Climate Change and the Choice of Life
It is one thing to be concerned about the possible impact of the sum of many tiny human actions on the climate of the planet on which we find ourselves, for this is entirely consistent with choosing life. It is quite another thing to presume that we are doomed unless, whatever we are doing, we stop doing it right now.
As Mises wrote: "Some philosophies ... look upon life as an absolute evil full of pain, suffering, and anguish, and apodictically deny that any purposeful human effort can render it tolerable." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (44)
Mark Busch
There is more to the global warming argument than correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. The physics of the atmosphere are fairly predictable (although not necessarily totally understood). Molecules and photons tend to be fairly predictable, unlike humans and economic behavior, manias, and market crashes. The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the carbon dioxide levels LAG the global temperatures. This does not mean that carbon dioxide increases cannot cause global temperatures to change. Why have I not seen on the Mises website articles in favor of global warming? The institute loses credibility (maybe rightly so) when being so one-sided on something as important as global warming.
Published: March 26, 2008 9:40 AM
TLWP Sam
I agree with you M. Busch.
The statement: "many tiny human actions" is a dubious one. The author presume here many small actions aren't equivalent to a large action. Yet elsewhere it would be pointed Coca-Cola doesn't make billions from a few transactions worth billions of dollars rather the company makes its money from billions of small transaction around the world. After all, the people of 1800s America wouldn't have believed they could wipe out the Passenger Pigeon. "They're so numerous and we are so few, we couldn't possibly put a dent in the population". So why can't billions of people inject what amounts to large-scale pollution into the ecosystem? I can't help but sit on the fence on this issue when there are so many people with closed minds on both extremes.
Published: March 26, 2008 9:50 AM
fundamentalist
“Unable to conduct experiments, all climatologists can do is examine statistical correlations.”
Actually they don’t. Climate models are not statistical models. They’re deterministic models such as physicists and engineers use. In deterministic models, the modeler tells the model how important each variable is. He then runs the simulation and tries to predict aspects of the climate. If the model forecasts fairly well, he proclaims it a good model. Econometrics uses statistical models. In statistical models, the math behind the statistics tells the modeler which variables are important and how important they are in relation to each other. Deterministic models impose the model on the data; statistical models try to discover the model in the data with the help of theory.
As far as I can determine, no statistical models of climate have been done. But they would be very useful because then we would have an objective way of telling what was really important in climate change. With deterministic models, the modeler determines what is important and what isn’t and all have determined that CO2 is the only important variable. However, if CO2 is highly correlated with solar activity, then modelers may be simply modeling solar activity and using CO2 as a proxy without knowing that’s what they’re doing.
A related issue is model validation. Econometricians validate their statistical models by attempting to forecast a portion of the data that wasn’t used to build the model. Climate modelers subjected their deterministic models to this test only once that I have been able to determine, back in the late 1980’s. The models failed miserably at validation, so climate modelers have refused to subject them to that test again.
As for determining cause and effect, it’s true that the major criteria is lag in time. Causes must precede effects with a reasonable lag. GW hysteria doesn’t like to admit it, but warming temperatures precede CO2 accumulation in the actual data.
Concerning the hocky stick effect, one reason for it is that the upward sloping part (the part used for hitting the puck) is historical data, while the shaft is forecast data. Forecast data never has the variation in it that historical data has because models must smoothe out extreme variations in order to forecast well.
Finally, in measuring a warming atmosphere, we may actually be measuring urbanization, not planet warming. Most weather stations have been located in rural areas near towns. Over the decades, towns expanded and encompassed those weather stations and cities are heat traps.
Published: March 26, 2008 10:16 AM
fundamentalist
Mark: "Why have I not seen on the Mises website articles in favor of global warming?"
For the same reason you don't see articles promoting Keynesian econ: it's junk science.
Published: March 26, 2008 10:19 AM
Yancey Ward
From Mark Busch:
I think you should really write "write favorably of global warming hysteria" or, better, "anthropogenic global warming".
I, for one, am in favor of warming. I hate March, I hate winter- if global warming banishes both- amen!
There, I wrote favorably.
Published: March 26, 2008 2:17 PM
Harvey
"... physics of the atmosphere are fairly predictable (although not necessarily totally understood)...."
Really? A little humility is in order. We're not even remotely scratching the surface of understanding the complex physics of the atmosphere. We can see a little extending to the knowledge horizon, and some like to think that there is only a little beyond that... but as always we don't know what it is that we don't known.
The climate change computer models bear the same relationship to the atmosphers as the board game 'Monopoly' does to a real economy (and for the same reason)... so simplified that it is an amusing game but no predictive power.
Published: March 26, 2008 3:16 PM
Walt D.
fundamentalist
"But they would be very useful because then we would have an objective way of telling what was really important in climate change."
Surely we already know this
1) major factors solar flux variation, cloud cover variation, volcanic activity, underwater volcanic activity.
2) other major factors, earth orbit shape, angle of the earth's axis and precession of earth's axis - these change very slowly and periodically.
Published: March 26, 2008 4:46 PM
fusgerm
The test of science is that it makes verifiable predictions.
If climatology could make verifiable predictions on a small scale, then we might accept its more sweeping predictions. But it cannot. It is not yet a SCIENCE.
If it could be proved that CO2 emissions did indeed cause sea-levels to rise, then the owners of coastal properties should certainly be entitled to compensation from the industries responsible. If that wipes out those industries, so be it. Austrian economics protects life, liberty and property above all else.
Published: March 26, 2008 5:46 PM
Juan
Exactly. Climatology is not science at all. Science should be able to forecast the climate with the same precision mechanics can 'forecast' for instance how billiard balls behave.
Published: March 26, 2008 10:13 PM
Dean
I was working in Mongolia last year and one of the gents I was working with had pulled together data used by the IPCC from Ice cores which showed extremely dramatic changes in climate. Approx 20,000 years ago at the end of the Ice age, the oceans rose by over 130m in the course of several decades. The clarion calls for urgent action are great politics but have many serious questions to answer before it can be accepted without challenge.
Two simple observations I have on climate over the years:
I was struck when standing at the front gate of the ciy of Pompeii and noting that the current shoreline is over 2 kilometres away from the docks, and some 9 metres lower than the docks constructed by the Romans ~2000 years ago. I know the Romans had plenty of slaves, but would they use them in such an inefficent manner??
I also enjoy researching middle ages archeology and am struck by the number of shipyards and docks that have been found around England from the 1100's to 1300's which are now miles and miles from the current ocean and major river.
The whole climate change religion currently going on appears to be a large beat-up designed to provide another reason why "only the government and the UN can save us!!"
You will be glad to know that here in Australia this weekend we are having Earth Hour, where you turn off the lights for 60 minutes to solve climate change. I may have to dig out the Christmas lights.
Published: March 26, 2008 11:32 PM
Inquisitor
By science I hope you guys mean natural science. ;) Otherwise, we're forgetting the very main tenet of Austrian economics - that the social sciences cannot be conceived on the instrumentalist model of the natural sciences (and even in their case its utility is marginal...)
Published: March 27, 2008 1:19 AM
David C
I trried to post a reply yesterday, but it seems to have failed. Here we go again....
Well said, Mr Thies. If I may make 3 comments:
1. On the Phillips curve, I have long suspected ( Idly it must be said) that it wasn't necessarily a statistical artefact, but reflected a real, hitherto unnoticed relationship between the variables, even if the causality was poorly understood. What made it subsequently vanish IMO was that once people ( or rather, central bank policymakers) recognised the relationship, their actions , effectively 'arbitraged' it away. Call me an EMH fetishist if you like.
2. However, speaking of 'statistical artefacts', the Mann hockey stick is exactly that. This paper explains why, in rather technical terms :
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Considering that this refutation is already a few years old, it is unfortunate that the hockey stick is still the central plank in the AGW alarmist armoury. It has achieved the status of factoid, where its truth has become irrelevant, like the legendary 200-plus Inuit names for snow that linguists still havent catalogued.
3. on a lighter note, I can offer the following conversation-stopper, to be invoked whenever the currently-fashionable 'carbon footprint' quantification is raised in cocktail party circles:
'So? what are we all gonna do? stop breathing?'.
I think it sits well with your closing Mises quote, in spirit if not in style.
Kind regards
Published: March 27, 2008 2:12 AM
simon humphries
Two observations:
1. Saying things like "I like global warming" really can't be allowed to past the test of satisfactory libertarian thought. If anthropenic global warming were to be correct, the fact that others would suffer from its effects must be allowed to enter the thinking in a proper manner. The whole basis of the market is that the costs involved in one person's actiities are paid by him or her. otherwise the invisible hand does not produce optimal results.
2. It must surely be possible to make a rough estimate of the amount of additional greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere as a result of human activity. Let us suppose these amounts are significant in relation to non-anthropogenic concentrations. Since these gases do have a greehouse effect (by definition), it is surely incumbent on deniers to provide some rationale as to why human activity is not the cause of climate change. Otherwise there would seem to be a reasonable pro tanto case for thinking that we ought to accept that it is.
3. And finally, more fundamentally, I think that libertarians who rush straight into a denial mode, just because things like global warming do not readily admit of libertarian solutions, are just giving ammunition to those who think that libertarianism is ill-conceived. What we ought to be working on is showing that libertarianism can provide good solutions to these types of problems, whether or not the specific case of global warming proves to have been caused by human activities.
Published: March 27, 2008 5:28 AM
fundamentalist
Simon: “If anthropenic global warming were to be correct, the fact that others would suffer from its effects must be allowed to enter the thinking in a proper manner.”
Simon: “Let us suppose these amounts are significant in relation to non-anthropogenic concentrations. Since these gases do have a greehouse effect (by definition), it is surely incumbent on deniers to provide some rationale as to why human activity is not the cause of climate change.”
Why suppose anything? Why not use facts? And deniers have provided volumes of rationale for why human activity does not cause GW. GW supporters refuse to acknowledge any of it.
Simon: “I think that libertarians who rush straight into a denial mode, just because things like global warming do not readily admit of libertarian solutions, are just giving ammunition to those who think that libertarianism is ill-conceived. What we ought to be working on is showing that libertarianism can provide good solutions to these types of problems, whether or not the specific case of global warming proves to have been caused by human activities.
Why do you assume libertarians won’t accept global warming just because it doesn’t fit libertarian solutions? Have you read any previous discussions of the subject on this site, and there have been many? Libertarians have offered many solutions to the problem. Essentially they revolve around strengthening property rights. Hysterical GW supporters don’t like libertarian solutions (and pretend libertarians haven’t offered any) because savings the planet is not the goal of the current GW hysteria; advancing socialism is their goal.
Published: March 27, 2008 8:14 AM
Fred
GW supporters and researchers endanger their credibility by fabricating data (the hockey stick). Media such as that produced by Al Gore, a film which the British Supreme Court found to contain several inaccuracies and required that it be described as propaganda before being shown in British schools. Why do GW supporters have to use these methods to support their argument? It is a very poor way to garner support of the unconvinced and an excellent way to cast doubt on the rest of their facts supporting GW.
Have GW supporters considered that the consequences of being wrong about GW would be the misspending of billions of dollars.
Even if global warming is taking place, have GW supporters considered whether spending these billions would provide more benefit elsewhere?
Published: March 27, 2008 3:06 PM
Simon
Fundamentalist: Is your suggestion that one should never indulge in thinking involving subjunctive conditionals? If so, I'm afraid I disagree. If not, I don't really understand what you're trying to establish.
Secondly, I don't think I ever suggested that there we no libertarian solutions to global warming, were it to be caused by man-made activities. My thought was rather that it did not sit easily with libertarianism - at least at first glance - and that libertarians ought to more fully develop the theory to allow for its possibility. I cannot claim that I've read all that has appeared on the Mises site, but a lot of what I have read has been rather jejeune. I do not suggest for one moment that there are no solutions consistent with a libertarian approach. Indeed I agree entirely that the solution lies in the realm of property rights. This however is the easy part. What is more difficult is to develop the mechanism whereby, for example, the atoll-dweller whose home is washed away is compensated by greenhouse gas producers in the developed world (or better still, how we ensure that his or her home is not blown away at all.
Don't you think you're being rather simplistic when you suggest that GW advocates refuse to entertain any alternative to the current consensus. No doubt this is true of some, but I've come across plenty of people who believe that, on balance, GW (which incidentally, is a measurable fact) is caused by man's activities, while still being prepared to consider other alternatives. Branding anyone who opposes you as a socialist may make you feel all warm inside, but I doubt it furthers the debate, and will probably just end up with those of an open mind on the subject, branding your arguments as lacking any basis for sensible consideration.
Published: March 28, 2008 2:29 PM
fundamentalist
Simon: "Is your suggestion that one should never indulge in thinking involving subjunctive conditionals? "
No. As I wrote, their are plenty of facts about GW. We're overwhelmed with data. Why not discuss the data instead of hypothetical situations?
Simon: "What is more difficult is to develop the mechanism whereby, for example, the atoll-dweller whose home is washed away is compensated by greenhouse gas producers in the developed world (or better still, how we ensure that his or her home is not blown away at all."
Before the radical environmental movement gathered steam in the 1970's, the courts handled many environmental issues very well by using existing property rights laws. Most libertarians advocate going back to that process. If the atoll dweller's home were washed away, he would have recourse to the court system to attempt to get compensation. To guarantee that his home won't get washed away by GW, do nothing, because GW is a hoax.
Simon: "Don't you think you're being rather simplistic when you suggest that GW advocates refuse to entertain any alternative to the current consensus."
That's not what I wrote. I wrote that GW radicals refuse to consider libertarian solutions. They'll consider any socialist option, but nothing that strengthens property and free markets.
Simon: "Branding anyone who opposes you as a socialist may make you feel all warm inside..."
You act like I'm slinging mud. I'm just stating a fact. Radical environmentalists think exactly like socialists in absolutely every way. Socialists strive for governmental ownership or control over every aspect of the market as do environmentalists. Why socialists get offended when called socialist I don't understand. I consider it high praise for someone to call me a capitalist.
Here's one libertarian response to the extremely remote possibility that GW hysteria might be correct: remove government subsidies for large houses. Heating and cooling homes emits far more CO2 than do cars, about twice as much. Government subsidies of housing through the mortgage interest deduction benefits the wealthy and encourages people to build ever bigger homes, ala Al Gore's 10K sq ft monstrosity. Can GW supporters joing with libertarians to remove that subsidy?
Published: March 28, 2008 4:25 PM
Matt
Global warming? Nature goes its own way. We create
our imaginary devils then go on to fight them as if they exist. What folly we mortals pursue. (sometimes)
Keynes was right "in the long run we are all dead"
and the long run is shorter than we can imagine.
I like global warming, my heating bills now are excessive. The warmer it becomes the less fuel I need
to burn, the less CO2 is expended then it will become cooler again I suppose.
Published: March 29, 2008 9:30 PM
TLWP Sam
"What is more difficult is to develop the mechanism whereby, for example, the atoll-dweller whose home is washed away is compensated by greenhouse gas producers in the developed world (or better still, how we ensure that his or her home is not blown away at all."
Actually if artificial global warming is considered a hoax then the ex-atoll dweller has no claim to anything as it was 'an act of God'. If is artificial global warming is considered real who exactly does the ex-atoll dweller sue? Alternatively, in the case of events like Hurricane Katrina do the victims not have a right to sue because they were mini-polluters too and therefore were getting their comeuppances?
Published: March 30, 2008 12:28 AM
newson
fundamentalist says:
"remove government subsidies for large houses. Heating and cooling homes emits far more CO2 than do cars..."
not only are there financial distortions, but in most countries utility bills are priced off a progressive scale.
to be fair, it's not only the small punter who gets concessions, but also often the very large, and politically-well-connected consumers.
privatizing electricity and gas utilities, and thereby minimizing wasteful use of power is a bridge too far for environmentalists, with their state-worship.
Published: March 30, 2008 3:26 AM
simon
Fundamentalist: You think that you know that global warming is not taking place and/or, if it is, its effects will be wholly benign. Unless you come to this conclusion as a result of working at the frontiers of the science of the subject, I think a little more modesty might be in order. If you address the issue in such dogmatic terms, you are unlikely to be convincing to anyone other than committed libertarians (of course, this may be all that you wish for)
To think that man might be the cause of such warming, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition that one be a socialist. Simple polling could establish this point.
I anyway agree with your last paragraph.
Published: March 30, 2008 9:48 AM
TokyoTom
Dear Prof. Thies:
Allow me to venture a few remarks on your brief essay.
1. “The human mind is furthermore disposed to reasonable arguments as to what "explains" the patterns it sees in data. This ability gives us our unique characteristic of being volitional or moral creatures. Thus, Ludwig von Mises differentiates the study of human action from other scientific disciplines. Water does not choose to flow downhill. And the observation that water flows downhill does not reveal that water has any preference in the matter. But human action involves choosing and must necessarily involve some theory of cause and effect. Furthermore, human action often changes in ways that are surprising to those who fatalistically and pessimistically extrapolate whatever trends they observe to the conclusion that we are all doomed. This is because almost all people choose life.”
Yes, we are not only pattern-recognizing, we have the ability to be aware of our pattern-recognizing, and to make choices. But those tools may bedevil us on matters that we can’t personally easily confirm. Climate change is simply one of these phenomena (gravity, evolution and religion being others).
But where does that lead you? We are often forced to make decisions based on imperfect knowledge, and without a clear understanding of cause and effect. But in your own rather simple discussion of cause and effect, how was it that you missed the fundamental point that no scientists seriously doubt that the “greenhouse gases” are just that, play an important role in keeping the Earth warm, and that adding to the atmospheric stock of them by releasing fossil stocks of them will have the effect of warming the Earth?
And how was it that you missed the point that even though in the past warmings generally have been INITIATED by a complex of factors (largely location and duration of insolation) relating to the Earth’s wobbles on its axis (“Milankovitch” cycles), while closely followed by increased levels of GHGs that REINFORCED (strengthened) such warmings, this does NOT tell us that our own little global experiment – where we DIRECTLY push the pedal on climatic forcing factors (the increased atmospheric GHG levels are demonstrably the result of human activities) – is likely to have no affect?
Indeed, one suspects that you aren’t really trying to get your head around what scientists are saying, as to denying it because you'd rather not think through the consequences. But that seems to be a rather common failing here, as I have previously noted, recently, here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/26/thank-you-prof-block-for-feeding-our-confirmation-biases.aspx
2. As for choice, it’s not clear what you are saying. Are those who say that they believe that our activities are dangerous, unwise or unfair – are they saying that we have no choice and are doomed? Or are they saying that we DO have a choice, and are responsible for it? You might disagree with their conclusions but are they arguing that we should resign ourselves to doom, or to take action?
Are not the fatalists and pessimists those who say or imply that poor puny man can’t possibly affect the climate, much less change our own behavior – viz., that we are condemned to combust all fossil fuels (without sequestration), can’t improve the efficiency of our energy use or find new sources, can’t find ways to counterbalance AGW, and can’t find institutional mechanisms (property rights or other cooperative mechanisms) that would better internalize the costs of activities that contribute to climate change, enhance incentives for advantageous technological and behavioral change and better allow people to express their relative preferences regarding climate?
But are these fatalisists and pessimists true Austrians? Did not man develop complex private and common property institutions to allow more efficient use of what were once open-access resources of forests, lakes and rivers, and fisheries? To cope with the gross externalities of industrial activities?
David Brin has an interesting post on that touches on both pattern recognition and pessimism: http://www.davidbrin.com/climate.html.
Are Richard Branson, Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia and Tony Blair the pessimists? http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/20/business/deal.php
3. Why is it that you and other so-called Austrians not see the discussion of AGW as an OPPORTUNITY to reach deals with others that would IMPROVE our economic regulation? Bruce Yandle of Clemson discusses some of the opportunities on this month’s report by PERC (a pioneering free-market environmentalist organization).
4. Finally, this seems to be not merely a gross simplification, but wrong: “Unable to conduct experiments, all climatologists can do is examine statistical correlations.”
Climate science is grounded on physics and informed by a wealth of real-world observations. But as of necessity, the laboratory is the Earth – unless you have it in your power to create a myriad of identical Earths on which to conduct experiments under sped-up conditions. Our experiment is right now underway. Regardless, we have plenty of measurements, stretching back millions of years (or 10,000 years, depending on one’s beliefs), and increasingly more information over the past few decades. The physics and the data tell us something, and something useful.
As for running experiments, other than waiting for the outcome of our current uncontrolled one, what are you suggesting – that it is irresponsible to try to model the climate, compare our models to changes in the real world, try to improve the models or to look for possibly relevant lessons from our testing of models?
Sincerely,
TT
Published: March 31, 2008 4:37 AM
fundamentalist
Simon: “Unless you come to this conclusion as a result of working at the frontiers of the science of the subject, I think a little more modesty might be in order.
I’m not calling you a socialist, but it’s eery how closely your arguments parallel those of socialists. Socialists believe in a elite, too, just as you do. And they believe we should leave all of the decision making to that elite because that elite knows everything and the rest of us know nothing. GW chicken littles exhaust enormous energy to make the issue as difficult to understand as possible with their special terminology. But GW is not rocket surgery. Anyone with a decent high school educatiion can undertand the important aspects of it once you blow away the smoke screen people like you are constantly fogging the scene with. I’ve followed the GW debate since the late 1980’s and not once have I had a problem understanding the issues involved.
Simon: “To think that man might be the cause of such warming, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition that one be a socialist.”
It is sufficient to be a socialist, but you must also be gullible.
TT: “the increased atmospheric GHG levels are demonstrably the result of human activities…”
So what are the ratios between naturally occurring GHG and human produced?
TT: “The physics and the data tell us something, and something useful.”
Data doesn’t tell anyone anything. It can’t talk. Neither can physics. People must use the principles of physics to interpret the data. Often, their political agenda causes them to ignore some principles of physics and emphasize others, as well as ignore some data and place too much emphasis others. I know you desperately want this debate to be between science and deniers of science, as the propaganda machine from the GW hysteria frontier proclaims, but it ain’t. It’s about which principles of science and which data to use.
Published: March 31, 2008 8:18 AM
TokyoTom
Roger:
1. TT: “the increased atmospheric GHG levels are demonstrably the result of human activities…”
Roger: "So what are the ratios between naturally occurring GHG and human produced?"
If you disagree with my point, please directly argue it, instead of asking me to guess your point.
For others, I note that a collection of FAQs pulled from the IPCC 2007 survey of the science is available here: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/. Relevant questions addressed include "How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?" and "Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?"
2. TT: “The physics and the data tell us something, and something useful.”
Roger: "Data doesn’t tell anyone anything. It can’t talk. Neither can physics. People must use the principles of physics to interpret the data. Often, their political agenda causes them to ignore some principles of physics and emphasize others, as well as ignore some data and place too much emphasis others."
I agree. I think we need to be careful particularly of cognitive bias, but rent-seeking (political agenda) is also a concern.
But our agreement on this point does make it rather ironic how far apart we can end up on issues like evolution and the age of the Earth (and of core samples).
3. Roger: "I know you desperately want this debate to be between science and deniers of science, as the propaganda machine from the GW hysteria frontier proclaims, but it ain’t."
It must be wonderful to be able to read other people's minds. Please see your point 2.
I believe I have fully acknowledged the complexity of issues concerning this topic, and had on more than one occasion indicated that non-scientific aspects present rich veins for discussion, referring to von Mises, Rothbard, Block, Cordato, Yandle, Dolan, Elinor Ostrom and others on institutional aspects, for example.
4. I referred above to Bruce Yandle's discussion in this month’s PERC Report concerning climate change policy; here it is: http://www.perc.org/pdf/spr08%20Carbon%20Reduction.pdf.
Regards,
Tom
Published: March 31, 2008 9:35 PM
fundamentalist
TT: "If you disagree with my point, please directly argue it, instead of asking me to guess your point."
You claimed that “the increased atmospheric GHG levels are demonstrably the result of human activities…” If you know that to be true, then you must also know what proportion of the total increase in GHG is human and what proportion occurs naturally. If you don't know the proportions, then I suggest you also don't know that “the increased atmospheric GHG levels are demonstrably the result of human activities…” It's one thing to say that humans contribute GHG's. We all know that if we're breathing. But have humans contributed 1% or 100% to the increase in GHG's?
Published: March 31, 2008 9:52 PM
TokyoTom
Roger, please stop playing games. Human respiration has essentially nothing to do with the net increase in atmospheric stocks of GHGs - not merely CO2, but also NO, methane, CFCs,etc. - and to other activities that have an effect on albedo, such as release of carbon black (soot), etc. (Yes, human poplulations have grown, but we largely simply replace respiration from other animal life as we capture an increasing share of the world's primary production.)
It is rather easy to trace most of the increases in GHG levels to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites, and I have provided a link to some support. More here, directly: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar4wg1faq-7-1.pdf. The combustion of fossil fuels will, unless sequestration technologies are employed, continue to atmospheric CO2 levels (regardless of your view of the origin of the so-called "fossil fuels").
Maybe you could be so bold as to venture to disagree directly, and to advance your own views?
BTW, I agree with your comment that "government subsidies of housing through the mortgage interest deduction benefits the wealthy and encourages people to build ever bigger homes, ala Al Gore's 10K sq ft monstrosity" - that is a constructive suggestion (thoough I think we'd be even better off if we replaced individual and corporate income taxes with consumption taxes). What do you think of the suggestions that I've linked to by Yandle?
Regards,
Tom
Published: April 1, 2008 1:00 AM
Hamlet
Fundamentalist : "there are more things in heav'n and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
America, why are you becoming a land of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist everything-elses. Why can your people bnot accept that the world is not a Manichean struggle between opposites. Why can you not see that complex problems, require complex solutions. How the rest of mankind trembles whilst you stumble round like an inebriated elephant crashing through our lives. Why can you not rediscover the common sense and vison of your founding fathers?
Published: April 1, 2008 5:09 AM
fundamentalist
TT: "It is rather easy to trace most of the increases in GHG levels to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites..."
If that's true, then what is the ratio of human caused GHS's to naturally occurring GHS's contributing to the increased total GHG's. If you don't know what the ratio is, then you don't know that humans are the major cause because that implies that humans contribute more than 50% of all new GHG's.
Published: April 1, 2008 8:04 AM
fundamentalist
Hamlet: “America, why are you becoming a land of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist everything-elses.”
Oh how I wish you were right!
Hamlet: “Why can your people bnot accept that the world is not a Manichean struggle between opposites.”
It’s not? So there is no difference between socialism, which has murdered close to 100 million people in the 20th century, making it the bloodiest century in the history of mankind, and capitalism?
Hamlet: “Why can you not see that complex problems, require complex solutions.”
That’s a typical socialist attempt at muddying the waters. The important issues are simple; the solutions well known for centuries. Socialists refuse to accept the solutions, or any truth whatsoever, and they try to hide that fact by claiming the issues are more complex than they really are.
Hamlet: “How the rest of mankind trembles whilst you stumble round like an inebriated elephant crashing through our lives.”
Well, let’s see. Atheistic socialists have started almost all of the many wars of the 20th century and murdered millions of their own citizens while robbing them of everything they own. BTW, the younger generation has completely forgotten that the US fed China and the USSR during the 1970’s and 1980’s lest millions of their people starve to death, literally. In the last century, how many people did fundamentalist Christians kill?
Hamlet: “Why can you not rediscover the common sense and vison of your founding fathers?”
You must have been educated in a public school. Most of the founding fathers were fundamentalists, especially George Washington. Jefferson was an exception.
Published: April 1, 2008 8:16 AM
Clifford F. Thies
I thought I would speak to some of the suppostions presented as "fact" on this thread:
The "fact" that the carrying-capacity of the earth is a constant; so that any increase in humans will push out other forms of animal life. This is a supposition massively contradicted by facts. That it is proposed by somebody who thinks he can use "science" as a bludgeon in discussion, only shows that person doesn't know what he is talking about, and discredits his other so-called science-based arguments. The fact is, man had tremendously increased the carrying capacity of those parts of the planet that he has brought under control; e.g., by draining swamps, controlling river flows, re-contouring the land, developing new, disease-resistant strains of vegetation, by commercial forestry, and I could go on.
The "fact" that man is responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere during the past 50 years and, hence, is responsible for the recent uptick in global temperature. This refers back to this discredited hockey stick theory (that global temperature was constant until recently). At best, you would have to develop a hybrid theory, to account for natural variation prior to, say, 1850, and to account for the combined effects of continuing natural variation and human contribution. Of course, having familiarized myself with the subject of climate change, I myself brought this possibility up in the original essay. And, being aware of the limits of my knowledge, I do not even attempt to resolve the matter in my essay. Commentators who blather about climate change without recognizing natural variation, just reveal their own ignorance about the matter, and should be ignored.
Of course, for those who have familiarized themselves with the greenhouse hypothesis of climate change, it is not only CO2 in the atmosphere that matters. You'd have to consider methane, sulfur dioxide, and other gases; which, although having a half-life of maybe 30 years, have maybe 30 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. Considering that man has drained swamps and, via commercial forestry, substantially lowered the rotting of dead trees, it may well be that man has substantially off-set the greenhouse gases emitting by industrial activity, at least in those countries where we control the emmission of sulphur dioxide, methane, and so forth.
Focusing on industrial emissions, the obvious change of the past 25 years hasn't been the from the economically-advanced countries of the world, but has been from the emerging economies of the world. Their emissions of CO2 have increased by something like 50 percent, while ours have been flat-lined. Their emissions of the much more volatile greenhouse gases are enormous and growing very rapidly. Fortunately, in a sense, these gases are poisonous locally, so, if they don't get control of these emissions, they'll collectively commit suicide before they kill the rest of us.
My final comment is that dramatic changes in global climate may continue to be from volcanic activity, and their toxic emissions of sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, heavy metals, etc. The eruption of Pinatubo, for example, is the probable reason for the changes in climatic conditions that adversely effected the polar bears. The combined effects of continuing, low level rate of emissions from active volcanoes and the periodic eruptions with their tremendous release of toxic fumes cannot be disregarded in any fair discussion of the subject of the greenhouse effect.
Think of the carbon credits we could accumulate if we could turn volcanoes into geothermal sources of energy, and prevent their accumulation of explosive energy.
Published: April 1, 2008 6:24 PM
TokyoTom
Roger:
I've already offered support for the view that it is rather easy to trace most of the increases in atmospheric levels of the various GHGs to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites, and I daresay that even "skeptical" scientists like Lindzen, Pielke, Gray, Spencer, Christy, Veiser, Seitz and Michaels agree (as well as Prof. Thies) with this.
Maybe that's why you remain too timid to disagree directly, or to advance your own views.
But as this is something rather basic and fundamental to any policy discussion, surely a Nobel physics prize awaits you or any others who could shred the current understanding. I'm certainly willing to listen to you.
Published: April 2, 2008 12:30 AM
TokyoTom
Prof. Thies, thanks for coming back to visit your post.
Some of your points seem, rather misguidedly, to be addressed at me, so please allow me to make a few further comments:
1. You: “The "fact" that the carrying-capacity of the earth is a constant; so that any increase in humans will push out other forms of animal life. This is a supposition massively contradicted by facts. That it is proposed by somebody who thinks he can use "science" as a bludgeon in discussion, only shows that person doesn't know what he is talking about, and discredits his other so-called science-based arguments. The fact is, man had tremendously increased the carrying capacity of those parts of the planet that he has brought under control; e.g., by draining swamps, controlling river flows, re-contouring the land, developing new, disease-resistant strains of vegetation, by commercial forestry, and I could go on.”
I don’t think I’ve bludgeoned anybody. I suppose I’ve made some basic observations and asked questions, none of which you’ve cared to trouble yourself to respond to.
Questions as to the Earth’s primary production (creation of organic compounds, almost all via photosynthesis and thus directly related to energy input from the sun), whether we have added to it via work and fertilizers derived from other energy sources (largely fossil fuels), man’s relative use of primary capacity for his own direct benefit and the extent to which our activities has supplanted other species are all very interesting - but surely you are aware that they are also almost completely irrelevant to the issue of man’s responsibility for increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and other radiative forcings. The net increase in human populations means that man has a relatively larger share of annual animal respiration (CO2 release via breathing and decomposition), but respiration by all animals has been balanced in recent geologic time, and doesn’t contribute on a net basis to any increases in atmospheric CO2. Rather, it is our other activities that are doing this. That is the point that I was trying to make to “fundamentalist” – do you disagree, or do intend to argue that it is man’s respiration that is responsible for climbing GHG levels?
As to the side bar discussion, since you feel my view is "massively contradicted by facts", perhaps you can introduce a few – not merely to show that you know what you are talking about and not me, but perhaps to persuade? It seems to me that the examples you have introduced of man’s “tremendously increas[ing] the carrying capacity” simply show that humans are doing a great job of wresting more from nature to support our own growing population, not increasing the Earth’s primary production or enhancing the ability of the Earth to support a greater number and diversity of life generally. BTW, support for my own massively uninformed views can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/31/12942
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production
2. You: The "fact" that man is responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere during the past 50 years and, hence, is responsible for the recent uptick in global temperature.”
Actually, I think I simply said that “the increased atmospheric GHG levels [not simply CO2] are demonstrably the result of human activities”. Could you be so kind as to confirm whether or not you disagree with my actual point?
As for human responsibility for the recent uptick in global temperature, did I make any claim, or are you addressing someone else?
You: “This refers back to this discredited hockey stick theory (that global temperature was constant until recently).”
The so-called “hockey-stick” controversy does not at all represent any kind of vague “theory” that global temperature has been constant until recently. Climate scientists – indeed, anyone who has heard of an “ice age” - are well aware that global temperatures have varied over time (as well as regionally, seasonally and daily). Rather, the controversy relates to an attempt to reconcile various proxy temperature data (for the Northern Hemisphere only) during the roughly 850 years of preceding millenium for which there is no direct instrumental temperature data, which indicated that late 20th century warmth was anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context. The “blade” of the hockey stick is the stark rapid rise (relative to the previous millennium) of temperatures in the past century; the “handle” of the stick was the authors’ reconciliation (in a 1998 article entitled: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"), which showed a general cooling trend from the so-called “medieval warm period”. A National Research Council report covering the past 2000 years and subsequent work have essentially vindicated the authors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Updates
You: “being aware of the limits of my knowledge, I do not even attempt to resolve the matter in my essay. Commentators who blather about climate change without recognizing natural variation, just reveal their own ignorance about the matter, and should be ignored.
I whole-heartedly endorse your caution to readers regarding writers who blather and reveal their own ignorance - but surely you can’t be referring to me, as I have consistently recognized natural climate changes and non-human forcing factors (not limited to those led by those Milankovich cycles mentioned in my first post). I didn’t deny it here and have expressly referred to it on any number of occasions in commentary here (which you seem unfamiliar with) and on my own blog, which you can find by clicking on my name.
You : “Of course, for those who have familiarized themselves with the greenhouse hypothesis of climate change, it is not only CO2 in the atmosphere that matters. You'd have to consider methane, sulfur dioxide, and other gases; which, although having a half-life of maybe 30 years, have maybe 30 times the greenhouse effect of CO2.”
I’m glad you recognize that those who have tried to follow climate science are aware that there are other GHGs besides CO2 and other forcing factors – as I have already referred in prior posts. However, SO2 is NOT a GHG, but forms aerosols that are COOLING agents (my first link above provides support for this) – which, BTW, is why in the 70s scientists warned that if we didn’t tackle air pollution we might bring on “global cooling”. (I would agree with those here who would say that perhaps we didn't do so in the least costly way, or in ways most conductive to freedom and to protection of private property.)
You: “the obvious change of the past 25 years hasn't been the from the economically-advanced countries of the world, but has been from the emerging economies of the world. Their emissions of CO2 have increased by something like 50 percent, while ours have been flat-lined. Their emissions of the much more volatile greenhouse gases are enormous and growing very rapidly. Fortunately, in a sense, these gases are poisonous locally, so, if they don't get control of these emissions, they'll collectively commit suicide before they kill the rest of us.”
While China and India are coming on like gangbusters, emissions of CO2 continues to climb in the industrial world generally. China’s roughly matches the US’s, though on a per capita basis the advanced countries emit far more. Which of the GHGs are poisonous? Perhaps you’re referring to SO2 again, and other noxious pollutants from coal?
These are purely my personal preferences, but I sure hope that these countries can avoid trashing their own environments (and health) and start strengthening their property rights protections. But as we share a single global atmosphere, the rest of the developed world has an interest in finding ways to help them moderate their GHG emissions - perhaps by finding ways to sue them for the damage that we may suffer?
You: “dramatic changes in global climate may continue to be from volcanic activity, and their toxic emissions of sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, heavy metals, etc. The eruption of Pinatubo, for example, is the probable reason for the changes in climatic conditions that adversely effected the polar bears. The combined effects of continuing, low level rate of emissions from active volcanoes and the periodic eruptions with their tremendous release of toxic fumes cannot be disregarded in any fair discussion of the subject of the greenhouse effect.”
We should by all means be fair - even if that means pointing out that volcanoes largely have a COOLING effect, principally from their enormous releases of particulates and aerosols like SO2 that block sunlight.
Thanks for trying to engage on science. I do hope you will take up the suggestion I made in our email exchange, and try to spend a little time addressing climate change from an Austrian perspecive and from your own knowledge of decision-making in the face of uncertainty.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: April 2, 2008 6:38 AM
fundamentalist
TT: “I've already offered support for the view that it is rather easy to trace most of the increases in atmospheric levels of the various GHGs to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites…”
Yes, you have done a masterful job of dancing all around my question without answering it. I’m beginning to suspect that you don’t have any answer. If, as you say, “it is rather easy to trace most of the increases in atmospheric levels of the various GHGs to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites,” then please tell me what percentage of the increase in GHG’s is human caused and what percent is naturally caused. Obviously you can’t tell me because you don’t know. You don’t kow if it’s 1% or 99%. Yet you claim that humans produce more GHG’s than does nature. That means that you think humans cause 50% or more of all new GHG’s. But you don’t know that do you? If you don’t know what the percentages are, then you don’t know that “it is rather easy to trace most of the increases in atmospheric levels of the various GHGs to human industrial, commercial and agricultural activites…” That’s simply a false statement.
Published: April 2, 2008 8:15 AM
TokyoTom
The problem, Roger, is not that I won't spend the time figure out a way to demonstrate to your satisfaction every single question you may have, but that you're Fundamentally not engaged in a search for truth or understanding.
Rather, you're trying to defend your worldview, and it helps you to do so by seeking to exhaust those who disagree with you though asking endless questions that regardless of how exhaustively responded to and established will never satisfy you. Your method of engagement is obviously an unproductive task, at least for this blog, since you avoid the effort of putting your own views up for analysis. Consequently, there is no positive interactive process, but a simple act of mental self-satisfaction on your part.
I have asked you for only the modest effort of actually arguing for the position that you imply - that man is NOT primarily responsible for climbing GHG levels. You refuse. My posting history, on the other hand, is replete with efforts to persuade and to support my positions with links to external, non-Bibilical sources; I even find that now my posts run into problems with the new spam filters because they have too many links.
To the best of what I have been able to glean to so for - correct me if I'm wrong - you don't buy AGW because you live in a world and universe created by God some 10,000 years ago - a world without Ice Ages, fossils (and "fossil" fuels) millions of years old, ice cores 650,000 to 800,000 years old, climate changes touched off by ancient Milankovich wobbles of the Earth on its axis and orbit around the sun, meteor debris or massive clathrate releases (no continental drift, magnetic polar flips, or evolution, either). None of this hard-won, so-called "scientific" information is remotely correct, because it doesn't jive with the true historical record presented by the Bible - which gives us a fixed history with a sinlge big Flood.
I haven't responded to your question not because I can't, but because I won't, and I won't for the reasons I pointed about previously and just now. Why bother to try, because essentially you reject all of the modern scientific enterprise, and facts acknowledged by virtually all "skeptical" scientists?
But I will point out that your screwed up understanding leads you to jump to false conclusions. I certainly have NOT "claim[ed] that humans produce more GHG’s than does nature", and my position does NOT "mean[] that [I] think humans cause 50% or more of all new GHG’s".
Various natural processes also create GHGs (other than CFCs), and natural processes also remove them, at differing rates. That atmospheric levels of one GHG or another increases does not imply that there is any new, dominant source, but simply that marginal additions (or a decrease in marginal removals) are resulting in net inflows (inflows exceeding outflows). My statement, which is uncontested by scientists, is that human activities are primarily responsible for the NET increase of atmospheric GHGs.
Published: April 2, 2008 9:13 PM
fundamentalist
TT: "I certainly have NOT "claim[ed] that humans produce more GHG’s than does nature", and my position does NOT "mean[] that [I] think humans cause 50% or more of all new GHG’s". "
"My statement, which is uncontested by scientists, is that human activities are primarily responsible for the NET increase of atmospheric GHGs."
Those statements seem to contradict each other. I understand what net increase means. But if you don't know who produces the most GHG's, then how do you know which one contributes most to the net? Nature produces and absorbs a great deal of GHG's. Are you saying that nature refuses to absorb any man-made GHG's, so that all that man creates contributes to the net? It would seem logical to me that the side that produces the most GHG's would be most responsible for the net increase as well, but then I'm kinda fond of good logic, which handicaps me in this debate.
Published: April 3, 2008 8:06 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, I daresay it`s not logic that handicaps you, rather a preference to theology over logic. Does Prof. Thies or anyone else care to help Roger with his supposed conundrum?
I note, by the way, that I provided links that go to these questions. DId you find them illogical, Roger?
Published: April 3, 2008 9:05 AM
fundamentalist
TT: Perhaps this is what you're trying to say: You don’t know how much GHG’s nature produces or absorbs, but you can measure the net increase and it is roughly equivalent to the man-made volume, so you assume that nature is in balance and that man causes the net. That’s reasonable.
Published: April 3, 2008 9:23 AM
Clifford F. Thies
Attributing the net increase (note: not just the increase, but the net increase).
Assuming greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change …
You would have to look, first, at the rate at which the earth can re-cycle any increase. If this capacity is larger than the amount that is being put into the atmosphere, then the increase is meaningless; and (aside from the local degradation of air and water quality resulting from methane, sulfur dioxide and the like) emitting greenhouse gases involves the use of a “free good” and does not have to be rationed. My understanding of the “deniers” position is that the atmosphere is a free good, and not that they are denying the greenhouse effect. The term is therefore vulgar and should be avoided. I, however, will use it when appropriate to describe others who use it, to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Assuming the earth cannot quickly absorb as much as is being emitted, we would have to do four things:
1. Account for something like the long-run, normal amount of greenhouse gases emitted by natural sources independent of any human activity, and then account for the actual amount emitted by natural sources independent of any human activity. This could vary by reason of volcanic activity (and this is what climatologists who pursue the greenhouse gas theory of climate change and who don’t “deny” natural variation, refer to in order to explain historical variation in their models).
2. Account for the net impact of human activity on natural sources, e.g., by draining swamps, controlling river flows, commercial agriculture, commercial forestry and commercial fishing. I suspect humans get a lot of “carbon credits” for the first several items, and lose some carbon credits for the last item being that the oceans are over-fished because of the “the tragedy of the commons” problem.
3. Account for the impact of industrial activity; e.g., the burning of carbon-based fuels.
4. Account for any direct withdrawal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (this is zero today, but it might be rather cheap to do relative to not burning carbon-based fuel).
The big problems I see in the scientists who claim that human activity accounts for all or even most of the net increase in greenhouse gases are:
1. No effort to account for the net impact of human activity on natural sources (item #2 above), except of course for commercial fishing (since that would be another black mark on the human race). Any reduction in the emission of methane from, e.g., draining of swamps is treated as part of natural variation.
2. No weighting of the greenhouse effect by type of greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is relatively innocuous as compared to methane, sulfur dioxide and others. I myself wonder if carbon dioxide is, at the margin, completely innocuous, since volcanoes don’t emit much of it, but do emit a lot of sulfur dioxide in their deadly pollution cocktails, so that volanic eruptions may cause an initial cooling effect from the reflection of solar energy, as well as a subsequent warming effect from the capture of solar energy.
3. Treating the growing emissions of emerging economies, especially of methane, etc., as “our” problem, even to the point of accepting the Kyoto Treaty that exempts them entirely.
If emitting greenhouse gases is not to be considered a use of a free good, then libertarians would be inclined to an extension of our understanding of property and markets, so as to effect an equitable initial distribution of credits, and an efficient use of the scarce resource to include the process of discovery that will greatly reduce the cost of that resource in the long-run (e.g., by the development of a low-cost vacuum cleaner that can suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, providing a practically infinite supply of low cost credits, maybe 1 cent per gallon of gasoline). But, this would require Kyoto to be a global agreement, and to cover methane, etc., with the appropriate weights.
My sense of it is that we are far from resolving the scientific controversies involved in climate change, and from developing a framework to address the equity and efficiency issues that would be involved in any meaningful attempt to ration the scarce resource that would be involved, if the greenhouse gas theory of climate change were to gain the consensus that is claimed.
Published: April 3, 2008 9:33 AM
fundamentalist
Prof. Thies,
Thanks for the clarification. My goal was much more modest: try to separate what GW hysteria actually knows from what it claims to know. I suspect that we have a reasonably accurate way of measuring the actual amount of GHG's in the atmosphere so that over the years we can observe the net increase in them. And I assume that we have a reasonably good measure of human contributions to GHG's, although as you point out, that's not likely. The issue I'm trying to get at is what percent of the net increase is man-made. Based on your observation, I would guess that is unkowable. So the bottom line is that GW hysteria does not know that the net increase is mainly caused by humans.
Published: April 3, 2008 12:16 PM
TokyoTom
Prof. Thies:
1. Perhaps you can see that our well-named "fundamentalist" interlocutor is perfectly willing to accept pieces of information from you, but only for the purpose of denying any human responsibility for the consequences of human actions. It is as if, for example, in the case you mention of the over-fishing of the oceans because of the “the tragedy of the commons” problem (due to the open-access nature of the oceans and a lack of clear or enforceable property rights), that someone like him were to argue that no one knows that there are actually fewer fish (no one actually counts them, after all, or keeps track of where they might be going to), what are the natural rates at which fisheries replenish (and whether there are changes in natural factors that affect that), or what levels of natural predation there might be (and whether there is any increase in natural predation), so how can anyone really know that men catching fish - either singly or in year-round factory ships - actually has anything to do with the so-called "crashing fish stocks" (or "over-fishing" as you would have it)? Maybe the fish are simply getting better at hiding, or something, but even if they really ARE declining, who's to say that people either have anything to do with it or even could actually do something meaningful about it, such as by, say, moderating our take of fish?
It's all too complicated, and before we ever do anything serious like take away people's God-given rights to destroy a commons, we'd better make sure we dot every i and cross every t on convincing all of them. Those who have different preferences are simply mendacious "hysterics" - even all those people and firms who are convinced of the seriousnessness of the problem and have begun to change their own fishing and eating habits, are trying to convince others to change as well.
2. It is a puzzle that you continue to speculate about the "big problems" you see in "the scientists who claim that human activity accounts for all or even most of the net increase in greenhouse gases" - such as (i) "No effort to account for the net impact of human activity on natural sources" and (ii) "No weighting of the greenhouse effect by type of greenhouse gas".
Not that these aren't important questions - rather the reason why it is a puzzle is that the barest modicum of effort (such as clicking the first link that I have provided you) would show you that, in fact scientists have, in fact, made (and continue to make) the very efforts that you speak of. How is it that you've managed, despite your apparent concern about climate change and potential climate policy, to avoid ever looking at the IPCC reports on the climate science, which address precisely these points?
What was it again that you said earlier about "commentators who blather about climate change", "reveal their own ignorance" and "should be ignored"?
3. I would agree that we are far "from developing a framework to address the equity and efficiency issues that would be involved in any meaningful attempt" to tackle problems relating to global open-access commons like the atmosphere and oceans. But I'm a little puzzled about your own purposes - after all, doesn't "choosing life" mean choosing human primacy in doing what we want with open access commons, and simply letting the chips fall where they may - whether it means destroying ocean fisheries, replacing tropical forests with soybean plantations, stressing ocean and land ecosystems and even changing the climate in ways that force mankind to adapt?
Or does "choosing life" mean something else, like trying to get to the bottom of various issues, discussing them with others, and trying to resolve the equity and efficiency issues?
If you mean the latter, then I suspect that Mr. fundamentalist would have a bone to pick with you as well.
Published: April 4, 2008 3:04 AM
fundamentalist
It would interest me to know if anyone has attempted to actually calculate the ratios of human/natural contributions to the net increase in GHG’s. TokyoTom knows the science of GW hysteria better than anyone, but he clearly has no answer. Sad. Instead, he decends into character assassination and appeals to authority, like a true socialist.
Published: April 4, 2008 8:03 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, it's you who's been laying the trail of BS here, and from the get go. This should be clear to anyone who reads the thread.
I offer supported science, and despite concerted efforts on many threads over the past two years to address all sides to the issue - and efforts here not only to address science but to discuss economics, your opening words are to pretend to "know" that I "desperately want this debate to be between science and deniers of science, as the propaganda machine from the GW hysteria frontier proclaims". That isn't what I want at all, but serious consideration - and the "desperation" of which you speak seems naught but sheer projection.
If what you say about my hysteria, falsehoods, "decends [sp] into character assassination and appeals to authority, like a true socialist" were even remotely true, I daresay that it would have been me who was quickly shown the door here, rather than a few others.
When you say that I "know[] the science of GW hysteria better than anyone", it's you who's engaging in character assassination, not me. My approach can hardly be said to by hysterical, and while I may know something about climate science, I know very little indeed about "hysteria" running rampant through our academies of science, think tanks, corporations, economists, political leaders, or major insurers, industrial corporations and investors. That seems to be your procalimed expertise, though you've as yet to lift a finger to establish your claims.
What character assassination do you accuse me of? That I've referred to your Bible-based approach to science and fundamentalist beliefs? That's not character assassination, but simply the truth, as you have yourself acknowledged, and is amply documented on a thread that I've excerpted here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/30/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx.
Appeals to authority? That accusation is simply a juvenile rhetorical trick so you can avoid the mountainous edifice of scientific work that exists, and continues to grow, concerning our knowledge of the climate - knowledge that we have been fated to acquire ever since the day that we we kicked ot of the Garden of Eden.
You for your part evince no desire to trouble yourself to actually try to understand and pick apart the science, but rather seem to be engaged in the heroic, Canute-like task of trying to sweep away a tsunami of information and knowledge by using the simple force of your own logic to tear down not merely climate science, but much of the rest of the scientific endeavor.
Good luck with that.
Published: April 4, 2008 9:03 AM
David C
In answer to Fundamentalist's question on the quantification of the human/natural split in GHG emissions, I dont know if anyone even knows how to begin to quantify that. And what's 'natural' anyway? 6 bn people breathing is 'natural' in my view, and absent modern technology, so is th e wood-and coal smoke from the fires they used to ( and still do) burn in their millions, nay, billions, to keep warm and cook their food. power generationThey can hardly do otherwise. I am not convinced that fossil-fuelled electricity generation is any more CO2/other pollutantproductive than the home fires that would otherwise have to exist absent modern power generation technology. The 'natural' activities of inconcievably-large numbers of termites across the world likewise - their emissions must be in the order of millions of tonnes annually. Not to mention all the other sources of carbon dioxide and methane.
Besides, any such modelling will always be bedevilled by random events, because nothing is static in this world. A single (natural) Krakatoa-size volcanic eruption could quite concievably dump decades-worth of 'manmade' GHGs into the atmosphere in a matter of days. But I suppose that as long as its 'natural', well, thats OK then?
I am by no means a GW denier - but I am an AGW skeptic, and the human component of that is wholly undetermined. Furthermore, there is simp[ly not seen enough evidence to warrant any drastic measures to manipulate, say, atmospheric CO2 levels in either direction, because the science is so poor and patchy. Such drastic measures, like the one where some guy wanted to seed large parts of the ocean with iron to lock up CO2, and now Australia is looking at storing it underground. Such efforts may well cause more damage than the problem they are calculated to cure, besides soaking up resources that could be better deployed.
I have sympathy for the sentiment that drives people to 'believe' in environmental causes, but the problem with sentiment driving ideology is that it generates dogma that brooks no dissent, and disallows any questioning of doctrine, which assumes a quasi-religious status (regrettably, some Austro-libertarians fall into this trap too). Nowhere is this clearer than in the fallout after Bjorn Lomberg's book was published - the hysterical kneejerk denial of his thesis was probably visible from space, and its a fair bet that those who railed against him most strongly did not even read what he had to say - (Thou shalt not question the Greenpeace orthodoxy and those who do are by definition evil heretics).
Parenthetically, there was an interesting juxtaposition in this when that storm broke: One element in his thesis was that with high national wealth and prosperity, comes much more concern for the environment, etc etc, implying that maybe the answer to environmental degradation ultimately is MORE development and growth, not less.
Now, when the journal Nature reviewed his book and gave it a right savaging, following the greenie partyline, elsewhere in the VERY SAME ISSUE was another article covering research showed that in the wealthier countries, things like air quality and such were indeed getting much better, exactly in keeping with Lomberg's message. One suspects that the irony was lost on Nature's editors.
Published: April 4, 2008 10:17 AM
TokyoTom
David, I`m like you - I prefer idle, uninformed speculation over devoting any effort to see what the scientific literature might have to say about the things that help me to say I`m "skeptical".
That way, it`s easier for me to say that is those "others", from our academies of science on down, who must be the ones who are stuck in a cycle of "sentiment driving ideology" that "generates dogma that brooks no dissent, and disallows any questioning of doctrine, which assumes a quasi-religious status".
This, is after all, what Austrianism is all about:
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/26/thank-you-prof-block-for-feeding-our-confirmation-biases.aspx.
Not to put words in your mouth, but hysterical people who post links to so-called "science" should be ignored. That way we can be sure that we can go on thinking that our speculation is correct.
And when we pat ourselves on the back with our generally improving environments at home we should not be troubled - like Prof. Thies seems to be - about the stresses that the domestic demand of developed nations place on global, open-access commons or have on local commons in countries that fail to protect property rights, or in exporting pollution in countries that fail to regulate it.
Right?
Regards,
TT
Published: April 5, 2008 3:50 AM