Winning the debate

The science would be every single peer-reviewed academic paper published on the subject.

Except that is not the case. You must have read that in a newspaper or on a blog.

vidyohs,

The science would be every single peer-reviewed academic paper published on the subject. It would be the extraordinarily simple-to-understand mechanism by which carbon emissions raise the global mean temperature. It would be the obvious implications of those temperature rises, in the range they are projected to reach.

Your comments here, with their ultra-narrow focus on pollution that you, personally, have witnessed, are very telling: you are clearly not capable of looking beyond anecdotal evidence at the big picture. I have many political sympathies with libertarians, but their glib dismissal of the scientific method (when it suits their ends) is a fatal flaw.

"Every time I start to become convinced that libertarians are the rational and objective creatures they claim to be, I am brought back from the brink by remembering one thing: their religious insistence that science must be rejected whenever it leads to certain policy implications.

Posted by: MikeF | Jan 17, 2009 8:13:13 PM"

MikeF,

and, that science would be, what?

Everytime I begin to think that there might be a socialist with two brain cells to rub together I am brought back from the brink by simply reading anything a socialist might attempt to write.

Every time I start to become convinced that libertarians are the rational and objective creatures they claim to be, I am brought back from the brink by remembering one thing: their religious insistence that science must be rejected whenever it leads to certain policy implications.

Heresy! Heresy! Heresy!

I am Brother Torquemierduck of the Church of AGW. You DO NOT want to get to know me. Or my Inquisition.

The world is getting warmer and it is the fault of the human race! Your science is meaningless to us! We know AGW is true because His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I says it's true!

Surrender your liberty! Surrender your wealth! Or Mother Gaia will surely die! You have been warned...

Christopher,

Oh yeah! LOL, someone had some time on their hands, but we have all heard just about every one of those being blamed for global warming at one time or another.

"Over the past 38 years we've done exactly that in the U.S. One rarely hears good environmental news via the mainstream media, but its out there to report.

Our part of the world is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago or even 60 years ago. We should be proud.

Posted by: John Dewey | Jan 16, 2009 9:28:09 AM"

I don't argue that point John, I realize that. However, when I can climb the mountain benches west of Boulder, Colorado on a Sept noon, and at the altitude of approximately 500 feet, look back East over the city and see a dense dirty orangish brown pall over the entire front from Denver to the South, to North of Boulder, then I would argue that we could do more.

Let me also mention that I can see that same pall, less dense but unmistakable, hanging over Houston on many days when I drive in from the South from my home. I used to see that pall, as dense, hanging over Salt Lake City and even coming around the point of the mountain to cloud the Tooele Valley.

Those palls over places of high population density come from something, John, and it isn't my imagination. So there is still much work to be done and work that can be done if the will is there.

Here is a point, John, in the 100 years plus that humans have been using the internal combustion engine remarkable little progress has been made towards making them more efficient and less polluting.

And I speak here of an "in comparison" with other wide spread technologies, such as electronics, medicines, physical fitness philosophies and mechanical aids, weaponry, etc. Our science and devotion to improving those to perfection is evident but when it comes to the internal combustion engine, not a lot has been done to improve the basic technology. After 100 years I would rationally expect really interested people to have come up with something like zero emissions by now.

Look at the way humans handle their waste, and ask yourself just how much progress has been made in the last 100 years in improving reducing the pollution caused by that. There are some serious problems developing in this arena. We have stuff today that simply will not breakdown for an extremely long time, if ever; it's not like it was back in 1909 when the problem could be solved by hauling it to low density places and tossing it. Too many humans and too much waste because of them. Even if we all actually heeded good manners and put all of our waste in trash bins for collection, we still have a serious problem.

Anyway back to the dirty air, yes it is cleaner, no it is not clean. If good scientific minds aren't focused on the problem of finding solutions then it will very likely get worse again as the population increases.

Vidyohs: LOL, hey STrUmPiT, repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc.

Damn dude, you forgot acne, sexual dysfunction, unpopularity, bad breath, pigeon toes, hangnails, ingrown toenails, knockknees, rush hour traffic, slow elevators, rude cops, crooked courts, rough-riding horses, dull movies, political correctness, Tv of all kinds, bad referrees, Official review, damn them libertarian global warming deniers anyway. Just be the ruination of the world, eh sprout?

It's even better than that. Here's an exhaustive list.

There is no actual url in the source file for your links. Check your syntax and make sure the actual address is contained within.

Use preview and hover your mouse pointer over the link text and check the address in the status bar.

Michael Smith:

Link?

Here's a nice one:

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

This allows you to take a long URL and convert it into a short URL. Makes posting links a lot easier.

.

A central feature of global warming theory -- as is indicated by all the climate models, by the climate scientists and by the IPCC -- is that it predicts that the maximum warming will occur in the tropical troposphere, at an altitude of about 200 - 400 millibars. To repeat: Warming at that altitude in those latitudes is expected to exceed the warming at the surface. This claim is absolutely central to the whole theory of how global warming works.

Well, there is just one problem. According to multiple satellite measurements as well as radiosonde measurements from balloons, such warming is NOT occurring. Go here and see for yourself: Satellite Measurements of the Tropical Troposphere

Now, what do the global warming people say about this? They say those satellites measurements do not disprove global warming theory, because out of the 13 major climate models they are using, some of those models predict little or no warming. Think about that for a minute.

So their explanation for the satellite data depends on the fact that their collection of models includes some models that predict little or no actual global warming. Go here and read this if you don’t believe me: LINK

vidyohs: " what would be wrong with eliminating smog in cities, airborne chemical pollutants from plants, finding a way to actually create workable benchtop nuclear power plants that free humans from the control of oil,"

Nothing wrong at all with reducing air pollutants. Over the past 38 years we've done exactly that in the U.S. One rarely hears good environmental news via the mainstream media, but its out there to report.

Way back in 1971, Congress charged the EPA with reducing the airborne levels of six primary pollutants. Since then, the U.S. population has grown by 50% or more. Vehicle miles traveled have doubled. Real U.S. manufacturing GDP has soared. Yet the U.S. emission levels of the 6 primary air pollutants have been cut in half.

Response from the left? Gotta find a new "pollutant" - CO2 - and new "theories" to scare the nation into ceding more control to the central planners.

Our part of the world is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago or even 60 years ago. We should be proud.

Aw come on - admit it - the present generations don't have a duty to the future generations of a century or two hence. It's the same as externalities - why should people be compensated for negative externalities when people who create positive externalities don't get any thing for their troubles. Similarly what of the plight of London Smog in the 1800s? The smog was a negative externality to some but was a big positive externality in terms of increasing the standard of living for every one else in London - especially the future generations.

We had a debate?

Sorry, I was driving Eddie Van Halen’s 1956 Chevy Nomad around the block.

Had to refill twice….

Jorge - and we don't care for your Marxist drivel either.

Dear Russell,

Bjorn Lonborg is not an economist with professional ethics. It only watches you what it happens in the rest of the world as the andean glaciers defrosting and the water sources are lost for million of Latin American people. Its opinion (Lonborg) is not important in Latin America. We reads preferent to Stiglitz, D. Aceglemu and others very importants economist.

Jorge

"Yes, our quality of life may be reduced to clean up the mess that previous generations have left for us."

Reduced quality of life wasn't very well received in the November elections.

Anyone who thinks these programs can stop global warming has never been to China or India. There is no stopping those people from emitting CO2 on a totally unprecedented level over the next 50 years. Those 2 countries alone will emit more CO2 in 2050 than the entirety of the industrialized world emits today. The so-called West should abandon this delusion that everyone else will join their crusade against CO2, and if people really believe CO2 causes global warming, they need to get about the business of preparing for a warmer globe.

You folks all know me as a staunch enemy of the GW crowd. I reject them and their silly ass theories for all the same reasons you do. Earth is going to do what it is going to do and what little effect we have on the climate is invisible against what Earth does to itself.

That being said, and dismissing global warming in all its factors from the rest of my comments; what would be wrong with eliminating smog in cities, airborne chemical pollutants from plants, finding a way to actually create workable benchtop nuclear power plants that free humans from the control of oil, there are things that can be done if people can ever harness government and bring it back to its primary purpose as stated in the Constitution.

I don't see human produced pollution as a threat to the global climate, but the case can be made that it is a threat to humans at ground level.

We have a suburb of Houston where most of the chemical plants are, and that suburb is called "Stinkadena" instead of Pasadena. On most days it lives up to that label. I kind of think that if government wasn't protecting those plants that those plant owners could find a market based solution to the release of chemical pollutants. Especially if an irate consumer base used the boycott method of persuasion. It might cost them and cut into their profit margins, but personally I have no problem with that.

The one thing about the ability of market based solutions to be effective is drawn so sharply by the illegal drug industry. The government has sunk billions and billions into the (so-called) effort to close those markets and the government has not made even a dent in the availability or the price. Marke based solutions would fix the pollution problem if government would just GTF out of the way.

In the 300 mile or so thickness of the atmosphere, human produced pollution in uncomfortable or dangerous levels is concentrated in the thin layer next to the Earth's surface, from ground up to maybe half of a mile, after which that pollution thins out rapidly so that only small amounts of gases or pollutants ever reach the upper regions of the atmosphere. Here I might mention that one only need to reflect on the past brou ha ha over the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctica that caused us to ban Freon to have sufficient doubt that such miniscule pollutants have only a very tiny effect on the climate.

Could we make that 1/2 mile thin layer we live in cleaner? Absolutely. Could it be done without draconian governmental laws, regulations, and coercion? Absolutely.

Think about it. Like any reasonable mule people will follow someone leading them; but the same people, like the mule, will kick the shit out of anyone who gets behind them and starts pushing.

We don't have a damn soul in D.C. that I'd trust to move my mule without him/her getting hoof prints on their body.

I love that thumbnail, though.

LOL, hey STrUmPiT, repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc.

Damn dude, you forgot acne, sexual dysfunction, unpopularity, bad breath, pigeon toes, hangnails, ingrown toenails, knockknees, rush hour traffic, slow elevators, rude cops, crooked courts, rough-riding horses, dull movies, political correctness, Tv of all kinds, bad referrees, Official review, damn them libertarian global warming deniers anyway. Just be the ruination of the world, eh sprout?

I believe in self-sacrifice when the self isn't me,

The apparent thinking of leftists who believe that they will benefit from redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to those poorer.

Leftist hate humans as individuals, preferring to view them the way we view herds of cattle.

Gorey movies

Good one :)

I think Pengins in the antartic are suffering from too much ice. They have fewer escape holes and have to dive deeper, where they get picked off by the dozens by lion seals.

The seals are doing well, though.

This reminds me of the scene in Butch Cassiy and the Sundance Kid when they face impending doom from the chasing possee. contemplating jumping offf a cliff to escape:

"I can't jump"

"Why Not?

"If I jump, I'l die"

[Looking at the Possee.] "If you don't jump, you'll die"

"I still can't Jump"

"Why not?"

"I can't Swim"

"You idiot, the fall will probably kill you."

I'd hate to spend all my money preventing global warming and then discover an incoming asteroid.

-------------------------

I don't think the H-bomb example is germaine.

But I do think that if we eliminate 80% of combustion to prevent CO2 we may well kill nearly as many people as global warming will.

Even if the proponents are right and the costs will be smaller than I imagine, small cost changes might still wreak major havoc.

Maybe with H-bombs.

"Your self-serving beliefs in doing nothing to protect the planet will cause repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc. That's tantamount to being an accomplice to murder in my book. But you don't mind, so long as you can drive your gas-guzzling Humvee, Arnold."

Trumpit, it's pretty arrogant of you to assume that just because libertarians hold different policy views than you means that we're all Humvee-driving accomplices to biological genocide. I would say the same thing about those that apply the broad label of "socialist" to everyone on the left of the political spectrum.

I think the point at the root of this debate is what to do about increased carbon emissions that may be/are impacting the climate.

Reasonable people can disagree on a) the impact of carbon emissions and b) cost/benefit analysis of lowering emissions.

Personally, I think that mankind does have an impact, and I am supportive of carbon taxes. I do not support cap and trade schemes, not because I don't think reducing emissions is a good idea, but because of the inevitable rent-seeking that follows giveaways in Washington.

I also tend to side in the Longborg camp in my belief that a) our resources to respond to these problems (wealth) are finite, b) we have to look at tradeoffs to solve these issues (we can't do everything), and c) adapting to a warmer climate will pay more dividends on many levels than throwing a hail mary and trying to get emissions down to where they were in 1900.

On a per-capita basis, Sudan has one of the lowest carbon emission levels on the planet. I don't know about you, but that's not a future that I'm prepared to embrace.

Here's a thought experiment. If humankind detonated all of it's hydrogen bombs, the earth would recover in a 1000 years max. Which proves my point, humans can't destroy the earth. It's arrogant to think we are that powerful. A little humility by the pro-AGW folks is in order.

The single biggest absurdity of AGW is to think that human civilization which has existed for a tiny blip in geologic time can possibly affect climate.

Anyone got a link to the page hosting the debate recording? I can't seem to find it on iq2's website.

"They, and the polar bears and penguins, deserve an uproarious shout-out."

Uhm... penguins don't live in the Arctic, where all the melting is occuring. They live in the Antarctic, where there is an increasing amount of ice. They are probably doing just fine, one way or the other.

In the main, I attempt to follow the advice given in the Sermon On the Mount. I do not believe that you can change a belief held prejudicially by attacking the holder of such a belief on the basis of that belief.

In the main.

I believe the debate, especially here in Oregon, has come to such a pass that it is necessary to stand up and simply call the fools who persist, "fools".

http://tinyurl.com/a2qt9s

This "debate" will not occur using some long-lost ideal of rational thought. If "they" are being dopes, they must get accustomed to being called dopes.

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/world/

europe/15naess.html?ref=obituaries

Deep ecology's central tenet is the belief that all living beings have their own value and therefore, as Mr. Naess once put it, “need protection against the destruction of billions of humans.”

Let's not fail to mention the melting polar ice caps. They, and the polar bears and penguins, deserve an uproarious shout-out.

will cause repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc.

take your meds, the nightmare will disappear. Don't watch too many Gorey movies.

"Libertarians don't nominate others to the sacrificial slaughter house."

Your self-serving beliefs in doing nothing to protect the planet will cause repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc. That's tantamount to being an accomplice to murder in my book. But you don't mind, so long as you can drive your gas-guzzling Humvee, Arnold.

Per Per: "I have seen enough with my own eyes to be absolutely certain that if we do not make some substantial changes in the way we behave towards our environment we are condemning our descendants to problems from where it might be impossible for them to bail-out."

As someone who does quite a bit of volunteer environmental work, I will agree with that, but...

Expending resources on "correcting" AGW is absolutely not the way to go about this and is an incredible waste of time/money. These national/global policies to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting are sure to fall into a miasma of unintended consequences. History has shown that political solutions are riddled with ulterior motives.

The environment would be much better served in the long run by doing a few things:

1. First and foremost, protect property rights. I think there is a failure of regulation in this area, as governments have colluded with industries to allow for certain levels of pollution in violation of property rights.

2. Rid ourselves of the fake monetary system that relies on unsustainable growth and increasing debt. The constant boom/bust cycles waste tremendous amounts of resources through mal-investment which in turn lead to unnecessary pollution.

3. Allow volunteers and NGOs to do the work to clean up problems that already exist and have been created by governments colluding with private interests to violate property rights. Private citizens and local communities do this much more efficiently than national/global governments do.

4. This is probably the most controversial. Rid ourselves of the corporate veil that allows people to shield personal assets while they abuse the property rights of others. If your personal assets are at risk, you will make better decisions. And if you are uncomfortable risking your personal wealth, you can buy private insurance for protection.

I think these selfish/libertarian solutions would be more effective and less costly than the forced altruistic/egalitarian options offered by the left. Tweaking the same broken down system of coercion and theft to get better results is folly. The left/right seem happy to vacillate over increasingly coercive policies that satisfy their constituents, all the while stealing more and more of our liberties.

And yes, I know I'm living in a dream world, but it's the only way out of this endless loop of stupidity.

There are some foul Libertarians who pollute the internet and this blog as well as the environment. How can we reduce their noxious emissions? By confronting their egotism, arrogance, bad ethics, and ignorance at every turn. Only the light of day will defeat them, if not, their shadow of darkness will blanket and doom us.

Armpit says..."I believe in self-sacrifice when the self isn't me, or the rich, is so typical of libertarians."

Just the opposite. Libertarians don't nominate others to the sacrificial slaughter house. Armpits like you would like others to do the sacrificing.

Armpit, why don't you shutdown that expensive, chinese made Macbook and save some energy.

MR BoscoH

When the issue is based on junk science I am not willing to use my money or yours.


Maybe you should be more worried about the trillions of dollars that is being thrown around right now by our government, and the trillions more they will say they need right away to avoid disaster. What will that do to future generations when that bill comes due? Eventually the ponzi scam that is social security will collapse then what?


I Hope in 20 years when the global temp is still dropping, like it has for the past 10 years, our kids can look back and say “good thing we did not waste all that money on GW”.

Per Kurowski,

Could you explain this statement please?

"I have seen enough with my own eyes to be absolutely certain that if we do not make some substantial changes in the way we behave towards our environment we are condemning our descendants to problems from where it might be impossible for them to bail-out."

What am I missing? Before the debate 16% thought that major reductions in CO2 were not worth the money. After that number went up to 42%. How is that a loss?

Major reductions in CO2 are not worth my money; I'd rather spend my money on a winter vacation in the Bahamas.

I believe in self-sacrifice when the self isn't me, or the rich, is so typical of libertarians. What condition we leave the world in for posterity is the world they will get. The onus is on us, the people who are spewing massive quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere, to show that future generations won't pay too high a price. What we pay now to reduce or eliminate the problem is only half the question. Yes, our quality of life may be reduced to clean up the mess that previous generations have left for us. So, do you think it is right to continue the same path of selfishness? The word selfishness keeps coming up as a key component of libertarian theory. That's why I think the theory is misguided from an ethical point of view.

Per, if you've read anything coming from Bjorn Lomborg, you'd know it's not simplistic. He presents a reasoned economic approach to evaluative AGW in context. That context is the wealth we have at our disposal, world problems that kill people, and priorities. That you call that simplistic just indicates that you haven't critically examined your own beliefs and biases by availing yourself to arguments that don't confirm your predisposed hunches.

It is a shame what is happing to real science. This GW scam is going to have a large back lash to genuine science, I fear. Who is going to trust what science has to say once GW is shown to be the scam that it is. I fear the vacuum will be filled by more “junk science” and ideologies.

Another great site to check out is http://icecap.us .


Russ would love to hear a podcast with one of these guys, Ross McKitrick or Steve McIntre. They disproved the infamous hockey stick graph.

To Tim and his fellow travellers:

You wrote:

"I have seen enough with my own eyes to be absolutely certain that if we do not make some substantial changes in the way we behave towards our environment we are condemning our descendants to problems from where it might be impossible for them to bail-out."

Absolutely certain? Now, there is an objective, scientific statement for you!

What is simplistic about asking whether it is worth the money? Any attempt at a remedy for this non-crisis will cost heretofore uncontemplated amounts of economic resources. Ipso facto, it is an economic issue, and therefore this question must be answered. Does it make sense to engage in a futile effort to reduce carbon emissions to 1907 levels (necessary to have any impact at all) when even the most ardent advocates claim only tenths of a degree reduction in global temps in 100 years? Destroying unfathomable amounts of wealth for virtually no benefit is hardly a "constructive proposition."

Finally, global temperatures (to the extent that we can rely on any such measure) have not increased in ten years; does this indicate an inexplicable pause in the "greenhouse effect"? A sudden plateau in greenhouse gas concentrations despite increased global emissions? Or the remarkable, magical success of Al Gore's campaign of hot air in stopping AGW? Doesn't this fact inject at least a tiny bit of uncertainty into your absolute certainty?

Intellectual honesty is anathema to the crisis-mongers.

What has winning or loosing a debate on climate change to do with climate change?

Just as I was absolutely certain that empowering excessively the credit rating agencies sending out the message “If they’re good enough for the financial regulators they are good enough for the market” would lead us into disaster I have seen enough with my own eyes to be absolutely certain that if we do not make some substantial changes in the way we behave towards our environment we are condemning our descendants to problems from where it might be impossible for them to bail-out.

Now that in order to achieve major reductions in carbon emissions we have to make sure that every pennie counts that is a much more constructive proposition than very simplistically stating “it is not worth the money”

Russ, there was a similar "iq²us"-debate in 2007, and back then Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott argued very persuasively that "Global Warming is Not a Crisis". Many people entirely changed their view: It went from 30%-57% to 46%-42%:

In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

That's very encouraging!

"The side arguing that reductions in CO2 aren't worth it, lost the debate."

You can't fight faith with reason and logic. Whether it's AGW, intelligent design, or socialism, people are more receptive to faith, especially when it comes from authority. It makes them feel protected and part of the group.

What can you say about the results of this debate other than the 'CO2 reductions are worth the money' crown have had a tremendous advantage in disseminating their message.

The science of Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from being conclusive.

The AGW side seems ready to shut down debate and begin CO2 clampdowns costs be damned.

This group uses science as a shroud around their true religion: ideology.

On the topic of global warming, i found this website very useful: populartechnology.net. This guy had posted a great list of links in one of the posts on blog.mises.org