Here's your chance to restore my faith in government
This blog has hosted some, shall we say, interesting debates on the question of global warming. For those who are convinced that it is an urgent issue that requires action, I have a question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that claims about global warming are all true. It is happening, we are causing it, and it will change the environment. In this way, global warming reminds me of terrorism. It exists. It’s bad. It causes real harm to people. It also gives rise to apocalyptic predictions about how terrible the consequences will be if we do nothing, it becomes “a threat to our very way of life”, and it is of course a problem so huge and intractable that only collective action coordinated by the government can stop it. So it was with terrorism. But what were the results that we got? The government’s solutions were at best inefficient and counterproductive and at worst gross violations of people’s rights. We now have prisons where we hold people without trial and torture them, we’re being spied on by our own government, we’re sending the young men and women of my generation to be maimed and bleed out their lives in a faraway country and an unwinnable war. It has become yet another reason for the state to devour more power, more money, and more lives. And six years later, we are no safer. Terrorism is not gone. The problem is not solved; indeed, our leaders speak of a war against it that will last beyond our lifetimes. It will consume our money, our freedom, and our people with no end in sight. So even if every single terrible prediction about global warming is true, why should I have any confidence whatsoever in state-sponsored solutions to the problem?
Comments (76)
Brent
You shouldn't, but the usual maniacs will wage the war against the real or imagined phenomenon anyway.
Published: May 18, 2007 4:32 PM
Michael A. Clem
You shouldn't. But just as some people have explained how a free market can deal with such things as pollutions, somebody needs to explain how it can deal with global warming, too. Sure, enviro-nuts will never accept such solutions, but the more reasonable people who are convinced of global warming deserve a better answer.
Published: May 18, 2007 4:38 PM
Richard Oboczky
I'm puzzled. Governments have never solved problems. They've just made matter worse.
But, it seems you need to acknowledge some positives when they are obvious. We have not had another attack on our soil since 911. That is a good thing.
Would you like to be responsible fore making the tough decisions balancing liberties vs. intrusion knowing that if wrong thousands of people could be killed?
Published: May 18, 2007 5:10 PM
JIMB
Mini-max arguments are great: they avoid 1000 pages of b.s. on irrelevancies.
Published: May 18, 2007 5:17 PM
Aden Lothar
"We have not had another attack on our soil since 911."
Mark my words... one day, when the full state enforced global warming combating apparatus is in place, people will answer objections to it with: "See, we have averted global warming! Glory be to the government! We must stay the course!"
Global warming will never get the chance to be empirically refuted so long as people are willing to trade our liberties to sate their fear of it.
btw, I was reading some history on American foreign military intervention, and something finally made sense... for a while now I've been seeing people describing and thinking of Saddam in the same vein as Hitler, when I knew him to be nothing more than a two bit third world thug (there are lots of them to go around); it didn't make sense to me, until I realized how much effort the American government put into demonizing him.
If I didn't see the results of propaganda first hand, I would have never believed it was possible for people to be lead astray so easily (but perhaps the correct word here is "willingly").
Published: May 18, 2007 6:20 PM
Brent
No widely successful terrorist attacks against government agents and institutions inside the US border. Of course, this might be because US government targets in Iraq and Afghanistan are more convenient.
But then again, you could call things like the recent Virginia Tech shootings terrorism...
Published: May 18, 2007 6:30 PM
Dennis
Lisa,
Utilizing your line of argument, what confidence do we have that scientists who are overwhelmingly government funded (at least regarding the AGW issue) have the objectivity and integrity to perform accurate research? A state-sponsored “diagnosis” of the problem is just as, if not more, suspect than "state-sponsored solutions to the problem."
These same types of “experts” have misdiagnosed the major cause of terrorism, and as a result this country has instituted inappropriate solutions. As you have pointed out, not only have these solutions not solved the terrorism problem, but many have grossly violated the civil and economic liberties of individuals.
Published: May 18, 2007 6:32 PM
Hyrum
Go Dennis.
Your point is what I wish the hippies could understand. The government is trying to take our money, and take away our freedoms to solve the environmental problem that they have basically diagnosed.
How can people not be suspicious of that?
Published: May 18, 2007 6:41 PM
clarkstown
Don't fret Hyrum,
I'm a hippie, and I get it!
Btw Lisa, right on girl! You nailed it.
Ron Paul '08!!
Published: May 18, 2007 10:52 PM
clarkstown
Don't fret Hyrum,
I'm a hippie, and I get it!
Btw Lisa, right on girl! You nailed it.
Ron Paul '08!!
Published: May 18, 2007 10:52 PM
clarkstown
oops, sorry.
Published: May 18, 2007 10:53 PM
Robert Brazil
The first mistake is to assume the State is in the business of solving problems. It isn't. The market solves problems. For the State, problems, real or invented, are merely a pretext to act as its nature dictates: to expand in its predation of Society.
That is why the State's first answer to its every failure is to expand the bureaucracy. The Dept. of Homeland Security is a good example of this. Throw more money at the problem. Get more people on the federal payroll. Centralize. It only has to LOOK like you're doing something substantive, even when the net effect is simply to leech more and more out of the productive economy.
It is also why the State never rolls back after the "emergency" is dealt with. After World War II ended, we were left with income tax witholding, a wartime measure that now haunts us in peacetime (if we ever have peace again, that is).
Remember, the State is, praxeologically speaking, a tool for the unscrupulous to consume the products of others without producing anything themselves -- i.e. to steal, without exposing themselves to the risk or shame of committing this crime privately.
Understood in this way, its behavior makes perfect sense. Not so if you take its pronouncements about "problem solving" at face value.
Published: May 18, 2007 11:32 PM
xteve
I've made this argument before, & the answer I always get is that the wrong people are in charge. Republicans don't want to solve the terrorism problem or any other problem because they're greedy capitalists, but if you show enough concern about global warming then you prove you're virtuous enough to be in charge of saving the earth from global warming & capitalism. See? It's simple.
Published: May 19, 2007 12:47 AM
Bill
WOW. Simple and Elegant =)
Published: May 19, 2007 1:11 AM
Monkeyget
Problem A arises.
Government has solution X.
Solution X is bad.
Problem B arises
Government seeks solution Y.
Solution Y will be bad because X was bad.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense.
Published: May 19, 2007 2:29 AM
Ozzie
"In this way, global warming reminds me of terrorism. It exists. It’s bad......"
Come on Lisa.
If greenhouse global warming existed it would be a great benefit and quite obviously so.
Since it would amount to a reduction in heat differentials.
Great for both man and nature.
You can SEE this in the way that the authentically powerful greenhouse gas of water vapour affects the temperature. Compare DEATH VALLEY to SINGAPORE for example.
They are making totally ridiculous predictions of a 2.5-4.5C degrees increase in temperatures by the end of the century. A moronic prediction but if it came true about the best dumb luck we could have.
The place would be warmer and wetter and mostly warmer just at nights. And predictions of drought are all stupid lies because this isn't (hypothetically) sun-based-warming.
Every single constituent part of the campaign against warmer winters for the Laplanders is either unproven or more likely totally back-to-front.
They seem barely human to me. Who would be in a fear and trembling that little Yukos might get to see his first butterfly?
Published: May 19, 2007 2:52 AM
Kyle
"We have not had another attack on our soil since 911."
Reminds me of:
Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!"
Lisa: "That’s specious reasoning, dad."
Homer: "Thank you."
Lisa: "By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Hmm; how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!"
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "...but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I would like to buy your rock."
Published: May 19, 2007 2:57 AM
M-la-maudite
- Lisa,
YOU most definitely SHOULDN'T!
You're right: government "solutions" have always made things worse, independent of the nature of the problem to solve. There is no reason why this would change in the future. Individuals solve problems through individual actions or cooperation (associations, the market, etc.); governments create additional (bigger) problems on top of the existing ones (to try to divert the attention from the original issue?).
- Monkeyget,
I don’t agree with your characterisation of Lisa's position. The issue in hand is not one of the type: if solution X to problem A is wrong, then solution Y to problem B is also wrong.
It is an application of the principle that: if all solutions S1-Sn provided by actor A to solve problems P1-Pn are wrong; then, solution S2 provided by said A to P2 is necessarily wrong (being included in S1-Sn). Namely, the usual consequences of a concept are to be considered as one of its components.
Nozick put it much better than me: "if time after time an ideal gets institutionalised and operates in the world a certain way, then that is what it comes to in the world" and "it is not allowed then simply to disclaim responsibility for what repeatedly occurs under its banner".
- Kyle,
Thanks a lot: that is truly brilliant! I'll remember it and use it next time i'm having to answer this type of claims -:)
Cheers, M-
Published: May 19, 2007 7:18 AM
Yancey Ward
Oh, Lisa, don't you realize that The Ward Against Global Warming will be different because the right people will be in charge of it?
Kyle,
Very appropriate!
Published: May 19, 2007 12:12 PM
Yancey Ward
LMAO! That should have read "The War Against Global Warming". My fingers have become too accustomed to typing my last name, especially when I capitalize the "W".
Published: May 19, 2007 12:17 PM
Sean
What does libertarian economic philosophy say about the commons? Nobody can claim ownership over the air, or weather patterns. My property rights can not include the freedom to deprive you of air. How can a market system provide for a fair way to limit our collective exploitation of finite shared resources, such as the atmosphere of this planet?
Published: May 19, 2007 1:27 PM
Gabriel
Monkeyget wrote,
You are correct, the argument you presented is a non sequitur.
However, Lisa is not making that argument. She's saying something more like this:
1. Two options exist for solving problems: market solutions or government solutions.
2. Market solutions always solve problems better than government solutions do.
3. Problem A arises.
4. We want to solve Problem A using the best method.
5. We need to use the market solution, not the government solution.
Published: May 19, 2007 3:16 PM
Gabriel
Bruce Yandle has one answer to that question.
Published: May 19, 2007 3:22 PM
andy
Now SUPPOSING that our CO2 emissions really cause global warming and that global warming is a problem - can you propose some solution how people organized in a free market way could solve it?
Published: May 19, 2007 3:34 PM
RFN
Great site...But I do have a question to this libertarian reaction to everything Islamic terror related. Let me first say that I was never a proponent of the Iraq Battle. Afghanistan was the appropriate theater for battle and Saddam, being more than just a third world thug btw, was hemmed in and toothless. However, I am always surprised to hear, from libertarians, that not only the Iraq battle but also the increased safety measures here at home are wrong. If you can 100% prove the torture, than by all means do it. I guess my question for you, Lisa, is what do you think the correct response is to the obvious (maybe not so obvious to you perhaps) threat of Islamic Jihadism? Or do you think there is no threat and it is overblown and the Jihadists will eventually fall in line with modernity and neglect their 1,400 years of strict religious doctrine. Afterall Muhammed only repeated Allah's wishes. Thank you.
Published: May 19, 2007 4:43 PM
Ozzie
Andy. Why don't you think of a better example for your commons question than CO2. Because CO2 is a positive externality. So that we are just going to muddy the waters if we get into this deal where we rabbit on AS IF CO2 were an aerial rat-poison or something.
You see this everywhere. Sensible people being conned into talking as if CO2 were a plague of locusts on the supposed understanding that the matter will be hypothetical.
It is wrong when such a massive fraud is going on to allow oneself to be roped into such a thing..
Why not make your example CO? or perhaps SOOT?
But I would advise anyone against entertaining this preposterous notion that CO2 is pollution even for the purposes of an hypothetical example. Since this trick is one of the few things driving the fraud.
Usually for an hypothetical example one doesn't put up two wrong make-believe ideas. One tries to restrict oneself to one at a time.
I mean we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. And there is no evidence that CO2 warms anything. But on the other hand if it did we are then supposed to think that this is a bad thing???
Never forget that the energy-deprivation-crusaders are morons.
Published: May 19, 2007 5:40 PM
James
I do not want the gov't to do jack. The gov't needs to stop making GW worse, starting with the war in Iraq.
What we need to do is use our power at this blog to spread the word that we can make a difference through our individual actions. Encourage people to donate to pro-environmental causes with a track record that doesn't include coercing the gov't to taking a procative stance.
Besides, being "green" is sexy now. Get with the times and set yourself apart from the geezers
Published: May 19, 2007 7:15 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Wow... I'm surprised ChrisB and TokyoTom haven't shown up yet. Maybe it's because Lisa accepted AGW for the sake of argument. Although they might show up eventually arguing that Lisa should stop undermining her credibility by appearing to doubt AGW; rather, she should explicitly accept it for real!
(For the record, in case they do come along, and to repeat myself once again, I am willing to accept AGW provisionally. I'm not ideologically opposed to it. I'm mainly skeptical of the apparent alarmism coming from most of the activists.)
In any event, here are some sources on free market environmentalism that many of you might find interesting and useful.
Roy Cordato, "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics." (Originally published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7 (1), 2004, pp. 3-26; pdf version.)
Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal, Free Market Environmentalism, (New York: Palgrave (St. Martin's Press), 2001).
Jonathon H. Adler, Ecology, Liberty & Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader, (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000).
Manuel Lora, "If You Love Nature, De-Socialize it."
About Free Market Environmentalism
Free Market Environmentalism Reading List
The Commons: Markets Protecting the Environment (Blog)
Published: May 19, 2007 10:57 PM
Michael A Clem
Great links, Gabriel and Geoffrey. So, in essence, the solution is to strictly enforce existing property rights, or to create enforceable rights where none exist. And, as the links show, rights can be created for waterways and even air, so it's not an impossible task.
The key is clarity in the causes and consequences of global warming. It's not enough to say that "man" is a major contributor to global warming--which men, which activities are contributing, and to what extent? Furthermore, global warming itself isn't, strictly speaking, the problem. The problem would be the consequences of global warming, and then only if they are indeed harmful and not beneficial. I doubt farmers or the lumber industry will complain if global warming causes crops and trees to grow better.
If specific causes and specific consequences can be shown in real life, and not merely in CGI on the movie screen, then not only is the problem clarified, but so is the solution: court-ordered redress of grievances or the appropriate market-related activities to deal with the problem.
In other words, we can't simply say global warming is a problem unless specific consequences are shown, and we can't say that "man" or all men are at fault and try to punish everybody. That would truly be anti-human. Collectivist, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are doomed to failure because they won't account for differing circumstances or differing values in different parts of human society.
To make the case against global warming, they have to make a bunch of little cases, by allowing people to have property rights and then giving them the mechanisms to protect those rights. Individuals pursuing their own rational self-interest and their own values will provide better protection than any "selfless" bureaucrat or politician who presumes to know what is best for everyone else.
Published: May 20, 2007 12:26 AM
Ozzie
"For the record, in case they do come along, and to repeat myself once again, I am willing to accept AGW provisionally. I'm not ideologically opposed to it......"
What sort of accusation are you making?
No-one is opposing global warming on an ideological basis.
There is no evidence anywhere for CO2-induced warming. Now one expects there might be some sort of effect. But no-one has come up with the evidence. Which implies that if there is an effect it is small or slow-acting.
As well we are in a brutal ice age which involves horrible glaciations which kill most everything that lives on land and last much longer than the relatively brief interglacials.
"....I am willing to accept AGW provisionally. I'm not ideologically opposed to it......"
Whose ideologically opposed to wrong scientific propositions??
Can you even NAME one person who is ideologically opposed to ideas like the earth is flat?
I guess you might say I'm ideologically opposed to taxeaters who refuse to come up with the evidence and call you names for even asking for it.
Published: May 20, 2007 4:49 AM
Dennis
Call me weird or a reactionary or whatever, but I do not see what positive results (at least regarding accuracy and truth in science) will have been gained by more or less conceding the existence of AGW.
The key fundamental issues in this debate are whether or not AGW exists in the first place, and if it does, can its proponents reasonably show that its magnitude will have negative consequences to humans.
While market- and property-based solutions to environmental problems are certainly the proper way to approach these issues, if the problem does not exist in the in the first place what positive has been gained? In fact, human thriving will have been negatively impacted due to the costs of complying with a non-existent problem and scientific truth and integrity will have been compromised. Maybe those proposing market- and property- based solutions will increase their professional notoriety and acceptance, but if this comes at the expense of truth and accuracy in research in the natural sciences, I do not consider this a positive outcome.
Two analogies to economics, I believe, are instructive. The AGW situation is analogous to macroeconomic stabilization policy: Once it is conceded that the market economy is inherently unstable, the debate then becomes how can government and the professional intellectual class best manipulate things to achieve stability.
A related and similar analogy can be made regarding the Federal Reserve: once it is conceded that central banking is necessary, the debate exclusively involves what is the best policy for the Fed to pursue. The assertions that the market economy is inherently unstable and that central banking is needed are both based on erroneous analysis, and I and others have argued that the science behind the AGW assertion is at best quite tenuous and more than likely erroneous.
And yes, I am aware of scientific consensus. The consensus, however, has taken economics and the social sciences and the humanities down erroneous and sterile paths, at least when held to the standards of truth, and accuracy in describing our world. And this same type of consensus is unfortunately doing the same for certain topics of study in the natural sciences.
Published: May 20, 2007 8:34 AM
TokyoTom
Lisa:
Thanks for your post. I suppose that I should be included among those who "are convinced that [anthropogenic climate change] is an urgent issue that requires action". Let me say that I consider TALKING about climate change to be action - so I am very happy to see you and others here ACTING. I also have been acting.
I also consider stonewalling on the subject for the benefit of corporate rent-seekers who benefit from unrestrained use of the atmosphere, irregardless of the costs that are pushed off on others, to be action. That this has in fact occurred is a matter of public record easy enough to research. The Luntz memo is a good start. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,906978,00.html. Thus, there has already been plenty of action on climate change.
Believe it or not, I too am skeptical about the benefits of government action. The fact of the matter is that our improved environment in the US has come via oppressive legislation that has favored industry, at the cost of private property rights and a more efficient market (as Rothbard, Block and others have noted) - but these costs and the concomitant bureaucratic gridlock have not, in fact, ruined the US economy.
Despite these problems, Austrians do not deny that the government may play legitimate and important roles in providing mechanisms for clarifying and enforcing property rights, and to some degree in the provision of public goods. Moreover, non-Austrians are generally not as sensitive to Austrian concerns with abusive rent-seeking and do not share the Austrian perspective that individual actions based on enforceable property rights are more efficient in promoting solutions to resource problems than are government fiat and inflexible bureaucracies.
Why have I have spent the last year + on this blog exploring the science and institutional aspects of climate change and other environmental issues? Simply because I view them not only as important, but as issues on which Austrian insights are particularly valuable, especially at a time when political momentum for government action appears to be coalescing. Austrians who refuse to get involved are in essence surrendering the debate to people who do not understand the perils of government action.
You try to draw a parallel with the Bsuh administration`s efforts to expand the American empire via a war on terrorism based on little morethan American fears and trumped up evidence about existential threats and mushroom clouds. The difference with climate change, of course, is that the Bush administration hasnacted resolutely to protect domestic rent-seeking corporate interests, by refusing to taking meaningful action with respect to a challenge that all of the major economies and our allies have recognized as an importnat challenge. And rather than ripping us off unilaterally in the case of the GWOT, any effective action on climate change requires the mutual agreement of all major economies - so that while domestic policies are subject to rent-seeking, any internationally policies must be mutually agreed pursuant to a prisoners` dilemma game. Dealing with the atmosphere is much more like parties who use an open-access resource coming to terms to establish property rights/rules that put an end to the ruinous tragedy of the commons that Yandle pointed out in a link that I have previously provided (and Gabriel kindly posted above).
You ask “So even if every single terrible prediction about global warming is true, why should I have any confidence whatsoever in state-sponsored solutions to the problem?” Sorry, but aren`t you really begging the question? If the key Austrian insights on environmental issues are, as Cordato has noted, that (1) humans cannot harm the environment, but "can change the environment in such a way that it harms others who might be planning to use it for conflicting purposes", (2) as a result, pollution and other environmental problems are "not about the environment per se but about the resolution of human conflict" over the use of physical resources and (3) "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" (Cordato, in "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics", http://mises.org/daily/1760), shouldn`t you and others be considering HOW these insights can possibly be applied to the case of climate change?
Published: May 20, 2007 10:18 AM
TokyoTom
As a follow-up to my preceding post, I would be interested in hearing why Misesans protest so loudly against any possible government action relating to public goods/open-access resources, but are rather silent when it comes to protesting all of the existing subsidies for fossil fuel industries that are simply unjustifiable, and contribute to the rigidity in the US energy system.
Why do posters here not see that popular (and possibly misguided) concerns about climate change are a wonderful opportunity for Miseseans to push for very desirable, "no regrets" changes in US energy policy?
Why do Miseseans also seem so uninterested in discussing where property rights hit the road in the case of open-access resources, and so uninterested in seizing the opportunity to roll back the burden of unnecessary economic/energy/environmental regulations in the US, where many commentators are sympathetic to the insight that better enforcement of private property rights would lead to better results - at least domestically, as opposed to internationally and in the third world, where lack of clear or enforceable property rights is the rule? It seems to me that the time has been ripe for a grand bargain on environmental issues at home for some time. Too bad that the Bush administration, its rent-seeking supporters and Austrians have been uninterested is seizing this opportunity.
Published: May 20, 2007 10:33 AM
Dennis
I do not believe that any serious person denies that pollutants are emitted into the air and water by corporations (and others). The issue regarding AGW is do CO2 emissions qualify as a pollutant, i.e., do CO2 emissions have negative effects on man and/or the environment.
Regarding the CO2 emissions issue, it should be noted that man and all animals emit CO2 as part of respiration and cellular respiration. In particular, cellular respiration is the process by which man and animals convert food to energy, obviously a process required to sustain life, and a by-product of this process is CO2, which is emitted into the air.
From the stand-point of rent-seeking, each and every human being and animal is guilty.
Published: May 20, 2007 12:16 PM
N. Joseph Potts
For Tokyo Tom:
Every Misesian who is NOT against government subsidies to the fossil-fuel industries, please raise your hand (my hand is not raised). In fact, do so if you are not against government subsidies to ANY industry whatsoever (my hand still down).
One reason the gambit of using GW concerns to defeat existing subsidies does not readily occur to me is that actions proposed on the basis of GW concerns seem invariably to be accompanied by new proposals for yet more subsidies (e.g., ethanol, wind power, etc.). If we could eliminate subsidies rather than spawn new ones, I might give more thought to tickling this dragon's tail.
Published: May 20, 2007 12:30 PM
TokyoTom
C'mon Dennis, stop trying to define away problems.
Living organisms and ecological systems are affected by the relative quantities of all inputs, and too much or too little of any affect the health of the system. Thus, the issue is whether human activities (including but NOT limited to CO2 emissions) have negative effects on man and/or the environment, not whether CO2 emissions qualify as a "pollutant".
Surely you also see that the fact that we respire CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the matter, as humans simply replace respiration by other organisms. Rising CO2 levels, in particular, are demonstrably (via isotopic analysis) primarily the result of our combustion of fossil fuels.
In other words, your facilities are too facile.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 20, 2007 8:48 PM
TokyoTom
Joseph:
Thanks for the favor of your response. I am happy to see that at least one person is willing to consider joining me in thinking proactively about the parameters of the problem/opportunity.
Otherwise, I have to say that
(1) the willingness to take on reform of existing energies subsidies and government-provided licenses to pollute is singularly underwhelming, and
(2) the discussion of the practical problems in applying the libertarian insights that can be noted at the links provided by Gabriel and Geoff (links that I have provided myself on a number of occasions over the last year) is extremely shallow - despite specific requests by Sean and Andy.
Austrians seem to find it easier to deny problems and to attack those who declaim them rather than to actually think through the problems, and in doing so consistently ignore the hogs already feeding at the public trough. So much more fun (and less work) to attack enviros!
Yandle, in the nice little article here (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064), states that:
"People can build institutions that take the edge off frantic commons behavior. People have unwritten and written constitutions that help to establish social order. People can and do accumulate wealth. People communicate, invent lines of kinship, and develop customs, traditions, and rules of law that limit anti-social behavior. People define, enforce, and trade property rights. People can and do avoid the tragedy of the commons. Indeed, instead of living with tragedies, people triumph over the commons. But the triumphs are never perfect or complete. There is always another commons to manage."
But what Austrians seem to be saying in response to Yandle is that we should never DELIBERATELY try to "avoid the tragedy of the commons" by "build[ing] institutions that take the edge off frantic commons behavior".
As Yandle noted, "With that phrase — tragedy of the commons — the essence of the challenge hits us squarely between the eyes: When there are no property rights — formal or informal — that limit use of a scarce natural resource, human action leads inevitably to untimely resource depletion and destruction."
This problem continues to unfold before us, with respect to the oceans, atmosphere and with resources in the poor third world, which is poor precisely because resources are poorly defined and defended, and essentially monopolized by kleptocratic elites for present benefit.
And those who wish to discuss these problems are dismissed as evil. Well, count me among the evil.
Regards,
TT
Published: May 20, 2007 9:22 PM
Ozzie
Tom.
We have been waiting more than one year for you to present actual evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming or for the idea that a little bit of human-induced warming is a bad thing in a brutal and pulverising ice age.
If you want to talk about public goods and externalities come up with a better example.
Why use an example where we are asked to pretend that CO2 is a bad thing when it isn't?
You should be taking your public goods jive to another type of thread since its very clear that industrial-CO2 is a postive externality.
Now you've been driving this round in circles with your dishonesty for well over a year now.
So basically you are a thread-wrecker.
Come up with the evidence or use a plausible example for your public goods argument.
Published: May 20, 2007 9:26 PM
Michael A. Clem
Fer cryin' out loud! Of course Austrians are against subsidies for energy production and research, just as they are against any other kind of government subsidy. You don't have to be an Austrian to see that government subsidies skew the market and interfere with incentives.
But arguing against those subsidies with mainstream people is two-fold: 1) showing that these subsidies exist in the first place, and 2) that these subsidies are having a significant impact on the global warming issue, and thus removing those subsidies would change the incentives for pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
It's hard enough trying to convince people how incentives are being skewed by subsidies, but it's even harder to make the case that getting rid of the subsidies will improve the global warming situation, especially by people who don't especially think that global warming is occurring, or at least that man is not a significant cause of global warming.
Furthermore, ending the subsidies is only part of the solution--getting the legal system to recognize and enforce the appropriate property rights is also necessary. However, I must admit, these things are desirable in the own right, even if we consider them apart from the global warming issue.
Do you have any suggestions about how to make a complicated argument to the mainstream?
And on the other issue, it's not necessary to show that CO2 is a "pollutant", only to show that increased CO2 generated by specific people is harming other specific people's rights.
By all means, we need good counterarguments to provide, but the burden is still on the global warming activist's side to show much more than the mere fact that global warming is occuring.
Published: May 20, 2007 9:48 PM
TokyoTom
Graeme/GMB/Ozzie;
Nice to hear from you, but I regret that I can't help you more with your suffering.
First, while I can sympathize with your puzzlement by the "use [of] an example where we are asked to pretend that CO2 is a bad thing when it isn't", I am compelled to point out that it is Lisa Casanova not me - who has posited this premise, just as it was Dr. Reisman who also used the same device in his earlier posts here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006368.asp.
Please address concerns about premises with the Miseeans who structure their posts around them, not me (just between you and me, no one is running these posts past me before they start them).
Second, perhaps you might acknowledge that the use by Miseseans of premises with which you may personally disagree is intended by them to serve a purpose of focussing their arguments on matters that they consider more amenable to their insights. None of us is a climate expert, so even if the science can and will long be debated, we might still have a profitable discussion about whether and how human societies should respond to climate change as it occurs, including whether our governments or other institutions should take any action to intended to "mitigate" climate change (if possible) or to help us "adapt" to climate change. But again, if you disagree, you should pick this bone with the authors - the true "thread-wreckers" as you put it - not me.
Yours,
Tom
Published: May 20, 2007 10:15 PM
Scott D
Tom,
Your suggestion of hypocrisy is, frankly, uninformed and insulting. Austrians oppose all subsidies. Subsidies create market distortions and inefficient allocation of resources. Don't try to play that card with us lest you expose a real ignorance of Austrian economics.
Published: May 21, 2007 1:08 AM
Scott D
"Austrians" is a pretty broad category. Ancaps would not agree with you, and probably most minarchists would deny those claims also.
Published: May 21, 2007 1:14 AM
TokyoTom
Scott, save your dander.
I know that Austrians oppose subsidies. I leveled no accusations of hypocrisy, but rather expressed surprise at the general lack of consistent interest in attacking subsidies to the energy industry.
If you take a look back over the last year + of posts on climate change and the energy industry I believe you will see that few besides me have evinced any concern about such subsidies, or argued that they should be rolled back as one of the "no regrets" policies that is crying out for attention.
Why can I not ponder this puzzling lack of interest in opportunities for win-win solutions that occupy middle ground, without someone taking offense? Is everybody so busy patrolling their tribal borders that they assume every interlocutor must be hostile, and thus lose sight of the opportunities to expand the borders?
Published: May 21, 2007 1:37 AM
Dennis
Tokyo Tom,
Your methods of argumentation are again becoming less forthright.
Firstly, I believe we are in agreement as to the issue being whether man’s activities, including CO2 and other emissions, have negative affects on man and/or the environment. In fact, I believe that is how I defined “pollutant”.
However, your comment “as humans simply replace respiration by other organisms” is simply a bald assertion; actually it makes no sense unless one can demonstrate that there has been a significant overall decline in the non-human animal population and non-human respiration.
Arguably, the 10-fold or greater increase in the human population over the last several hundred years would point, in and of itself, to a roughly 10-fold increase in CO2 levels from human respiration/cellular respiration, all else held constant. I do believe that you are correct in that currently most man-made CO2 emissions do result from the burning of fossil fuels and not from respiration, but this still does not refute the argument that the tremendous increase in the human population over the last several hundred years has in and of itself raised CO2 levels dramatically, again all else held constant.
Most importantly, my entire point regarding respiration is to illustrate that CO2 is not just some poisonous substance that humans emit from their consumption of fossil fuels, but rather, it is also a by-product of a cellular process essential to human and animal life. In addition, CO2 forms the basis of the food chain as plants use CO2 in the process of photosynthesis to produce the food that ultimately sustains all plant and all animal life. An increase in man’s CO2 output can lead to increased plant growth, and since plants are at the base of the food chain, this can be viewed as positive for human flourishing.
One point that is mentioned very infrequently in the AGW debates is the actual atmospheric levels of CO2 that we are dealing with. My understanding is that CO2 from all sources comprises less than 1% of the earth’s atmosphere, and that CO2 emissions from all sources associated with man account for less than 5% of all atmospheric CO2. “Greenhouse” substances such as water vapor and methane comprise much larger percentages of the earth’s atmosphere than CO2.
A recent comment from Jeffrey, although made in a modestly different context, I believe is excellent and worth paraphrasing here: AGW, like Keynesian economics, is a policy looking for a theory.
Published: May 21, 2007 7:57 AM
Dennis
TT,
And for the record, I support eliminating ALL energy industry subsidies. For that matter, I support eliminating virtually all government subsidies, including government funding of education and scientific research.
Published: May 21, 2007 8:06 AM
Ozzie
Tom.
Lisa and the Professor can be hypothetical because they aren't part of the fraud.
You are.
If you wish to talk about Austrian responses to negative externalites come up with a REAL EXAMPLE.
Because you aint so much Tokyo Tom as you are Tokyo Rose.
We know what you are about and if you can furnish slightly more plausible examples, no doubt people will humour you and talk about abstract principles in the context of a NON-thread-wrecking Tom-propaganda-exercise.
Published: May 21, 2007 9:47 AM
TokyoTom
Dennis -
My methods of argumentation are AGAIN becoming less forthright??? How so, and when was I previously (not forthright? less forthright than before" or less forthright than you?)?
If you wish to make ad hominem attacks, I would appreciate if you would please be precise, so I can apologize if mistaken, mount a defense or otherwise respond. Otherwise, your approach is not gentlemanly, and you may be mistaken for (and disregarded as) simply a boy crying "wolf!".
Can I guess that, despite our points of agreement, that you have concluded that I am again becoming non-forthright simply because I did not provide extensive citations to back up my statements that "the fact that we respire CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the matter, as humans simply replace respiration by other organisms. Rising CO2 levels, in particular, are demonstrably (via isotopic analysis) primarily the result of our combustion of fossil fuels."?
Here are cites for the overall proposition: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7
You say that my statement that "humans simply replace respiration by other organisms" is "simply a bald assertion" and "makes no sense unless one can demonstrate that there has been a significant overall decline in the non-human animal population and non-human respiration". Well, it makes perfect sense, if you understand the basic principles of carbon cycling within the Earth's ecosystems. The CO2 that we respire comes directly or indirectly from carbon that was taken out of the air by plants via photosynthesis. As a result, the CO2 resulting from our respiration represents no net increase in atmospheric CO2.
Axiomatically, as primary productivity (food production via photosynthesis) is relatively steady (although it may be altered as a result of climate change and human activities), an increase in the number of humans implies less food to be consumed/Co2 to be respired by other animals. Thus an increase in humans necessarily implies a decrease in other animal biomass.
I meant no disrespect in not footnoting this earlier, but it is rather fundamental Dennis. Here is a footnote for the human respiration/carbon cycling question generally:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q13.
Your further points are noted (and have been discussed previously) but are irrelevant to whether human activity-caused releases of CO2, methane and other GHGs, as well as other forcings such as changes in albedo are actually altering climate and continue to pose a risk for doing so.
Respectfully,
Tom
Published: May 22, 2007 12:25 AM
TokyoTom
Ahh Graeme:
I see behind your confused bluster, buster, and know that you really want to have a conversation.
I see that the royal "we" "knows" that I am part of "the fraud" and "what I am about". Well, it's certainly IS possible that the omniscient Graeme M. Bird, who used to post on this blog as GMB, may know better about me than I do, in which case I certainly hope you will let me and the rest of the blog readers in on the story.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/
http://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/
Personally, I suspect that I am just a cranky old codger - who enjoys wasting his time on the Quixotic task of persuading libertarians that Austrian insights can be useful in understanding the concerns (if not the policy positions) of evil enviros about rent-seeking and abuse of government by large corporations and the lack of effective ownership institutions to important resources (especially outside the US and the West).
You suggest that you may come out to play "if you can furnish slightly more plausible examples". Well, I'm game for other topics, and would offer overfishing (including by cyanide, dynamiting and deep seamount bottom-trawling), whaling, declines in biodiversity, tropical deforestation or poor development in the third world as alternatives. But feel free to choose your own topics, Graeme.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 22, 2007 1:01 AM
Ozzie
You didn't confuse me you lying spammer.
Just stop this endless evidence filibuster. You've been a year on this site and never once have you come up with any evidence.
Published: May 22, 2007 2:22 AM
Ozzie
We see here the the problem with this debate.
None of the partisans for the idea of not allowing any warmth in this world have any evidence whatsoever. They have a paradigm. One paradigm. Whereas Austrian economics has many paradigms these climate science-workers are only interested in one.
The ether and the mediasphere is just full of all this talk of global warming. But nowhere is there any evidence that the paradigm pans out in the real world.
Its this evidence-deficit that ought to be addressed at the conference.
All the evidence points away from these fraudsters.
Any evidence we have about climate history tells us that extremely nasty cooling could hit at any time. And that catastrophic warming is an impossibility.
Nowhere in the last 30+ million years do we have an example of CO2 warming anything. Nor of an example of harmful heating.
Tom is not alone in his mindless spamming. None of these guys have any evidence and no evidence can be found in the IPCC reports or anywhere else.
Published: May 22, 2007 2:47 AM
TokyoTom
You didn't confuse me you lying spammer.
Graeme, no one could possibly hold a candle to you in the spamming department. I invite readers to check out the "bigbirdbrain" cite above, devoted by a libertarian blogger specifically to the behavior of Ozzie/GMB/Graeme.
However, I expect you to be a specifically support your claim that I am a liar, or to apologize and back away from it. Seriously. Otherwise you will prove yourself not a gentleman and unworthy of further discourse.
You may note that I specifically responded to your request for durther evidence on Dr. Reisman's "bugaboo" thread. You might also note that conveniently New Scientist just last week posted a serious of extensive reports on the most common climate change myths and misconceptions, that may be helpful to you: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html#nbicomments.
TT
Published: May 22, 2007 7:48 AM
Dennis
TokyoTom,
Your conclusion regarding respiration rests on the following assumption, which while not correct, does force your also erroneous conclusion:
“Axiomatically, as primary productivity (food production via photosynthesis) is relatively steady (although it may be altered as a result of climate change and human activities), an increase in the number of humans implies less food to be consumed/Co2 to be respired by other animals. Thus an increase in humans necessarily implies a decrease in other animal biomass.”
The levels of vegetation and plant growth are not relatively steady, as you assumed. At times in the geologic past, such as in the dinosaur period of roughly 100 million or so years ago, the earth was notably warmer, wetter, and contained significantly more vegetation, and thus, increased food production through photosynthesis. Also, during the last ice age of 10,000 or 15,000 years ago, significantly larger parts of the earth compared to today were covered by glaciers, thus precluding food production via photosynthesis in areas so covered. The natural world is dynamic, at times extremely dynamic, and there is not a reasonable basis for assuming that food production via photosynthesis is constant. In fact, there was a time in the distant geologic past when there was no life, plant or animal, and hence, no food production on the earth.
In addition, you apparently contradict yourself in that you admit to the possibility of changing food production through photosynthesis in the second parenthetical statement of your above comment.
The last sentence of your comment, which I believe is erroneous, states that an increase in human biomass necessarily implies a decrease in other animal biomass. I absolutely am not stating or implying that you are a supporter of “animal rights”, but I hate to think what the animal rights activists could do with that conclusion.
Finally, I do not believe that my remarks regarding CO2 levels in the atmosphere are “irrelevant.” They indicate just how little CO2, especially from human sources, is actually in the atmosphere, especially as compared to other “greenhouse” gasses.
Published: May 22, 2007 7:49 AM
Scott D
Well, it certainly looked like an accusation to me. If you want to propose getting rid of subsidies to energy, you have my support. Note that this also means eliminating subsidies to ethanol and wind power. The market must be set free to find the best solutions.
Published: May 22, 2007 9:26 AM
Dennis
For those who are interested, this article that is extremely skeptical of AGW appeared today on LewRockwell.com:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html
Published: May 22, 2007 9:31 AM
Lisa Casanova
Tom,
For the record, I oppose all subsidies. They are market distorting and evil. However, the writing I do has an opportunity cost, and there's just not enough time in the day to rail against every government subsidy or program that pisses me off. No doubt the energy market is greatly distorted by subsidies, as are many markets. Part of what concerns me now is that as people are looking for alternative energy, the government will distort the market for alternative energy, and waste opportunities to remedy possible climate change, by investing in technologies produced by corporate welfare whores who engage in rent seeking behavior rather than letting market competition bring the best alternative energies to the forefront. The quest for subsidies and government favoritism is neverending and engaged in by everyone, both those who contribute to a problem and those who claim they can solve it. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of good ideas about how to end that as long as the incentive structure that we now have in government is in place.
Published: May 22, 2007 9:19 PM
TokyoTom
Lisa, thanks for your reply. I am happy to hear you oppose all subsidies - so do I, especially the looming prospects of counterproductive new ones.
And while I am sympatheic to your point about opportunity costs, I think that now is the perfect time for Austrians to be loudly arguing that if ANYTHING is to be done about "enwergy security", "alternative energy" or climate change, that first and foremost we ought to be removing existing subsidies and rigidities that favor fossil fuels and stand in the way of greater competition and flexibility in the energy sector.
While I appreciate the above, I am sorry that you did not see fit to address my comments to you on how climate change differs from the war on terror or my questions about seeking to systematically and practically apply the key Austrian insights on environmental issues to climate change (or other problems with open-access resources).
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 23, 2007 12:59 AM
TokyoTom
Dennis, the main point is that humans are responsible, directly and indirectly, for virtually all of the rise in CO2 levels. Can you confirm whether you agree with this?
My secondary point to you that human respiration does not contribute to rising CO2 levels climate change I supported with cites. If you disagree with those sources, I am eager to hear why. This point is based on the fact that the CO2 we respire is derived from CO2 that was previously in the air and was removed by photosynthesis; by respiration we are simply recycling CO2 that was already in the atmosphere, not adding new CO2.
I agree with you that over geologic time the levels of primary production by plants changes, but we emerged from the last ice age 10,000+ years ago. This long-term plasticity in the level of primary production does not weaken my point that, for the time being, the growth in human populations necessarily implies that there is less food to be consumed/Co2 to be respired by other animals and thus a reduction in their relative biomass. I concede that greater levels of atmospheric CO2 might be leading to greater primary production, but there is no certainty that this will offset the growing levels of primary production consumed by a burgeoning human population.
Published: May 23, 2007 1:23 AM
Luke
What a terrible comparison.
The anti-terrorism measures we have taken are like bathing in acid to get rid of fleas. The drastic steps needed to address global warming are like getting a tumor cut out. The people on this site need to stop smoking so much ideology and touch reality once in a while.
The government will make a lot of stupid moves and act too slowly, as it always does, because it is run by a lot of callus opportunists and ideological trained monkeys. So? What other institutions do we have at our disposal for collective action when we need to take it? The so called "free-market"? The faith in capitalism's ability to solve all social problems expressed on this site (as well as the denial of global warming) is based only on the will to belief and ignores the facts.
I too question the legitimacy of the state. I too feel we must consider the funding source of scientific studies. That said, all science is funded by someone and everyone has an agenda, but that does not invalidate all scientific knowledge. Some interested party can influence the results of a few studies, but the consensus of the peer-reviewed scientific community regarding hard science issues where piles and piles of data exist is as close as we get to knowing just about anything.
Maybe some of the folks here could benefit from taking a couple of weeks off from reading Ayn Rand and your beloved prophet Mises and try some Karl Popper. Self-consistent theories may seem very real, but if they are not firmly rooted in empirical fact they can lead you far astray. Wake up and smell the data!
Published: May 23, 2007 8:27 AM
Yancey Ward
Luke,
The problem is your analogy is not quite complete, as you almost imply yourself with the phrase "drastic steps". As it stands now, the drastic steps being proposed involve cutting the tumor out with a butter knife in a portable toilet that hasn't been cleaned in a month. And this is being proposed without knowing that the tumor is even malignant.
Published: May 23, 2007 9:21 AM
Dennis
Luke,
May I respectfully suggest that you read the article mentioned in the below post, as it may give you a better understanding of the current state of the science, and to a lesser degree the institutional influences, regarding AGW.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006581.asp
Published: May 23, 2007 9:57 AM
Luke
Dennis,
There will be a few convincing-sounding voices that deny AGW... and evolution, and the holocaust. This does not refute my point in the least. In fact, you provide a great example of what I am talking about. There will be a few "experts" who provide legitimations to any given ideologically-based position in a technical field. There are incentives to do this and a few will respond to those incentives, either out of a lack of integrity or a genuine attachment to the ideology. Some studies also go bad simply due to an unlucky sampling of data. A few bad studies either way prove nothing. This is why peer-review and the development of general consensus are required for the accrual of scientific knowledge in human society.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:00 AM
Michael A. Clem
TT may be a nag, but I think he's got a point: wouldn't a good first step in addressing global warming be to end governmental energy subsidies? One could argue that the subsidies are themselves contributing to the problem. And even if one doesn't believe in global warming, or that humans are largely responsible, wouldn't it still be a good step to take anyway?
Published: May 23, 2007 12:32 PM
Lisa Casanova
Tom,
Go easy on me, dude! I'm blogging from a hotel lobby at a scientific meeting at like 11 at night. The key thing that I believe global warming and terrorism (and nuclear war and meteors hitting the earth and alien invasions) have in common is that regardless of whether they turn out to be the coming apocalypse or completely imaginary, the government will seize on any kind of threat to expand its power in ways that seldom do anything to solve the original problem. I have even less confidence in solutions that involve coordination of a bunch or world economies, since we're talking about not just one government with its perverse incentives, rent seeking behavior, etc., but several. Maybe I could better answer your concerns if I knew some more about your thoughts, so I'll toss the question back to you: what if AGW is for real but it's too late to undo it? What should we do then?
Published: May 23, 2007 10:25 PM
Dennis
Luke stated:
“There will be a few convincing-sounding voices that deny AGW... and evolution, and the holocaust.”
My link to the article in question was done in a polite and civil manner. The article attempts to point out what appears to be significant problems with the AGW hypothesis, especially the temporal sequence of the variables.
Part of Luke’s response was to equate those who are extremely skeptical of AGW with those who deny evolution and, even worse, the holocaust. I will remain polite and civil and let the part of Luke’s comment quoted above speak for itself and Luke’s tactics.
Published: May 24, 2007 7:04 AM
Luke
Dennis,
I will let the company with whom you share your tactics speak for itself. I will also take your "polite" ad hominem as a concession that you have no real rebuttal to my actual points.
Published: May 24, 2007 7:17 AM
Dennis
Luke,
I have said much about your points in my many other comments regarding the AGW issue on this site.
And again, I will let the first sentence of your comment speak for itself and your tactics.
Published: May 24, 2007 7:39 AM
TokyoTom
Dennis, what, enough time to complain about "tactics", but not enough to make substantive responses? Come on man, where's the beef?
Tom
Published: May 27, 2007 10:18 PM
TokyoTom
Lisa:
- "Maybe I could better answer your concerns if I knew some more about your thoughts."
I can't believe that you actually wrote or mean that.
- "the government will seize on any kind of threat to expand its power in ways that seldom do anything to solve the original problem"
Okay, so we know that rent-seeking is presents a problem in seeking government-based approaches to climate change and other resource-management problems. Why can we not then have a positive agenda of encouraging and conceiving private approaches?
- "I have even less confidence in solutions that involve coordination of a bunch or world economies, since we're talking about not just one government with its perverse incentives"
Actually, the fact that any situtation must be negotiated and agreed internationally by a diverse array of nations with very different interests should have the opposite effect, as it makes rent-seeking extremely difficult. International negotiations are more akin to private posturing and dickering over how to manage a joint;y-shared resource.
- "what if AGW is for real but it's too late to undo it? What should we do then?"
Always happy to address a question! Obviously we need to adapt.
Domestically, that will largely happen without the need for government meddling. It will be helpful if we stop denying that the climate is warming, and then proceed to other steps to reduce our vulnerability. Some of these step may involve government (including eliminating incentives to build in risky areas, eliminating rigidities in siting decisions and providing compensation to NIMBY protestors).
But the biggest task will be in helping the most vulnerable societies adapt to climate change - in the third world, which suffers the greatest environmental stresses and is least prepared to deal with climate change. The most important focus must be on helping them to improve their governance and thus increase their wealth (recognizing that kleptocracy has kept them poor). This is by no means an easy task. Is the West up to any kind of challenge in this regard?
Useful information is available here:
Indur Goklany's "Adaptive Management of Climate Change Risks", http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/AdaptiveManagementPost.pdf
The Business Roundtable, "Closing the Technology Gap in the Developing World: A Practical Strategy to Address Global Climate Change", http://64.203.97.43/pdf/20040616000ClosingtheTechnologyGap.pdf
The Business Roundtable's series of papers here: "ISSUE: Global Climate Change", http://www.businessroundtable.org/TaskForces/TaskForce/issue.aspx?qs=6575BF159FF49514481138A6DBE7A7A19BB6487BE633F
I look forward to your responses.
Regards,
TT
Published: May 27, 2007 11:02 PM
Dennis
TokyoTom stated: "Dennis, what, enough time to complain about 'tactics', but not enough to make substantive responses? Come on man, where's the beef?"
I am sorry, TT, but I believe my response to Luke's accusation implying, if not stating, that skepticism regarding AGW is similar to denying evolution or especially the holocaust was required, appropriate, restrained, and civil. I take great offense to this particular tactic used by Luke. I hope your comment above is not indicative of your agreement with this type of tactics.
And as I also stated, over a period of many months, I have made my views on the AGW issue reasonably clear. However, my views (and similar views by others) are given little respect since they are extremely skeptical of the science and politics of the consensus AGW position. The views of AGW skeptics are generally brushed aside in a manner similar to and almost as fully as those of Austrian School economists, praxeologists, and supporters of a 100% reserve gold monetary standard. My latest response regarding AGW(http://blog.mises.org/archives/006581.asp)
is reproduced below:
**********************************************
"TokyoTom,
In response to your last posting, here is what I believe we know about the [AGW] topic. We now know that the temperature changes have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2, again a very significant finding as it relates to cause and effect.
We also know that CO2 causes warming in lab experiments; [however,] this has not been demonstrated in the complex real world climate. Moving from a controlled lab experiment to complex real world climate is a major step. Yes, we do have climate models that predict current and future CO2 caused warming, but these are the same general type of models that at times can not even accurately predict next week’s, even the next day’s, weather. I also note that if the argument that initial real-world warming is caused by CO2 is suspect then the feedback argument must also be suspect.
In short, given the evidence currently available, there is no good reason to conclude that the hypothesis arguing that increases in CO2 cause warming in the extremely complex real word climate is any more correct, especially given the temporal sequence of the variables, than other explanations for global warming, including the cosmic ray theory."
***********************************************
By the way, I would not take offense if you do not respond, and I would not argue that I had "proved" or "won" anything. Honestly, I do not view this blog as a venue to badger or convert opponents, or as a tit-for-tat process, or as a process to impose one's opinion on others. I have tried to approach this blog as a venue in which to exchange information and opinions.
Published: May 28, 2007 7:34 AM
TokyoTom
Dennis, thanks for responding. The only reason why I troubled you was I thought that we were having a conversation. I too view this blog as "a venue in which to exchange information and opinions", and was hoping to hear back from you on where we had any shared agreement on facts and if you had any insights on the climate that you cared to explain. It has been frustrating that you have chosen not to clarify what you consider to be "facts", including the following that I posed to you on July 4 last year, again in September and earlier this month:
"Dennis, it's undisputed that man is responsible for a 33% increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial levels and for a doubling of methane levels. The build up has been accelerating, and annual increases are multiples of what they were in the 50s, for example. CO2 levels appear to be higher than those for any period over the past 400,000+ years, and we are headed for a doubling in this century. Even if we stopped all GHG emissions today, the warming [effect from these GHG emissions] would continue for 100 years. Scientists expect that a doubling of CO2 levels, if stabilized at that level, would lead to global average temperature increases of 5 degrees F - of which we have experienced a one degree increase so far." http://blog.mises.org/archives/005248.asp
The last sentence is admittedly based on expert's views, by why are the other items so hard to acknowledge as facts?
You say that "We also know that CO2 causes warming in lab experiments; [however,] this has not been demonstrated in the complex real world climate. Moving from a controlled lab experiment to complex real world climate is a major step." I say that you are forgetting that we know that CO2 produces noticeable affects not only on Earth, but also n Venus and Mars:
"What about Venus and Mars? Unlike Earth's atmosphere, their atmospheres are about 95% CO2. But it's not the percentage of CO2, it's the total amount in the atmosphere. Venus has a very thick atmosphere: at the surface, the atmospheric pressure is ninety times that at Earth's surface! ... So the Venusian atmosphere is set into overdrive as far as the Greenhouse Effect is concerned, cooking its surface. The Martian atmosphere, in contrast, although nearly pure CO2, is very thin: less than 1% the pressure of Earth's. Mars barely has any Greenhouse effect--it's only warmed about 10F above what it would be without an atmosphere. Earth, of course, with a moderate Greenhouse Effect, is "just right."
"So the first step in understanding the climates of Venus, Earth, and Mars, is the relative amounts of Greenhouse gases in their atmospheres: Venus has too much, Mars too little, and Earth just the right amount (in fact, water vapor, which is one percent of our atmosphere, dominates most of our Greenhouse effect---but additional CO2 can dramatically change the amount of Greenhouse effect)."
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/cjohnson/climate.html
"Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C (752°F). This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
See also
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761578504___0/Greenhouse_Effect.html
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 28, 2007 9:22 AM
Michael A. Clem
TT, from what you present about Venus and Mars, couldn't we more readily conclude it is the "thickness" of the atmosphere, or the atmospheric pressure, that is the major cause of warming? In which case, we would want to know if Earth's atmospheric pressure is changing...
Published: May 28, 2007 11:29 AM
Dennis
TokyoTom,
I still do not understand how the second paragraph of your above comment explains away the causation problem that evidently exists regarding the temporal sequence of atmospheric temperature increases and CO2 increases. And again, man-caused increases in CO2 do not necessarily lead to increased atmospheric temperatures given the complexity of the earth’s climate (versus a lab or a greenhouse), and given the problems that climate models at times have in accurately predicting extremely near-term weather. In addition, regarding how much atmospheric CO2 increase man indisputably is the cause of, see an article today on LRC, especially regarding the carbon isotope issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html.
Regarding the Mars and Venus issues, the level and percentage of CO2 in their atmospheres is not the only difference between these two planets and Earth. I admittedly have very limited knowledge of these issues, but one seemingly important fact is that the three planets are at considerably different distances from the sun, and obviously receive dramatically different amounts of energy from the sun. Also, regarding other planets, others have noted that the atmospheres of other planets may also be warming, which would seem to call into question the AGW hypothesis as the only, or even the major, correct explanation of the current warming on earth.
Published: May 28, 2007 12:24 PM
TokyoTom
Michael, the greenhouse effect on a planetary body is a function of what's in the atmosphere and how much of it there is, not of the "thickness" of the amosphere per se. Thus, one does not track greenhouse trends by simply measuring atmospheric pressure.
Regards,
TT
Published: May 28, 2007 9:32 PM
Michael A. Clem
I was just going by what you posted, which clearly shows a strong correlation between warming and atmospheric pressure. Of course, correlation is not causation, but if nothing else, it surely shows that the circumstances on Venus and Mars are not all that comparable to Earth, and I fail to see what their atmospheres tell us about Earth's atmosphere.
Published: May 28, 2007 11:40 PM
TokyoTom
Dennis, thanks for your comments.
- "the causation problem that evidently exists regarding the temporal sequence of atmospheric temperature increases and CO2 increases."
What causation problem? Does the fact that prior to the arrival of economic man CO2 increases apparently trailed (and were apparently initially triggered by) temperature increases mean that:
- CO2 is NOT a GHG?
- that such historical increases in CO2 played NO ROLE as a feedback/reinforcer of further temperature increases?
- CO2 levels (and other human forcings) have NOT INCREASED since industrial times? or
- that the modern increase in CO2 levels CANNOT exert any warming effect?
I don't know why you keep presuming that because man once had no impact on climate that we must therefore, ipso facto, have no impact on the climate today. This is an obvious fallacy.
- "man-caused increases in CO2 do not necessarily lead to increased atmospheric temperatures given the complexity of the earth’s climate"
Dennis, even though the climate is obviously variable and affected by many other factors in a manner that is not yet fully understood, a forcing is a forcing. Climate scientists are well aware that there are other factors are at work and do not deny them. It is a difficult challenge to tease out how various forcing work out at a particular moment in time, but even as some may dispute the growing confidence thata human fingerprint is now discernable, even the skeptic scientists do not deny that human activities are now on net pushing the climate in a warmer direction - which push may be augmented and opposed by natural factors.
- "regarding how much atmospheric CO2 increase man indisputably is the cause of"
The question of attribution to man is not seriously disputed, but a tactic by those desperate to avoid any conclusion of human responsibility. They don't deny that CO2 is greenhouse gas, but seem to magically think that because in the past temperatures rose that increases in CO2 levels today have no implications. They also in a self-contradictory manner then seek to deny that the meaningless rise of CO2 in the atmosphere has anything to do with man. Sorry, but it doesn't wash.
I would love to see you provide ANY cite to serious SCIENTISTS (sorry, but political commentators don't count) taking the position that man is NOT responsible for the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Let me meet my own standards (in the hopes of being helpful to you and others) by providing evidence that man IS responsible for the modern rise in atmospheric CO2:
"Since 1751 roughly 305 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2003 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7303 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.5% increase from 2002."
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm
[CDIAC - The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - is "the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). CDIAC is located at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases."]
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html
CO2 Pollution and Global Warming (EnvironmentalChemistry.com) - How do scientists know that humans are responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming?
Last (and least), evidence from evil scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81
- "Regarding the Mars and Venus issues, ... I admittedly have very limited knowledge of these issues"
That's why I provided you with some substantive links, so you could, if you wished, improve your knowledge. Alas, it appears that you have not yet availed yourself of the opportunity. Is it lack of time, or fear of having to change your mind?
- "one seemingly important fact is that the three planets are at considerably different distances from the sun, and obviously receive dramatically different amounts of energy from the sun."
Yes. And it is the GHG effect that makes Venus much warmer than Mercury. A much smaller GHG effect makes Mars slightly less cold than it would otherwise be. You might note, that there is a wealth of private literature and government analysis about the possiblity of terraforming Mars using the greenhouse effect. See this, for example: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm
- "the atmospheres of other planets may also be warming, which would seem to call into question the AGW hypothesis as the only, or even the major, correct explanation of the current warming on earth."
Let me quote back to you one of my favorite skeptics, Harvard physics Asst. Prof. Lubos Motl:
"I don't claim that the trends observed on ... these celestial bodies prove their solar or cosmic origin ... But what these trends certainly do is to remind all rational people that there is always natural variability on any celestial body as long as it has any structure or internal dynamics and the only questions are the quantitative ones: how large this natural variability is and what effects are the most important ones in driving it. Denying that there is a lot of natural climate change would be extraordinarily silly."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
I note that Motl refers to a number of planets and moons, not all of which appear to be warming, but simply to have atmospheres and thus climates that change. Our knowledge of these other climates is pitifully small - and can certainly NOT be taken for the proposition that man's activities CANNOT be affecting the Earth's climate.
Regards,
Tom
Published: May 28, 2007 11:43 PM
TokyoTom
Michael, care to read the links about greenhouse effects on the other planets? Some gases like Nitrogen and Oxygen are not gHGs at all. As others are fond of pointing out, the GHS actually constitute a relatively small portion of our atmosphere.
Published: June 1, 2007 1:22 PM