceable property rights exist, then markets (through private economic transactions) will abate the feared harms?
3. However, I notice that you are abandoning the discussion without responding to the counter-question: "Can you please explain how the market works its magic with respect to open-access resources that are UNOWNED? Isn't there a failure of catallaxy?"
4. I also note that you failed to address Dr. Reisman's post:
"And, on behalf of Dr. Reisman, can I ask the favor of your comments on his suggestion/review of 'rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary'?"
Published: March 26, 2007 11:28 PM
TokyoTom
Kevin B, you say that litigation against CO2 emitters will be adequate, but when pressed you respond by finding more ways that litigation won't work (especially in the case of "public nuisance" suits filed by government. Thanks for helping to make my case that litigation is wholly inadequate in responding to climate change.
As a good Austrian, you suggest that "Perhaps doing nothing (besides learning) is the best possible course of action for a while." Perhaps - but how about arguing for an aggressive approach to eliminate expensive and counterproductive government programs and subsidies for fossil fuels? Or is that simply too flexible to be truly Austrian?
Published: March 26, 2007 11:35 PM
Kevin B.
TT,
Excellent post, save two details.
First, I haven't yet been sure whether litigation against CO2 emitters would be adequate, at least not on any aforesaid terms. It was simply a first thought.
Second (and a small point), I don't claim to be Austrian, though I appreciate their efforts. I am wary of labels.
Would I argue for the elimination of government programs and subsidies? Of course! But what do you mean by "aggressive?" Would your tactics be too aggressive for the Austrian School?
Published: March 27, 2007 2:24 AM
TokyoTom
Dr. Reisman, you might wish to take note of the fact that an interdisciplinary group of radical enviros and old-style leftists at MIT is responding to your call for bloated government-centered programs, at least to further reduce the impacts of coal-fueled CO2 impacts.
On March 14, they released a report calling for an approximately $5 billion, 10-year program to demonstrate carbon capture and storage technology, saying that
- "an aggressive R&D effort in the near term will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific challenge"
- "A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades."
- "We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system."
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18389/
http://web.mit.edu/coal/
An editorial last week at MIT's Technology Review says that the interdisciplinary task force is thinking too small: "We Need to Think Big to Reduce Carbon Dioxide;
MIT scientists call on the U.S. government to spend half a billion dollars [annually] on projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal. Why think so small?"
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17568/
Meanwhile, the calls from libertarians to roll back the billions we spend on existing subsidies for fossil fuels and to eliminate the Clean Air Act provisions that allow utilities to avoid private liability for their heavy metal and acid rain pollution are deafening.
Published: March 27, 2007 9:22 PM