Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

| June 2, 2005

Well, we're not answering the phone "moshi moshi" yet, and the velociraptor threat hasn't materialized, but Ronald Bailey says Michael Crichton's take on radical environmentalism gets it right.

← The Mussolini of the Movies | Main | Milton Friedman Urges Regulation →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.2.05 @ 10:07AM|

...even though the scientists he co-opts for his book keep saying he gets it wrong.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.2.05 @ 10:32AM|

Predictably enough, I don't agree that Crichton is wrong this time but he was way wrong in his xenophobic look at Monster Japan a decade or so ago.

He's an engaging writer and I'm happy he's talking our language now.

MP|6.2.05 @ 10:40AM|

Although Mother Jones would have you believe Global Warming skeptics are simply a bunch of oil company mouthpieces, there really is another side of the debate that joe, MJ, and most environmentalists just thumb their nose at.

|6.2.05 @ 10:46AM|

Well, things are just that much easier if you simply dismiss any competing viewpoints as loony/politically motivated.

|6.2.05 @ 10:58AM|

Oh yeah, the Friends of Science Society - the group with the overlapping directorate with the George C. Marshall Foundation.

You remember the George C. Marshall Foundation, right? The one founded to lobby for Star Wars under Ronald Reagan? Now that's some sound science.

Anyway, responsible, objective scientific bodies don't include the signature of a member's 22 year old homeschooled son on their manifestos, or identify him as a "leading climate researcher."

|6.2.05 @ 10:58AM|

Last night my alarmist wife wanted to take our baby to the hospital because he had a 105 degree temperature. Silly woman! That's not even 10% above normal. How could anything be seriously wrong?

|6.2.05 @ 11:03AM|

You remember the George C. Marshall Foundation, right? The one founded to lobby for Star Wars under Ronald Reagan? Now that's some sound science.

Somewhere in a parallel universe there's a 1965 joe arguing via mimeographed newsletter to ignore anyone who supported the Apollo project.

|6.2.05 @ 11:04AM|

I'm with Bailey on most issues, but I find his Crichton worship here to be somewhat at odds with the Reason moniker. Crichton is certainly correct that there are a number of chicken littles running about at the moment, and that there is some evidence that global warming will be more mild than current predictions. However, there is another substantial corpus of evidence that points to more severe effects, and the simple fact of the matter is that no one *really* knows what will happen over the course of the next two centuries.

It seems to me that, given even a small potential for disaster, we should be taking serious steps to at least prepare for the worst, as a matter of prudence. Pretending that there is no problem at all is quite a gamble---maybe it pays off, but the price of failure will be devastating. And here Bailey strikes me as particularly irresponsible, with a *linear* extrapolation of the temperature increase over the next hundred years. Sadly, nonlinearity and hysteresis effects cannot be ruled out at the moment, and simply extending a line on the temperature vs. time plot is something more worthy of secondary school students than serious scientific debate. This is especially true given the dramatic increase in industrialisation expected to take place in China and India over the next few decades...

Two small points: Crichton's DDT comment is grossly misleading, since (IIRC) DDT was only banned as a general agricultural pesticide, and not for combatting mosquitos. Second, regarding his snide comment about the amount of money flowing through enviro groups: well, we all know how much money is put forward by oil companies to combat fears of global warming---why should the other side be expected to do without?

Ultimately, the condescension of Crichton and the hysterical panic of the worst of the environmental movement generates a great deal of heat, but precious little light on this important question.

|6.2.05 @ 11:14AM|

Josh,

I'm not opposed to missile defense per se - it's a great bluff, imho - but the Marshall Institute clearly presents itself as a scientific authority, when in fact it performs no research, takes Scaife and Olin money, and lobbies for a political agenda.

|6.2.05 @ 11:16AM|

"It seems to me that, given even a small potential for disaster, we should be taking serious steps to at least prepare for the worst, as a matter of prudence. Pretending that there is no problem at all is quite a gamble---maybe it pays off, but the price of failure will be devastating."

All of which Bailey understands full well, and argues quite persuasively when the issue is defending the earth from asteroid/comet collisions.

|6.2.05 @ 11:30AM|

I think the problem with "doing something" is that the US is assumed to do more than other countries, simply because they are labeled as developing nations.

If a more equitable solution came up, I'm sure a majority of US citizens would authorize their senators to agree to the treaty.

Warren|6.2.05 @ 11:45AM|

Well, we're not answering the phone "moshi moshi" yet..."

Anybody else think that was a Jack Soo reference, better suited to the pot legalization thread?

Ted Barlow|6.2.05 @ 11:50AM|

In the book, the environmentalists are using secret weather control rays to intentionally create massive environmental catastrophes.

This is what counts as "getting it right"? I've got to update my notes.

Here's another take on it, for those who harbor doubts that Hank Scorpio is secretly running the environmentalist movement.

MP|6.2.05 @ 11:59AM|

You remember the George C. Marshall Foundation, right?
Guilt by association?

22 year old homeschooled son
Where did you see that?

Sometimes its really impressive (no sarcasm intended) on how quick you can crank out some of your targeted responses.

|6.2.05 @ 12:07PM|

First - the book is truly awful, as a work of literature. Absent the citations to scientific journals, it could easily be confused with something a teenage boy would write. Anybody who said that they actually enjoyed the book is probably someone who takes the term 'dittohead' as a compliment - it's probably interesting to those who are extremely partisan on the issue.

That said, I think the book is good at pointing out one of my favorite 'tests' for libertarians - juxtaposing one's position on global warming against one's position on the war on Iraq. Both scenarios involved low risks of catastrophic loss somewhere far in the future. If you favor government intervention in one, to be consistent, you should favor government intervention in both.

It tends to help draw the lines between libertarians and neo-conservatives...

|6.2.05 @ 12:14PM|

that's a pretty dumb test.

|6.2.05 @ 12:25PM|

Actually, Bailey does not advocate burying our heads in the sand on global warming or comets. What he usually says is along the lines of, "Anything could happen, so we should prepare for anything. The best ways to do this is through economic development, because richer societies respond better to disaster."

He simply does not advocating taking one low-risk scenario (i.e., catastrophic global warming) and making the centerpeiece of the global economy. And I strongly doubt he would advocate spending many billions of dollars every year fighting comets, too.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 12:48PM|

"Anything could happen, so we should prepare for anything. The best ways to do this is through economic development, because richer societies respond better to disaster."

This is so stupid it makes my eyelashes hurt. It's very clearly a shout-out to the people who also claim that since environmentalism is a luxury of rich societies, that the proper environmental law is always the one which favors laissez-faire economic development.

The same wankers who cried a river when the evil Richard Nixon EPA regulated certain highly toxic things now want to credit our "rich society" for reducing its emissions of certain highly toxic things, rather than the legally mandated compliance with and enforcement of said evil Richard Nixon EPA regulations.

No rich society has ever produced less pollution by any means OTHER than governmental regulation, because nobody has yet been able to handle the tragedy of the commons in any better way than that (which is, admittedly, the best of a bunch of bad ways to solve the problem).

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 12:51PM|

"Both scenarios involved low risks of catastrophic loss somewhere far in the future."

No, actually, even the conservative GW scenarios have a fairly high risk of catastrophic loss, at least, for countries outside the US, and for certain parts of the US.

Go beyond the fourth-grade logic of "our food crops will just move north" and into at least the eighth-grade logic of "what if they can't, since we already took that potential habitat for other use, or because there's no floodplain built up over centuries in the proper new climate zone", and you very quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that changes will be non-catastrophic.

Justin Slotman|6.2.05 @ 1:00PM|

Didn't Crichton write Rising Sun? Isn't that reason enough to never pay attention to him again?

MP|6.2.05 @ 1:09PM|

No rich society has ever produced less pollution by any means OTHER than governmental regulation

However (not that M1EK said otherwise), that gives no guidance as to the type of regulation. A marketplace in tradeable credits, which is a cross between laissez-faire and government by fiat, appears to be the most workable solution to many "tragedy of the commons" issues.

|6.2.05 @ 1:35PM|

low risks of catastrophic loss somewhere far in the future."

Are we arguing about the wrong risks, or is this mere hysteria?:

"Bird Flu: We're All Going to Die":

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/bird_flu/

|6.2.05 @ 1:42PM|

m1ek:

The problem is that you are stopping at 8th grade. Go further, to at least undergraduate level understanding of dynamically buffered systems and chaos theory, and you'll understand that ALL of the predictions of risk so far are so simplistic as to be laughable. We don't even begin to know the mechanisms that affect climate, much less understand how they work, and even more, create feedback loops. All of the models that predict high risk, (yes, even W's conservative estimate - and since when is something W does good science? Kinda like saying "yeah, but Clinton thought there were WMDs there, too" - since when did he become the king of credibility?) when extrapolated forward to the present date from previous data would have us several degrees higher in average temperature than we actually are. To those who understand science beyond 8th grade, that demonstrates that the models are fatally flawed, and provide nothing useful.

|6.2.05 @ 1:44PM|

dhex:

Never said it was highbrow, but it is useful for separating those who only don the libertarian cloak when it suits their own purposes, but blithely discard it when dealing with something that they have an irrational fear of...

|6.2.05 @ 1:51PM|

"No rich society has ever produced less pollution by any means OTHER than governmental regulation"

Oh, I see. The toyota Prius is the result of government regulation, not technological improvement through the accumulation of capital.

Yep.

And the reason the English don't use those tremendously polluting hearth fires to heat their homes now is because government regulated it, not because there are now more convenient, if slightly more expensive, ways of doing the same thing.

Yep.

As often as not, government creates commons problems - see the antitrust actions against canneries in the early 20th that led to the current commons problem in the oceans.

Now, as someone else mentioned, tradeable credits are one way the government can actually usefully address a commons problem. But note that this solution is essentially creating a certain amount of property like rights in the commons. In other words, de-commonizing the commons...

|6.2.05 @ 2:11PM|

Three questions for global warming environmentalists

1. The history of climate on Earth has shown cyclic variations for as far back as can be measured. Considering that we are currently coming out of an Ice Age, which way would the temperature be expected to go?
a) Up
b) Down

2. This is a two-part question. 1) Environmental extremists claim that CO2 emissions from humans are the primary cause of global warming. Considering that natural sources can overwhelm human sources (for example, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines pumped three years worth of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption), how do the environmentalists separate human CO2 sources from natural ones? 2) The Earth has been regulating CO2 levels in the atmosphere without the help of humans for hundreds of millions of years. What is it about the current conditions that would prevent this regulation at this time?

3. Suppose for a moment that the environmental extremists get their way and all humans were instantly removed from the Earth and all of their CO2 with them. Which scenario would they expect?
a) The global temperature falls to what it was before the Industrial Revolution and stays there forever.
b) The Earth continues on its cyclic variation, continuing to rise until the start of the next Ice Age.

|6.2.05 @ 2:15PM|

M1EK

You ever hear of something called the automobile?

Not created through govt regulation, and it eliminated thousands of tons of pollution in every day, in the form of horse manure. That's just one example that leaps immediately to mind.

In fact, when you look at pollution control, you will find that until very recently, private enterprise was nearly always leading the way. The seeming leadershiop of government today is due solely to the fact that we are so heavily regulated that every new innovation falls under the purview of some bureaucrat whe then duly takes credit for fostering it.

Government is a disease pretending to be its own cure.

|6.2.05 @ 2:33PM|

MP,

When the association is one of the same people controlling different entities, yes, I consider it legit to treat them together.

As for your second question, I did a Google search on "Friends of Science Funders."

|6.2.05 @ 2:41PM|

In of the non-regulation-induced improvements cited above, the harm accumulated largely to the individual using the inferior technology, and there were significant benefits from the new technology that would accrue to the uses. The operators of coal-fired power plants, on the other hand, will see substantial losses from any conceivable carbon-reduction plan, while their share of the public benefits won't begin to match the losses they'll suffer, at least not for decades.

Also, the Prius is a loss leader intended to establish Toyota's dominance in the market, as it is expected to exist under the coming regulatory regime.

|6.2.05 @ 3:04PM|

passing over the validity of your claim -

"Also, the Prius is a loss leader intended to establish Toyota's dominance in the market, as it is expected to exist under the coming regulatory regime"

Does that in any way change the fact that it was NOT created by regulation? That, in fact, it was created to meet a demand? And further that it is nearly impossible to find one on a lot, despite the fact that your "coming regulatory regime" ain't here yet? Could it possibly be that the market (gasp!) is demanding more environmentally friendly technology, and someone is meeting that demand?

Nah. It's all because of the Kyoto protocol that U.S. consumers buy Priuses...

|6.2.05 @ 3:09PM|

What would the Kyoto Protocol have to do with it? Doesn't that involve companies and not individual consumers? The U.S. wasn't a signatory to that agreement, anyway.

Maybe I missed the point of that last statement. I'm getting more coffee.

|6.2.05 @ 3:10PM|

quasibill,

Toyota losed money on each Prius. Other than that, your "response to market forces" theory holds up perfectly.

|6.2.05 @ 3:15PM|

and the fact that there is a term "loss leader", and that it is used in non-regulated markets, should start some neurons firing that perhaps regulation isn't the driving force behind the Prius (and we won't get into the fact that they aren't the only hybrids anymore, because thems just inconvenient facts that tend to get in the way of fundamentalist market bashing!)

|6.2.05 @ 3:16PM|

SPD -

exactly.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the web.

|6.2.05 @ 3:19PM|

Are there SUV hybrids yet? I remember reading something about them coming out now, or soon... or, uh, something. (Damn you, bong hits!)

I would think that would be a product that almost everyone could agree on.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 3:33PM|

Another factor the smug Prius-pointers are forgetting is that:

1. Government regulation (via CAFE at first, and now via the ZEV, PZEV, etc rules) encourages all automakers to produce vehicles getting good mileage and emissions, far beyond that which the market would do by itself. The Prius actually tunes its engine more for low emissions than for high mileage, if you can believe it.

2. Government regulation (via the tax code) provides an explicit subsidy for hybrid vehicles, although nowhere near the scale of the monstrous subsidy for the largest SUVs.

Oops and oops.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 3:35PM|

for jemezhobbit:

Speaking as a member of the human race, the preferred global climate is one that doesn't change too quickly from the precarious equilibrium we currently find ourselves in, since ANY sudden change will likely cause a drastic decline in food stocks FOR US HUMANS. As I mentioned before, you can't just move your wheat production north and call it a draw.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 3:36PM|

quasibill:

Your summary of the current science of climate modelling is at best far out of date and misinformed, and at worst willful lies. I suggest you brush up on the materials.

|6.2.05 @ 3:52PM|

"Your summary of the current science of climate modelling is at best far out of date and misinformed, and at worst willful lies. I suggest you brush up on the materials."

Point out the things I'm misinformed on (you'll be surprised to find out just how informed I am), or that I'm out of date on, and we can discuss.

Or, speak out your anus, and hide behind ad hominems. Either way, the truth comes out.

As a discussion primer, lets talk about dynamic buffered equilibrium systems and the applicability of linear modelling to such systems. We'll quickly see who is misinformed, or operating at a 4th grade level.

|6.2.05 @ 3:53PM|

I'm bored. Someone throw a pie.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 4:33PM|

quasibill:

The first sites you should peruse are the ones actually posted to by climate scientists, rather than by Creighton's ilk. Here's two:

http://www.climateark.org/blog/
http://www.realclimate.org/

And yes, in fact, you can get pretty close to today's climate by feeding past data into the best current models.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2B8ZvbhH6JoJ:www.igbp.kva.se/igbpmeeting/files/Mitchell_Paper.pdf+global+warming+climate+models+%22predict+past%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a

In general, the claim that climate models "cannot predict past climate change" seems to be a thread running through a hell of a lot of blogs. Almost sounds like a talking point.

|6.2.05 @ 4:40PM|

m1ek: you're absolutely right, there are very few areas that have rich land, were formerly river deltas, and are currently limited in their crop production due to climate.

what? they grow wheat in Russia? and in Northern Alberta? and these areas would benefit greatly from warmer weather? And the same thing is true in places like Saskatchewan, the Dakotas, Manitoba, etc?

My god, you'd think that you were an idiot who was talking out of his ass. oh, wait.

M1EK|6.2.05 @ 4:56PM|

"hey",

Yeah, sure. There will be winners, and there will be losers. If Alberta even 'wins', does it necessarily make up for us turning the Great Plains into a desert, for instance? Are we going to annex Canada to make sure we can still be the world's breadbasket?

Only an utter idiot would assume that the net effect of a drastic climate change could be anything other than negative, given the fact that adjustment to new habitat is difficult for so many species we rely on. BUT THE KUDZU AND RACCOONS WILL STILL BE OK, DAMMIT!

|6.2.05 @ 4:57PM|

quasibill,

Nice job dodging my statements (Toyota's statements, actually) that the Prius is a response to EXPECTED, FUTURE regulation.

Gee, there aren't any (lets let that go for now) regulations right now. So the Prius can't possibly be a response to regulation.

Nevermind the fact that Japanese car companies are famous for planning several decades out.

Weak, dude.

|6.2.05 @ 5:20PM|

***Well, we're not answering the phone "moshi moshi" yet..."

Anybody else think that was a Jack Soo reference, better suited to the pot legalization thread?***

Warren, that was my first thought. Greatest. Episode. Ever.

Let's go to the beach and shoot some clams.

|6.2.05 @ 7:17PM|

M1ek -

Talk about talking points - your sites are full of 'em.

Now notice - my position - we don't know enough yet to know what we're talking about. Your position - we know with a certainty what will happen.

Which one is more dogmatic? Which one is more scientific? Scientists always qualify, (like lawyers) - because there are always unknowns in the real world.

As for your models - "close"? Check out the error as a percentage of prediction. Once again, it is important to understand analytical science, and what error measurements actually hold meaning, and which ones are just useful for fooling non-scientists.

Joe -

My point still stands that there are no regulations currently, and yet they are selling like hot cakes. And no, I don't foresee CAFEs becoming much more stringent in the currently Republican dominated federal government. So I don't think people are making the choice so much in response to regulation, but in response to their own informed tastes.

|6.2.05 @ 10:54PM|

Then your point is completely irrelevant. Like suggesting that someone who ducked after a gun was pointed at him wasn't responding to being shot at.

|6.2.05 @ 11:10PM|

This is a very cool website with temperature data from all over the globe. Click on any area and you can get lists of stations, then see a graph of temperature data for a particular station. Most of them especially in rural areas do not show any warming. Look in the artic and antartic areas, check out the sahara desert. Nott sure why, but by this data gloabl warming aint happening:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py

|6.2.05 @ 11:42PM|

Notice how Joe keeps harping on the evidence that Toyota might be responding somewhat to regulatory pressure in producing hybrid cars, while ignoring the point that consumers are not being regulated into buying the things. Just because they build it doesn't mean we have to come.

The free market is operating in that consumers are buying the things when they don't have to and have plenty of other options. They are free to buy Hummers if they want, but instead are freely choosing the hybrid.

|6.2.05 @ 11:49PM|

Joe,

I want to go back to an earlier point you made, which contains what I think to be a false assumption. I hope you will indulge me - I have had a long, tiring day at work and finished my last marathon meeting a few minutes ago, so I might ramble a bit.

You said,
" In of the non-regulation-induced improvements cited above, the harm accumulated largely to the individual using the inferior technology, and there were significant benefits from the new technology that would accrue to the uses. The operators of coal-fired power plants, on the other hand, will see substantial losses from any conceivable carbon-reduction plan, while their share of the public benefits won't begin to match the losses they'll suffer, at least not for decades."

The assumption that you are making is that
a) nowadays pollution is diffuse, meaning that the producer does not suffer adverse effects,
b) market forces provide an advantage to the polluter.

These are actually not necesarily correct. First, let us address what polution is. To me, and I recognize that there are probably other definitions out there, pollution is some form of matter or energy that is unwanted, harmful or is otherwise a nuisance that is the waste product of some process. This vague definition covers everything from wrappers tossed carelessly to the ground, to mercury produced in gold-mining, to the "noise pollution" caused by the neighbor who like to watch movies with the volume turned up to 11.

From an economic perspective, pollution is actualy the result of wasted resources; the gold-miner who dumps mercury has to buy more to continue his process. The 19th century kerosene manufacturer dumping that unwanted byproduct that we today call gasoline in rivers is wasting precious hydrocarbons, etc. The people using horses instead of automobiles are paying for the feed that produces the unwanted manure.

Thus, the entrepeneur who develops and implements a new process that produces less waste has an inherent advantage over those who produce more: his supply costs are lower.

Additionally, the pollution will impact the producer. The producer by definition has to come in contact with the process, and so, most of the time, is also impacted by the pollution to a greater degree than the general public. For stuff like candy wrappers dumped on the sidewalk, he is equally impacted as the general public. Of course, in many cases, the polluter is more aware of the existence of the pollution than the general public and will shield themselves quietly in ways that the general public won't. However, their ability to do this is inversely proportional to the diffusiveness of the polution.

So what does this mean?

First, polluters, being human beings, are as susceptible to the pollution they produce as non-polluters, and in the case of point pollution can be held liable for the harm they do, and in the case of diffuse polution will feel the negative effects to a similar degree. Thus they are motivated for personal reasons to limit the production they produce or at least mitigate its effects.

Additionally, the non-polluter has a slight advantage over the producer vis a vis production costs.

Of course most polluters are not aware of the economic disadvantages of polluting. This is a simmilar situation to that of racism: Milton Friedman quite conclusively demonstrated that a racist person will be at an economic disadvantage when competing with someone who is not racist, yet racism has persisted for centuries and still persists.

The free-market does not instantaneously produce optimal solutions, it tends to do it over time, and one can always find examples where the dominant solution in force at a given period of time is obviously not optimal. However, the desire of producers to produce goods at the lowest cost possible and their desire as human beings to live happy lives ensures that the long term trend will be towards a decreas in pollution, which has been historically borne out; we have to contend with much less pollution than people living in the Middle Ages in Europe.

Since I have rambled on so long, I want to address the Toyota Prius issue.

First, you are absolutely correct: hybrids are almost entirely the product of government intervention in the markets - they are expensive to manufacture and maintain, and without goverment subsidies, the hybrids would compare unfavourably with the conventional cars. Their fuel efficency comes at a huge cost - the batteries are expensive and difficult to produce. My understanding, and I can't remember where I read this - so I can't back it up with a source, is that the hybrid car costs more in terms of energy to produce than it saves over its lifetime in fuel efficiecy, and that the manufacturing process emits far more greenhouse gases and pollutants than what would be emitted by the fuel that is saved over the life of the car.

If I am correct, the subsidy actually has a harmful effect of making transportation more expensive, polluting, and a greater contributer to greenhouse gases, than if the subsidy were not in place.

|6.3.05 @ 1:02AM|

Just for the record, while I have had plenty of bad things to say about joe's tactics during arguments, I'm not posting as "JoeIsAnIdiot."

While we're on the subject of shoddy argument tactics tho, I've seen a lot better from joe than his analogy to substantiate that Toyota is throwing away money to produce the Prius on the off-chance that gov't regulation might someday become a pain in their bottom line.

"Like suggesting that someone who ducked after a gun was pointed at him wasn't responding to being shot at." -joe

No, actually, joe's argument is like saying it's logical that someone would duck because they heard a rumor that someone MIGHT SOMEday, SOMEwhere, SOMEtime - but definitely not now - point a gun at someone (and maybe not even at them).

I think it's pretty obvious that although joe meant it sarcastically, he was right when he wrote "Gee, there aren't any (lets let that go for now) regulations right now. So the Prius can't possibly be a response to regulation."

Yep. If regulation doesn't exist, and there's no way of knowing what form it might take, it strikes me that (if they actually claim what joe says they claim) it's probably a Toyota PR stunt.

Such a PR stunt would be aimed at people who buy the Prius to point to how Toyota loses money on them because they love the environment SO much that they're eagerly losing money because they're so eager for the new regulations that they've just started throwing away profits like the regulations already exist.

I suspect that's a winning PR move when you're pitching it to people who will spend twice as much to feel righteous about doing good things for the environment.

(For example, people who spend buckets of money on cloth diapers and accesories all to avoid damaging the environment because they earnestly believe that disposable diapers are worse than nuclear waste. They can't figure out that in addition to losing time they could use raising their children that they are also (oh the irony!) using way more extra water and dumping much more laundry detergent into the environment to clean those "eco-friendly" cloth diapers.)

|6.3.05 @ 2:19AM|

Some of the same folks who are now pushing the the idea of anthropogenic global warming were at the forefront of the prognosticators who, in the 1970s, confidently predicted global cooling was taking place. In fact in 1974, Paul Ehrlich and his wife, Anne, warned that "global cooling" would catastrophically diminish agricultural output!

But for these guys, global warming and global cooling are interchangeable and serve the same purpose. Either way, they both lend credence to the idea of a government forced change in the ways consumption and industrial production.

Remember that ignoring the facts has been advocated at the very top of the political environmental movement. Look at Tim Wirth's shameful advice: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Also, if human activity is causing global warming, it is easier to justify government money flowing into the scientific community to address the situation. So, we have a dove tailing of both ideological and monetary considerations that have motivated the unscientific treatment of the issue. The machinations and prospects of government money and government power have damaged science.

|6.3.05 @ 2:28AM|

Also, note that National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) researcher and global warming action promoter Steven Schneider said that, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

"...what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"!! Just look what government can do to science!

|6.3.05 @ 9:02AM|

Let's see, joe works for the government, probably all his closest friends work for the government, so, of course, he and all his friends have the purest of motives. Their is absolutely no possibility they are suppoting a position that will maximize power for government and employment of government functionaries.

The rest of you, on the other hand, work in private industry. Probably for oil companies or coal-burning utilities so you are biased and could not possibly have societies best interests at heart.

So give it up. joe's good will prevail over your evil.

M1EK|6.3.05 @ 9:25AM|

Rick Barton,

You're a liar.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

M1EK|6.3.05 @ 9:26AM|

qb:

Talk about talking points - your sites are full of 'em.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I suppose there could be a climatologist conspiracy against you, and the oil company-funded guys (who coincidentally comprise 99% of the skeptic science out there) are just in it for the good of humanity.

|6.3.05 @ 10:59AM|

M1EK,

Posting a link that features the ridiculous and counterfactual opinion that there weren't 1970's predictions of an ice age is not a refutation and certainly not justification to call me a "liar".

Note that one of the people in the link you provided is Stephen Schneider who, as I noted above, said that said that "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."!!

Also, just google it up and you'll find that Paul Ehrlich was among those issuing dire predictions of global cooling in the 1970's.

|6.3.05 @ 11:12AM|

...make that:..."one of the people in the link you provided is Stephen Schneider who, as I noted above, said that, *about global warming*, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."!!"

|6.3.05 @ 2:51PM|

JIAI,

Are Hummers being sold below their production cost? No? Hmm.....

tarran,

I don't think the pollution=waste observation on which your ideas depend applies to the production of CO2. What do you do with CO2 if you don't dump it?

rob,

I guess the difference between us is how rational we consider Toyota's confidence that regulation will increase the demand for low emission, high efficiency cars. The writing's on the wall, dude, as much as you might want to stand athwart history shouting stop.

bob,

Of course my good will prevail. That's the wonderful thing about being a liberal.

|6.3.05 @ 2:54PM|

Actually, the Prius was not the first mass produced hybrid. The Honda Insight was out several years before. My friend has one. It has no backseat and it runs on 17 D-Cell batteries. Also, it should be noted that the Civic hybrid was introduced at the same time as the Prius, but doesn't get the same press.

Currently, both Toyota and Honda make non-hybrid cars that are just a smidge less efficient than their hybrids. In financial terms, the extra cost of buying a hybrid (even with the tax break) will not save you any money unless you drive the car for FAR longer than normal. In other words, the fuel and emmission efficiency of the regualar models are fantastic. If T and H never made a hybrid, they would never have to worry about future regulations. They're both way ahead of the curve. It would also be worth noting that both companies have a history of making some very interesting concept cars, whose technology often migrates to their conventional autos.

Although gov't regulation certainly has an effect, the hybrid craze is an attempt to cash in on a new market more than a response to current or future regulations. As noted, Toyota has nothing to worry about in that department. As it happens, the Prius was far more successful than Toyota imagined.

All new models are loss leaders.

|6.3.05 @ 3:02PM|

I believe that the good citizens of the US paid for the development of the Hummer, thus sparing the manufacturer most of the development costs.

It's impossible to design, build and market a new car from scratch without taking losses per unit sold for some time. That's why automakers share as many parts from current models as is possible.

M1EK|6.3.05 @ 3:27PM|

Rick,

The lie is this:

"there were 1970's predictions of an ice age analogous to today's predictions of global warming".

That was your implication, and the site I provided blew it out of the water.

1. The 'ice age' 'predicted' was a natural one (unlike GW), with said climate change occuring far slower than that predicted for GW

2. There wasn't consensus among climatologists that it was actually happening.

Note that you can STILL have #1 even if the GW theory is 100% accurate. If I park my car on a steep uphill climb, let off the brake, and start rolling downhill, then press the gas pedal and start going uphill, I haven't disproven the theory of gravity.

You've got nothing, son.

|6.3.05 @ 6:16PM|

Energy is what boosts productively - look how efficient you are with a gas powered lawn mower vs. a push.

So we need energy - (especially so knee jerk liberals can fly around in Lear jets complaining about globally warning), the developing world doesn't give a damn about greenhous emissions (They are trying to prevent starvation)

So what can we do - simple nuclear energy - little or no greenhouse gas emission. Of course the same knee jerky liberals who fly around in Lear jet - think nuclear power is dangerous??

|6.4.05 @ 11:10AM|

Dear Rick Barton,

Please stop selectively quoting Stephen Schneider. The full quote is here (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html#TheDoubleEthicalBindPitfall) and reads as follows:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Any arguments you make will be better served by using full, accurate quotes.

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com