Here’s a letter that I sent a few days ago to the New York Times:
Paul Krugman asserts that, given today’s scientific consensus, anyone who opposes more aggressive government action to stop global warming is either motivated by greed or blinded by ideology (“Cassandras of Climate,” Sept. 29).
It’s true that when prominent news outlets report that, for example, “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect” a perilous change in global temperatures, it seems foolish to some people not to heed calls to solve the problem. Or that when the mainstream media warn that “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of” a frightening global environmental problem, many sensible people cast aside hesitation about trusting government with more power to avert such a calamity.
But I’m not among these sensible people. You see, the quotations above are from a June 24, 1974, report in Time about the scientific consensus that global temperatures are dangerously cooling.
Scientists being wrong in 1974 doesn’t mean that they’re wrong in 2009, of course, but it does mean that sensible people can legitimately refuse to join in the current hysteria over predictions of catastrophic global warming.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 106 comments }
First of all scientist weren’t wrong in 1974. There was a cooling trend. Your selective quotations seem to make it appear there was some consensus on the trend and what to do about it at the time. There was not. There is NO comparability between these two issues and the volume of data and understanding of the events.
And in fact we responded to the foul air of the time by planning to clean it. It was cleaned and the cooling trend resolved along with improved air quality.
How does a libertarian address externalities that may have severe consequences for the liberties of future generations? How’s emergent order planning to solve this problem? Of course it doesn’t there IS no planning needed in your view. At least not pst the level of the individual. That’s the point. And emergent order often leads to extinction and die offs in nature. One emergent property of our species success is it’s very ability to plan on multiple levels. To not do so is to relegate ourselves on par with all the other species of lesser ability who have no choice but to allow the chips to fall where they may. We’re not lemmings we are thinkers. And we will solve this problem more likely by thinking and acting then by leaving our fate to chance.
The problem for you is that your position does not allow you/us to act. Not acting may be an option. But I like a philosophy that allows me/us a choice even if it has to me made at the level of the group rather then solely by individuals. There’s 7 billion of us Don. We need to figure out how to plan at a higher level or major catastrophe of one sort or another is certainly around the corner… as if we’re not already there with several billion of the worlds people living in abject squalor.
First of all scientist weren’t wrong in 1974. There was a cooling trend.Did you read Don’s post or do you just sufffer from reading comprehension problem?He didn’t say the scientist were wrong about cooling, just that they were wrong about it being dangerous.As for the squalor (which has improved) we know what can be done about it, and the answer does not lie within your brand of politics.The problem with the kind of planning that you tout is that it does not work in the way you think it does.
Extinction is an emergent consequence.
And humans are the one species that can devise their own extinction, one possible result of central planning.
I’m sure he did read Don’s post, and he also probably read the Time article that Don linked. Did you?
Don’s point is that in the seventies they said that the Earth was “dangerously cooling”. The Time article itself provides a little more detail…. it says that the people who worry about this fear the danger is over the course of “a few hundred years”. That’s a convenient omission for someone that wants to make the claim that people were fearmongering in the 1970s.
muirgeo was right – the quotations were selective from the Time article. muirgeo was right – the cooling is a very long term trend, and everybody accepts that it’s still the happening.
I remember the scary headlines and stream of articles in the media.
There was fear mongering, which is natural for media.
Then things started warming up again and now the headlines are just as scary and urgent.
the cooling is a very long term trend, and everybody accepts that it’s still the happening.
So which is it, cooling or warming?
If the next ice age is coming, then we can’t afford to waste resources preventing warming.
Also, Don said: “Scientists being wrong in 1974 doesn’t mean that they’re wrong in 2009, of course, but it does mean that sensible people can legitimately refuse to join in the current hysteria over predictions of catastrophic global warming.”
It’s one thing to say that are wrong, but another thing to suggest that we not get hysterical…which seems to be always good advice.
RE: “So which is it, cooling or warming?”
Both. Just like the economy is currently declining but human civilization is going to keep progressing. Is it really that hard to conceive of different short, medium, and long term trends operating simultaneously?
RE: “If the next ice age is coming, then we can’t afford to waste resources preventing warming.”
Why would you say that? The next ice age is coming centuries after current generations are gone. We’ll presumably be better equiped to respond then. And we certainly seem to know how to warm a planet in a way that is consistent with economic growth. That’s not the hard job. The hard job is cooling it in a way consistent with economic growth.
RE: “It’s one thing to say that are wrong, but another thing to suggest that we not get hysterical…which seems to be always good advice.”
I agreed with that part of the post. I just thought it mischaracterized the science of the 1970s and gave the false impression of comparing apples to apples.
I mean to do a ‘like’ on your comment. I clicked on the wrong comment and gave imbecile a ‘like’. is there a way to take it back?
Can’t help you there. You can negate it of course by clicking the “like” below my comment.
Negation doesn’t work. The likes order the comments, so to undo his mistake, he’s going to have to click “Like” on all of the other comments.
It’s always a pleasure to read your comments. The only drawback is having to also read DK’s.
And Don in no way attempted to refute the existence of a cooling trend.
There is no consensus on catastrophic consequences of AGW, and there is no evidence of catastrophic consequences. On the contrary, the Cassandras consistently predict more warming than is observed by exaggerating the influence of atmospheric CO2 and positive feedbacks while systematically ignoring negative feedbacks and other effects on temperature. They also emphasize every potential harm of every change in the weather and never contemplate any potential benefits. No wonder they’re always alarmed.
We need to stop planning at a higher level or major catastrophe of one sort or another is certainly around the corner.See? I can write vague, unsubstantiated statements that presume what I purport to prove too.
And, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, higher level planning usually leads to catastrophic results, not least as a result of the corrupting effect of giving a few people the power to make and enact such plans.
A higher level of planning got us on the moon, won us the war with Hitler, created this internet, cleaned the air, saved the whales and created our National Parks.
It wasn’t the planning that won WWII so much as the overwhelming resources devoted to it; and don’t forget that the war was necessitated by “higher level planning” in Germany.
The present form of the internet was not planned, it evolved with many contributions from various actors with no overall plan to guide them.
It was also higher level planning that promoted industrial development at the expense of the environment. Higher level planning also has resulted in higher food prices (affecting the poor the most) via perpetual agricultural subsidies, price supports, and market orders.
Higher level planning drove private mass transit out of business and created millions of hours of wasted man hours with cars creeping of HLP highways and expensive mass transit that requires perpetual subsidy.
If only focus on the things you like, you will ignore the very expensive downside.
If you really wanted to do something about it, then turn off your computer and never turn it back on again…..ever!
Do you realize how much evil Carbon your pumping into the air everytime you post a comment on this blog! Your killing our children!
Even if, ifffff, AGW was shown to be true – what then? There is no one big polluter but millions and millions of l’il polluters (us) around the world. Or is a case of “if so then so what?” – the positive externalities of technology far outweigh the negatives hence nothing should be done at all. Maybe it’s akin to asbestos – how many lives were lost versus how many lives have been saved because a building is fireproof?
I should have added my “/sarc”
The point is, the AGW alarmist keep saying how we all need to do something…that is something that muir can do to keep his “carbon footprint” low. The positive externality would benefit us all, no more muirduck.
The externalities of oil shortages, oil dependency, war, air pollution, monopoly etc … also give good reason to PLAN for alternatives.
The nattering nabobs of negativism will still be whining hysterically of the economic dangers of responding to these threats while men of greater foresight will have long since solved the problem saving their collective asses to bitch and whine another day about their tax burden and the dangers of planning and collectivism and of social contracts as the new economy soars over their heads.
>>The externalities of oil shortages<<
Wouldn't you rather celebrate an oil shortage, muirgeo, with, perhaps, a trip to the Alaskan wilderness where you could walk where no one person had ever walked before thus making the spot now contaminated?
How can one person be so inconsistent?
nattering nabobs of negativism
Quoting Republican politicians?
That’s a child’s response. Like me telling you to avoid drinking government delivered tap water, flushing your toilet connected to publicly maintained sewer system or driving on government roads.
You must cringe many times a day being so dependent on the government services.
You’re the one who claims that human-produced CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
I’ll bet that your frequent carbon-spewing vacations to the far reaches of the globe put you in the top 5% of carbon-polluters in this Cafe. You’re as dedicated to combating carbon emissions as your hero, His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I.
Hypocrite.
Actually you must cringe, now that you know I work for the Government. You depend on people like me…isn’t that a nice thought. But I’m sure you probably got a one up on that too…how many doctorates do you have now and counting?
You work for the government. So you must be proof that people who do so take no pride in their work, take 2 hour lunch breaks and are inefficient dullards. Does that describe you…. your work place?
What are we paying you to do?
I don’t cringe. I just blame it all on you and your ilk.
>>The problem for you is that your position does not allow you/us to act.<>Not acting may be an option.<>But I like a philosophy that allows me/us a choice even if it has to me made at the level of the group rather then solely by individuals.<<
How do you practice medicine with this kind of philsophy passing as serious thought? George, what you want is your choice to be implemented and made compulsory through legislation. How is this a choice for the non-religious [those without the faith in AGW]?
Don, You know what it’s all about. It’s about using fear and ridicule to promote an agenda.
Sounds like the stimulus package. Even health care reform: “Our economy cannot recover without health care reform!”
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Even if it’s only a crisis because we say it is.
Wouldn’t that make them Republicans… that’s their specialty…. mushroom clouds, death panels, threat levels etc….
Yep, neo-cons and liberals.
I’m always confused when people bring up the cooling trend like this. George Will does it a lot too.
The point is, we’re STILL on a long term downward trend in temperatures. We ARE cooling. But a shorter term spike is also evident, and many feel that that is convincingly tied to released carbon (among other gasses), and that at least for the next century it’s going to swamp and baseline cooling trends.
A good analogy is the economy right now. It is on a downward trend, as any reasonable economist would tell you. But we are also on a long-term upward trend because of technological development and the power of the market (and responsible states) to foster progress. No economists sees a contradiction in saying that there is a (temporally local) downward trend and a (temporaly global) upward trend.
Similarly, no climatologist or objective non-climatologist sees a contradiction in the science of the 1970s and the science of the 2000s. I would have thought this would be easy for you as an economist – who is familiar with reconciling different short, medium, and long term trends – to accept. Why does everyone always cite the long term cooling trend which is STILL going on as some sort of counter-evidence or reason to be suspicious of climatologists?
Ask anyone familiar with the evidence behind the cooling trend – the cooling trend is a millenia long cycle. The warming trend isn’t really a cycle at all – it’s a re-equlibiration of the system, but it’s on the order of centuries, not millenia.
And since our lives happen on the order of centuries, not millenia, it’s reasonable to be concerned about and still consider what we learned back in the 70s valid.
So why do we have to worry about warming?
Why should we take such alarm at the pronouncements of an infant science?
Do you think it a good idea to promote hysteria to get people to support political policies?
- Because a lot of well informed people think there’s a reasonable chance it will result in a lot of human suffering, and it will be harder and harder to correct as the years go on.
- I don’t agree with the premise of the question. I’m not sure it’s an “infant science” – at least insofar as we have justification for not taking their results serously, and I also don’t think we should “take alarm”. We should react realistically to the potentially problematic consequences. Our response should not be alarmed – it should be commensurate with the predicted damage AND the prospect that those predictions are really accurate.
- Of course I don’t. I also don’t think taking these results seriously and soberly constitutes hysteria.
But there has been a sustained effort to stampede the public into supporting drastic measures. You know, the ten year deadline in which time we have to severely cut CO2 emissions.
You may be sober about it, though, in my estimation, you give insufficient weight to well informed critiques from notable scientists expressing skepticism. Especially given that the data so far do not support the scary projections.
You need to separate out AGW from GW. The whole debate in science is about the magnitude of AGW in GW. Alarmists want to say AGW is the biggest component of GW. Skeptics say AGW is relatively small. A relatively small AGW component means there is not a lot we can do about it, aka warming is dominated by natural forces. The best we can do is adapt.
The debate of the magnitude of AGW is not settled.
- Because a lot of well informed people think
Danny, have you ever stopped to ask a) if these so-called “well-informed” people actually are “well-informed,” and b) who considers them “well-informed,” and why?
If you’re as wise as you think you are, maybe you should take some initiative and drill a little deeper on this issue (and pretty much everything else you spew).
Professor Roberts was trying to tell you this the other day, but you missed it. Just something for you to ponder this weekend.
Don’t bother responding, because I won’t read it. Cheers.
Now watch Daniel, in his usual wishy-washy ways, squirm and try to justify anything he has ever said about everything.
The point is, we’re STILL on a long term downward trend in temperatures. We ARE cooling. But a shorter term spike is also evident, and many feel that that is convincingly tied to released carbon (among other gasses), and that at least for the next century it’s going to swamp and baseline cooling trends.
So we really don’t have to worry about a tipping point?
And how do you know this? Or is it just a belief?
You do realize that the models projected warming for the last decade, don’t you?
It has been claimed, repeatedly, that “the science is settled”. If it’s so settled, then how can there be failures of model projections when the basis of the claim is based upon those models?
I never made the claim that the science is settled, so I don’t really know how to answer these concerns. The science has come up with results that do indicate some potential problems associated with climate change, and those results should be taken seriously, not ignored. The science isn’t settled on evolution yet either – just the other day a new fossil find jumbled up our thoughts on it. But that doesn’t mean we stick with teaching Genesis until the science is settled. All I’m advocating is taking all these results seriously at the same time that we take contradicting evidence seriously – and that we try to reconcile the two.
You’re trying to put a black and white spin on this (as is Krugman, for that matter). I’m not buying it from you or Krugman. There is reason for some concern about warming even though a millenium out we may be in another ice age, and even though we don’t know everything about what’s going to happen only half a century out. You can be concerned and sober about what we’ve come up with so far, and still recognize that not all of it is settled.
When there are problems in science, like the problems with the projections tha you bring up, you don’t trash the whole theory, you try to figure out why there were problems and reevaluate. And people are reevaluating. I don’t get this mentality about scientific progress. I do agree with Kuhn and all that stuff about discontinuous jumps in knowledge – that happens. But there is also gradual progress as well. The philosophy of science behind the climate change skepticism on this blog mirrors the philosophy of science behind the Keynes skepticism here. People think stagflation buried Keynes. Why? Of course it didn’t. People CHANGED Keynesianism given the new information, and it’s a better version of Keynesianism for it. The same is true with climatology or any other science. I don’t get this philosophy of science that treats scientific understanding of how our world works like some sort of “Battle of the Titans” where a corpus of ideas has to be accepted or rejected in it’s entirety. We grow and learn – that’s how it works.
But that is not how the climate debate has gone on. AGWT Proponents have claimed that pretty much all of the warming to date is due to industrial civilization, that the seas will rise twenty feet, hurricane will get worse, etc.
The proponents HAVE tried to provoke a stampede of public opinion without regard for the qualifications offered by climate scientists, and most of the money has gone to research that seeks to verify CO2 forcing and very little to research that proposes other causes.
The proponents have preached consensus as proof of validity and have gone to great lengths to marginalize scientists that offer skepticism or proposed alternate forcing theories.
I don’t get this philosophy of science either, but it’s not about science anymore, it’s about politics. You should understand that.
Policy has done essentially nothing to address this potentiality. There are excessive proponents out there, and I’ve said I think three times now that I don’t like that (so I’m not sure why you’re still asking me if I understand that). I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that that sort of excess defines the response, which it clearly isn’t since we’ve done nothing to prepare for this possibility.You seem to project yourself as someone who soberly weighs the evidence pro and con and then makes a decision. That’s what I think I am too. So let me ask you – clearly there is contradicting evidence, but there is also a great deal of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. A sober person who wants a response commensurate with our uncertainty about what’s going to happen presumably wouldn’t want to do nothing in response to this evidence, and presumably wouldn’t want a drastic response either. So – presuming you’re one of these sober, objective people – how would you respond? What would your prefered policy response be?I’ve never just dismissed opposing evidence out of hand. I don’t think we know everything. But I’m not going to countenance the idea that unless you insist on doing nothing you don’t take the uncertainty and contrary evidence seriously. I do take it seriously – that’s why I’ve never tried to promote an alarmist view of climate change during the protracted arguments over it on this blog. But I wonder how seriously you take the evidence in favor of climate change, when you only seem to be dismissive of the alarmists on the pro- side and never questioning at all of the skeptics, and never advocating a policy change that takes our knowledge and our uncertainty both into account. Taking the results we do have seriously and advocating doing absolutely nothing about it seems fundamentally contradictory to me (unless of course, the reason for doing nothing is philosophical rather than scientific – in which case it is a consistent position).
danielkuehn
I’m always confused
Truer words were never spoken…
“The point is, we’re STILL on a long term downward trend in temperatures. We ARE cooling.”
DK
Still cooling from what trend?
Where’s the downward trend?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Oh I think you’re talking about the Holocene cooling? That’s looking like gnat on an elephants ass. But it is impressive the apparent minor but natural steady climate forcing that can swing us from ice-age to interglacial. It should be cause for concern.
I suspect this man made forcing is string enough to nullify any chance of an ice age We may have actually disrupted this millions year old climate regime. But at least no more ice ages. Wondr what a HotHouse will be like.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg
>>Where’s the downward trend?<<
Hadean Eon to present day? Nope, no mega cooling trend there.
The debate is over: Paul Krugman is a moron. Settled science.
Not a moron, just partisan.
“If they could only use their brains for goodness instead of evil…”
Disagree.
Krugman’s hack partisanship is a direct result of his stupidity.
Or vice versa. Stupid is as stupid does.
You’re nicer than most.
I’d say it’s, “Stupid is as Yasafi does.”
And I’ll bet you thought Ellsworth Toohey was a fictional character.
It’s too bad large corporations don’t have the courage to say:
“The planet is no longer warming, CO2 was never the cause, CO2 is great for plants, CO2 is not pollution, Greenies can go to hell!!!”
When mean green has been wrong, people have died. Lots of people. 30,000,000 in fact. Irish filmmakers Phelim McAleer has accused environmentalists of being racists, suggesting they don’t care about black people. He has also accused environmental journalists of being the “nodding dogs of journalism.”
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/noteviljustwrong.html
Here you go greenies. Read a few works from the man
Al Gore fears.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/monckton2.html
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktonav.html
Ever seen any black environmentalists?
Yep.
It might come as a surprise to you, but blacks like free as much as anyone. When environmentalism offers grants, handouts, loans (that never have to be paid back), etc. you’ll find blacks there with their hands out just everyone else.
I’ve never paid attention one way or the other Russ. When I interviewed Phelim McAleer, his point was that environmentalists are pretty casual about the deaths of black people. I had asked him if the 30,000,000 deaths reportedly caused when environmentalists succeeded in getting DDT banned in most countries was an exaggeration. He asked me how many deaths would be acceptable: a million, two million, etc… His wife Ann McElhinney said she’s seen environmentalists crying over a dwindling lemur population when starving children were only a few feet away. She asked them if they had noticed the starving children and they just looked at her like she was crazy. Here is a clip you need to see: http://www.hootervillegazette.com/evilal.html
As for your original question Russ, I think most of them are spoiled college kids who value animal life and plant life over human life. It really doesn’t matter to me what color they are. Here are two clips of some young clueless evironmentalists:
http://www.liberalmadness.com/video/enviro-1
http://www.liberalmadness.com/video/enviro-2
The second video to me is the funniest, suggesting environmentalist are just out to have a good time.
Warning!!!! These vids were done by Penn & Teller and the language is PG-13, maybe even R Rated. They do however make a strong point.
“Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service’s long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary.”
Crazy global cooling skeptic.
I think this letter misses the point. Let’s suppose that AGW is happening and will cause problems. The question to ask then is: what is the best solution? Is it to create a lot of very expensive regulation that’s difficult to implement and hope for the best? Sounds like a great idea. It’s not like we had a financial crisis because regulators were too incompetent or greedy for bribes to enforce the regulations, which may have been crap anyway. Oh, wait a minute, that’s exactly what happened. Ooops.
There are at least two or three other solutions that might not be ruinously expensive and might not depend on the government being wise and honest. And at least one person, Bjorn Lomborg, has suggested that it might be better to do nothing, let people solve problems as they arise and devote our time to solving problems where progress is easier to assess and solutions are easier to implement. He points out that if we have economic growth at the usual rates even the poorest countries will be fairly well off by current standards in a century and might be able to cope with problems caused by AGW. But if we start crippling the economy with regulations who knows what will happen?
Finally, government support for a particular solution amounts to giving its advocates the right to force people who disagree with it to go along with it and so possibly preventing them from trying other solutions that might work as well or better. In this light, the rush to impose a particular solution starts to look unwise at best.
The War on Carbon is not about rationality. It’s about guilt. We’re guilty of causing AGW. Our penance is poverty by reducing our emission of carbon.
No Russ, it’s about a large Power Grab. In the 70s CO2 caused cooling and now it causes warming. No matter which way the weather goes, evnironmentalists state that it’s the wrong direction and man is to blame. The solution always envolves taxing big business. CO2 is necessary for life. Most stupid environmentalists don’t even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 is something we exhale, plants need it to survie and gives us oxygen in return. Great relationship huh? Commercial greenhouses keep the CO2 levels high because of the benefit to plants. What are those benefits you might ask Russ? Thanks for asking, larger, healthier plants that need less water and are more heat resistant. They also yield larger, higher quality fruits and vegetables. Really sounds like a pollutant doesn’t it? Ever hear any of this on the evening news Russ? Me either.
It should also be noted that the planet is currently cooling. Only when one relies on highly incomplete surface data or highly flawed computer models does it seem as that the world might not be cooling. That hasn’t gotten a lot of press either. Here is another link for you:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html
muirgeo, really, stop trying to think. You do such a poor job of it. Just because something happened one way is in no way evidence against any other way. GAH! Where were you when they were handing out logic?
Here, in case it’s not simple enough for you, if you see a coffee cup set down on a table, and you happen to know that the person walked up to the table from the right, and you say “Coffee Cups Can Only Be Set Down From The Right”, how in God’s Green Earth is that in ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM proof, evidence, or conjecture that coffee cups cannot be set down from the left?
The global warming hysteria, and the entire “green” movement, are merely attempts at bringing back a justification for command economies. It’s political through and through.
Why would you say that?
Because if short term policies set back human civilization, then our descendants may have insufficient base to deal with the onset of an ice age.
I hope you don’t suggest that political management would never do such a thing.
Of course political management could do such a thing, and so it’s a reason to proceed cautiously and (my preference is) in a way that doesn’t increase net tax burdens.
I hope you aren’t suggesting that market management in the absence of complete property rights would never set back human civilization, either.
As I said elsewhere – I’m not going to accept this as a black and white issue. You always ask if I fully trust the state. Of course I don’t fully trust the state. There’s no need for you to continue asking, since you’re going to continually get the same response.
My understanding is that temperature changes have exceeded projections (but that there has also been a ten year moderation).
Look – I take alarmism from Krugman the same way I take anti-alarmism from Don. Neither of their responses is comensurate with the current state of knowledge, in my opinion (which OBVIOUSLY could be flawed as well). It’s not a non-issue and it’s not a guaranteed catastrophe either – that’s how I understand it.
“But there has been a sustained effort to stampede the public into supporting drastic measures.”
There is as great of hysteria coming from your side coming in the form of claims that responding will destroy the economy. And so far your side has won the policy debate. In the process we’ve seen dangerous spikes in oil prices, economic collapse and wars over oil and people dying from air pollution.
Of course political management could do such a thing,
I disagree with the “could”. Political management tends to do such a thing. Your apprehension of politics is entirely too idealistic, in my view.
I hope you aren’t suggesting that market management in the absence of complete property rights
That’s muirgeo’s favorite straw man to slay regarding libertarians.
Why are you slaying it? It has been dealt with repeatedly here.
Have you missed the discussion?
My understanding is that temperature changes have exceeded projections (but that there has also been a ten year moderation).
Some models have been similar to measured changes, but most models exceed measured temperatures, some rather drastically.
Projections also showed warming for the last decade.
RE: “That’s muirgeo’s favorite straw man to slay regarding libertarians.
Why are you slaying it? It has been dealt with repeatedly here.”
I’m not sure how muirgeo has phrased it or how you have “slayed” it.
If your decisions impact future generations and future generations have no recourse to defend their rights (because they haven’t been born yet), then under conditions of free exchange you are going to trample all over them because you can appropriate rents from property that no party to the exchange has the ability to claim rights to. This isn’t a new insight. I’m not sure what about that insight you’re under the impression you’ve refuted.
I hold myself as inherently skeptical.I think challenges to the AGWT are correct in showing that there has been no evidence presented of a significant anthropogenic component to the warming, no evidence of a tipping point, no evidence that there is a net positive feedback.But I wonder how seriously you take the evidence in favor of climate change,I think there is extensive evidence of climate change. I would not give any credence to anyone who would suggest that there is, or has been, no climate change.
I have posted a graphic on my web site that illustrates significant climate change over much of geologic history. Check it out, it suggests that the current climate is still well below the mean and even further below the average. We’ve been coming out lf the last ice age. Warming should be expected.Or is that not quite what you meant?
Muirgeo phrases it as “you libertarians believe in no rules”.Property rights are the basis of libertarian thinking, so why would I, a libertarian, suggest a scenario of “market management in the absence of complete property rights”? (I suppose you meant “a complete absence of property rights)
Well, “global warming” is used less now because “climate change” strikes many people as more accurate, but I’m concerned you’re identifying people who say “ACC may be a very large component of CC (since we know we’re on a long-term downward trend), but we’re not entirely sure it’s a very large component – we just think there is evidence that it could be and we’re continuing to perfect our models to get a sense of exactly how this will all work out”. Is that alarmist? It seems to me that (1.) THAT is what the real “consensus” is insofar as there is a consensus, and (2.) that’s not really alarmist.
You try to act like the ACC to CC ratio is the only thing that makes you an alarmist. That’s seems silly to me, because the ACC to CC ratio is what it is, regardless of people’s disposition. You can think that ACC is a substantial share, but in a way that is alarmist or isn’t alarmist. You can also think that ACC is a very low share either because you’ve come to that position in a non-alarmist way, or because you’re an ideologue.
The non-alarmists on both sides seem to dominate the scientific community, and the alarmists on both sides seem to be dominating the political discussion, and since we haven’t even done anything modest to prepare for this potentiality, it seems to me that the alarmist skeptics have had the upper hand, despite all the Oscars and Nobels that have been awarded to the ACC alarmists.
Alarmists want to say AGW is the biggest component of GW. Skeptics say AGW is relatively small.
The difference is we have peer reviewed scientific evidence to support our claims. Yours are supported by industry think tanks paid to brain wash people like you into repeating their claims until all your friends think its true too. That’s sad.
Don’t reply unless you can cite a mainstream article to support the unfounded claim you just made. That means you won’t reply because it doesn’t exist… as if you’ve every actually looked at the literature yourself.
No, what I meant was “the absence of complete property rights”, which is always a constraint on market transactions.
Comments are getting into thinner and thinner space. Let Daniel have the last word. It is very important to him
it seems to me that the alarmist skeptics have had the upper hand
I don’t know where you got this idea. My impression has been the opposite. Which side gets all the government research grants. Which side dominates the science publications?
Are you familiar with the account of the science community’s treatment of Bjørn Lomborg?
I think you’ve lost it. Either that or your use of the word “alarmist” is completely different from what is commonly used here.
Alarmist = those that think we need to shoot ourselves in the foot to stop AGW.
Use AGW and GW, that is what this debate is all about. Warming due to man made carbon emissions.
Do we have complete property rights now?
The label “alarmist” seems to me to be independent of what they are alarmed about.
I think you are probably half right here Sam. The degree of temperature change has been on the lower side of projections. But the on the ground effects have been worse then projected. Faster melting of the Arctic, greater acidification of the oceans, more significant effects on environments, more significant effects on the hydrologic cycle etc…
Certainly any attempt to force enormous reductions in CO2 emissions would be very expensive. There is a reason China and India refuse to participate in reduction programs.And what have “dangerous” spikes in oil prices to do with the discussion? That has not happened before?Given that no policy has been implemented, what has the economic collapse to do with the discussion?…and people dying from air pollution.Are you referring to China? A great example of higher level planning.BTW, why have you been laying some blame on a Democratic president for the economic meltdown?
Faster melting of the Arctic, greater acidification of the oceans, more significant effects on environments, more significant effects on the hydrologic cycle etc…
Which proves nothing about CO2 forcing.
It’s easy to argue when you change the terms to suit you.
“Certainly any attempt to force enormous reductions in CO2 emissions would be very expensive. There is a reason China and India refuse to participate in reduction programs.”
SG
It would be very expensive? How do you know that? Do you have some computer model that tells you that? They said catalytic convertors would be expensive, the Clean air act would be expensive etc etc and they were affordable and likely paid for themselves.
My best hope for our economy was with the transformation of global energy. But China looks like they will beat us there as well. They are moving rapidly with regards to renewable energy sources and electric cars contrary to your claim.
You’re the one redefining the term, Justin.
Alarmism: the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger
You don’t get to decide what that danger is.
“But China looks like they will beat us there as well. They are moving rapidly with regards to renewable energy sources and electric cars contrary to your claim.”
LMAO
Catalytic converters are expensive, they add a great deal to the cost of manufacturing a car. It’s a good thing that productivity enables us to afford them. I don’t know how it can be known they have “paid for themselves”. It requires resources and energy to produce them.
Here is the cover of the 11 September issue of Science Magazine.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5946/cover.dtl
I know it’s not Fox News but you might want to read it and then re-attach the ass you laughed off.
China is also building coal fired generation plants at an enormous pace.I didn’t claim they weren’t moving to renewable resources, I said they refused to participate in reduction programs, that is, Kyoto, etc.
I’m so hurt! You got us…you got us all…we are all just brain washed. We need more people like you to help us see the light. Please Please, will you guide us to the straight and narrow path to enlightenment? PLEASE!!!
I’ve given links to numerous articles from peer reviewed journals, it’s not my fault that they are too above your head to understand. Go back and read them…I posted them once…it’s not up to me to force feed you.
Skeptics say AGW is relatively small.
Actually, what they say is that it hasn’t been proven that there is a significant CO2 forcing. And there is evidence to suggest that there is not, including the cooling period in the last century despite increasing CO2 levels, and ice core evidence that show CO2 increases LAG climate warming by 800 years.
“Alarmism: the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger”Alarmism in the global warming debate: the unwarranted exciting of fear over the perceived dangers of a warming climate due to man.
“You don’t get to decide what that danger is.”
Your doing the same thing.
Do you watch Fox news? I don’t have cable or satellite.
IAC, China will not be reducing its emissions, they are mitigating their rate of increase in emissions.
Wow, that’s interesting. I wonder why China won’t join any pacts to reduce emissions.
Still LMAO
Didn’t you say a few days ago that we’d (here in the US) all be driving electric cars and using alternative energy in 10 years? What changed?
Yes I watch Fox News.
From the Science article they project that from 2020 to 2030 ALL of China’s additional demand could/will be met be wind power.
It requires resources to treat children and working adults with asthma and other lung disease.
I would think the Libertarian perspective would demand minimization of ones actions impacting the liberties of others. But it’s an ideology that doesn’t like abstractions and nuance. It was meant for simplification and too black and white the world. Complex issues are bothersome and uncomfortable… you know things like the real world.
You support actions that have significant impact on others when it’s the result of “higher level planning”. Like all collectivists, you have no problem disposing of the lives and earnings of others.What do you know about abstractions and nuance, You certainly seem unable to apply those ideas to economics.You answer to most problems is the hammer of government and its armed minions. Lotta nuance there.And you make the dumbest arguments like “Greenspan the libertarian”. Have you any idea of the difference between libertarians and objectivists?Ayn Rand hated libertarians. If we were to follow your nuanced logic, then Greenspan must hate libertarians as well, as he was part of Ayn Rand’s circle.
I think we will be. I just hope we are the innovators and marketers of the technology so we can benefit economically. If we continue to be held hostage to the fossil fuel monopoly things will only get worse.
Ah… it’s just two sects of the same cult. Like Sunni and Shia or Hutu and Tutsies or Mormans and Jehovah’s. They’re all nuts.
You should’ve asked him for the correlation between asthma prevalence and catalytic converter use. Using his own usual logic, you’d have to blame asthma on catalytic converters.
You are fond of the adhominem.There are plenty of collectivist sects, Democrats/Republicans, mirror images of each other.
IAC, the point is your occasional attempts to smear libertarianism by through very faulty association with a man much criticized by libertarians.
Highly illogical.
How am I doing the same thing? I’m not quarreling with you over labeling those who unwarrantedly excite fear over the perceived dangers of a warming climate due to man as alarmists. I’ve called them alarmists on this very post.
The quarrel is over the people who you refuse to label alarmists – the people who cry bloody murder over a few tentative steps to address something that could potentially be an actual problem.
I’m sure that must irritate you. There are libertarians working for the government, trying to take it down from the inside. ha ha
Actually, if you must know, it’s the Obama supporters that don’t do anything. I’m an Analytical Chemist…you figure it out…you think your so smart…it should be easy for you.
“a man much criticized by libertarians”
And Objectivists. The only one’s praising Greenspan have been Republicrats.