Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Skeptical Environmentalist's Response to Gore Plan
C-SPAN radio broadcast former V-P Al Gore's Congressional testimony earlier today and I blogged his ten point plan to address the "climate crisis." A vote came up and the committee delayed Copenhagen Consensus Center director Bjorn Lomborg's response to Gore's testimony. C-SPAN radio is now broadcasting hearings about issuing subpoenas to White House in the U.S. attorney general firing matter.
So, I am providing below a selection from Lomborg's press release and directions to link to his formal testimony (pdf 25 pages).
Lomborg...
cited the issues of heat deaths, sea level rise, hurricanes and malaria as outstanding examples of Gore’s exaggerated and incorrect claims.
“We need to know just how many more heat deaths we can expect compared with how many fewer cold deaths,” Lomborg said. He cited statistics that showed that each year about 1.5 million people die from excessive cold in Europe, more than seven times the heat deaths. “That we so easily forget these deaths and so easily embrace the exclusive worry about global warming tells us of a breakdown inour sense of proportion,” Lomborg said.
On the issue of sea level change, Lomborg asked, “How is it possible that one of today’s strongest voices on climate change can say something so dramatically different from the est science (provided by the IPCC)?” He added, “IPCC estimates a foot, Gore tops them 20 times.”
Gore’s prediction that if Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica id the same thing, sea levels worldwide would increase between 18 and 20 feet, Lomborg said, is “simply positing a hypothetical and then in full graphic and gory detail showing us what – hypothetically – would happen to Miami, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Beijing, Shanghai, Dhaka and then New York.”
Lomborg said stronger and more frequent hurricanes have been cited as a calamity of global warming, yet the most reputable scientific sources have drawn no firm conclusions. “When Al Gore tells us that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful and more destructive, it is incorrect.”
The recent increase in human suffering and economic impact as a result of tropical cyclones “has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions,” Lomborg said. “There are many more people, residing in much more vulnerable areas, with many more assets to lose,” he said. “In the U.S. today, the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 coastal counties stretching from Texas through irginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”
Gore’s assertions that malaria has increased as a result of global warming are similarly flawed, Lomborg said. “Like most stories, there is at core some truth to the claim that malaria will increase with temperature, but it is a small part compared to richness and health infrastructure,” he said. “Even if we could entirely stop global warming today…we would only change malaria risk in 2085 by 3.2 percent.” Even with a “stringent climate policy” Lomborg said studies show “there is little clear effect by the 2080s.”
“Compare this to current expectations that we can cut malaria incidence to about half to three‐fourths by 2015 for about $3 billion annually – or 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto,” Lomborg said.
Lomborg's whole press release and his complete formal testimony can be downloaded from the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Draft Gore 2008!
Stop malaria by freezing in the dark instead of evil DDT!
|3.21.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Ah, are we back to pushing the DDT myth again?
I see John Stossel has lied his way into another impressionable
mind.
|3.21.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Wow, what a dishonest hack Lomborg is.
""That we so easily forget these deaths and so easily embrace the
exclusive worry about global warming tells us of a breakdown inour
sense of proportion," Lomborg said."
Uh, no, that we suspect there will be more weather-related deaths
when people are living in climates their habits and settlements
aren't prepared for, due to rapid change, tells us that we have
somewhat of a clue about how human beings operate.
" "How is it possible that one of today's strongest voices on
climate change can say something so dramatically different from the
est science (provided by the IPCC)?" He added, "IPCC estimates a
foot, Gore tops them 20 times."
Gore's prediction that if Greenland melted or broke up and slipped
into the sea or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica id the
same thing..." Uh, no, the figures Gore gives for what would happen
IF THE ICE SHEETS MELT are completely in line with what the IPCC
says would happen IF THE ICE SHEETS MELT. The lower figure Lomborg
cites is from the part of the report that excludes the contribution
of ice sheet melting, and says so in very clear language. Mr. Gore
is not being dishonest by citing a section of the report that Mr.
Lomborg would prefer didn't exist.
I'm sure "climate change skeptics" are going to approach Lomborg's
claims will all the gullibility we've come to expect form them.
|3.21.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Al Gore and Environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media
creates 'climate' illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our
mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning
books like "America Deceived" from Wiki, rigging elections,
conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant
lies. Soon, the sinking of an Aircraft Carrier(by Mossad) will
occur and the US will 'retaliate' against Iran. Which
AIPAC-lobbying country benefit's from that? How much will the
environment matter after a Nuke attack on Iran? Not much. Stop
Iraq, Prevent Iran then work on the environment.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the
title):
America Deceived (sample chps)
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Don't forget the killer bees! You guys keep letting this AGW crap get in the way of the killer bee problem. Well, unless they are related . . .
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 2:48PM|#
joe,
And of course Lomborg didn't claim as far as I can tell (at least
in the language we see above) that Gore was being dishonest.
Anyway, since you are apparently well versed on the IPCC report why
don't you link to the relevant sections so we can read them?
|3.21.07 @ 2:48PM|#
joe:
Did you hear the bit on NPR this morning about consensus scientific
discomfort with the extreme nature of Gore's presentation? I'm not
talking Lomborg (who is not really dishonest here, I don't thing)
or whassname from MIT, but an NPR science correspondent talking
about IPCC scientist concerns with Gore's presentation.
The argument was basically that he takes the extreme data point of
possibility and presents as though it were a mid range estimate or
a most likely outcome. He also was accused of overstating
certainty. In other words, the charge is that he's doing exactly
what he accused the other side of doing, just in the opposite
direction.
|3.21.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Let's see, who should we believe:
Al, former vice president and jounalism professor from Columbia
University. Making believe there should be a "free" market on air,
or
Bjorn, decades as an environmental scientist, whose book, "The
Skeptical Environmentalist," is an absolute breath of fresh air.
Bjorn actually looks at the facts to tell us things are better than
we are being told and even pushes for a somewhat libertarian
(sometimes not) philosophy.
Did I miss the last 20 years or have we not spent billions of
dollars already on energy star appliancnces, replacing our windows
with thermal plane glass, insulating our homes, tripled the gas
mileage on our cars and spent thousands of hours sorting out our
trash.
Just not good enough for Al and his cohorts.
Joe, you really are missing the boat on this one.
|3.21.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Grotius,
You mean besides the two rather flagrant misrepresentations I
pointed out?
|3.21.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Normally I don't take too much stock in something from National
Review, but this paragraph really put the screws to Gore:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjczMzczMWRkZGM5Yzc5MzA0NjVhNWY4MDc4ZDNlNDA=
"The biggest blow to the climate catastrophists is not any
scientific problem, but the hypocrisy of Gore and his Hollywood
cheering section, whose profligate energy use cannot be mitigated
in the popular mind through "carbon offsets," even if such offsets
worked as advertised. Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s never
comprehended how damaging "limousine liberalism" was to their
cause. They seem even more oblivious to the self-inflicted wounds
of "Gulfstream liberalism." Whatever the intricacies of climate
science, middle-class citizens understand that Gore wants them to
use less energy and pay more for it, while he and his Hollywood
pals use as much as they want and buy their way out of guilt, like
a medieval indulgence. In the companion book to An Inconvenient
Truth, Gore writes that "a good way to reduce the amount of energy
you use is simply to buy less. Before making a purchase, ask
yourself if you really need it." Gore decided that he does need it
- for all four of his homes and his pool house."
Ouch. Put your peanut butter on that!
GILMORE|3.21.07 @ 2:53PM|#
BAILEY:
What, no disclaimer??
joe:
Oh, come on... "Rapid change?" This shit takes 100years to happen.
It's no "Day After Tomorrow".
The guy (lombord), on par, is more 'honest', not being a freaking
self-serving politician. That much should be obvious...even to a
true believer like you
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 2:54PM|#
joe,
Are you suggesting that we're simply supposed to take your claims
at face value?
|3.21.07 @ 2:56PM|#
joe, who said anything about change so rapid we couldn't adapt?
I thought we were talking change over decades here. I mean, all we
have to do to forestall "heat deaths" is install some insulation
and airconditioning.
And why shouldn't we factor in reduced deaths due to cold while we
are totalling up increased deaths due to heat?
What "dishonesty" or a "misrepresentation" did Lomborg commit in
pointing out a fact about relative heat v. cold deaths now, and
asking what the net death toll under global warming would be?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 2:57PM|#
joe,
Anyway, say you are right and that Lomborg's analysis is in error.
That says very little about Lomborg's actual state of mind. People
are often both honest and wrong at the same time in other
words.
|3.21.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Uh, yeah, National Review's campaign advice to Democrats is
always such a font of wisdom.
It's funny, you see conservatives raise four complaints about
environmentalist reforms:
1. They're coercive, not voluntary.
2. They're one-size-fits-all, not tailored to individual
situations.
3. They harm the economy.
4. They don't utilize the profit motive to create a market for the
changes they'd like to see.
So Gore starts taking money out of his own pocket to subsidize a
clean energy project in Europe - a voluntary measure, tailored to
his own situation, that doesn't harm the economy in any way
whatwsoever, and that serves to create a market for clean power -
and he's accused for hypocrisy for not adopting positions that
National Review is just sure all environmentalists really
support.
You know what I think? I think National Review is just looking to
bash Democrats and environmentalists, and any connection to a
legitimate, principled, fact-based argument is purely
coincidental.
|3.21.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Lomborg, I only got one thing to say to you. And it goes a
little somthin' like this. A one, a two, a one two three...
Have I been sleeping?
I've been so still
Afraid of crumbling
Have I been careless?
Dismissing all the distant rumblings
Take me where I am supposed to be
To comprehend the things that I can't see
Cause I need to move
I need to wake up
I need to change
I need to shake up
I need to speak out
Something's got to break up
I've been asleep
And I need to wake up
Now
And as a child
I danced like it was 1999
My dreams were wild
The promise of this new world
Would be mine
Now I am throwing off the carelessness of youth
To listen to an inconvenient truth
That I need to move
I need to wake up
I need to change
[ Lyrics found on http://www.metrolyrics.com ]
I need to shake up
I need to speak out
Something's got to break up
I've been asleep
And I need to wake up
Now
I am not an island
I am not alone
I am my intentions
Trapped here in this flesh and bone
And I need to move
I need to wake up
I need to change
I need to shake up
I need to speak out
Something's got to break up
I've been asleep
And I need to wake up
Now
I want to change
I need to shake up
I need to speak out
Oh, Something's got to break up
I've been asleep
And I need to wake up
Now
|3.21.07 @ 2:58PM|#
A change of five degrees in less than a century is rapid. Read up on the vikings in Greenland.
|3.21.07 @ 3:01PM|#
"You know what I think? I think National Review is just
looking to bash Democrats and environmentalists, and any connection
to a legitimate, principled, fact-based argument is purely
coincidental."
Joe, I have to disagree. National Review has a long history of
supporting conservation and ecology.
ed|3.21.07 @ 3:01PM|#
when people are living in climates their habits and
settlements aren't prepared for, due to rapid change
joe, you're a friggin' idiot. Yep, these people will wake up one
morning with ocean waves lapping at their doors. Sheesh.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:02PM|#
No one knows and no one can wholely accurately predict what sort of rise in temperature we will see over the next fifty to hundred years. Indeed, that seems to be the primary argument amongst climate scientists these days.
|3.21.07 @ 3:03PM|#
all purposeful distractions from the fact that the USA is in
receivership, heading towards bankruptcy.
the next great global depression is heading here much faster than
global warming is....and being ignored much more.
|3.21.07 @ 3:04PM|#
ed, you tool, the peak levels of extreme events getting higher
and higher is exactly how a gradual change first manifests
itself.
Cripes, haven't you ever visited a beach?
idiot
|3.21.07 @ 3:05PM|#
"No one knows and no one can wholely accurately predict what
sort of rise in temperature we will see over the next fifty to
hundred years. Indeed, that seems to be the primary argument
amongst climate scientists these days."
And yet the vast majority can agree on a range, and the extent of
that range keeps shrinking as their level of knowledge
increases.
What does that suggest to you?
|3.21.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Quibble about the details, joe, but surely you'll concede that
Al Gore is engaging is some seriously fabulous fear
mongering?
It's like listening to some Bush Administration propagandist
talking about how Al Qaeda's going to ruin the American way of
life.
...if we don't invade Iraq. ...if we aren't sufficiently scared.
...if we don't let Bush's people fiddle with our constitutional
rights...
I'm not saying that Al Qaeda isn't a threat, and I'm not saying
that global warming isn't a problem. I think Gore must have stolen
a page from some Chaney speech about how our children's children
will feel about us after what's sure to happen next. ...unless we
do what we're told!
It's the same freakin' pitch.
If we don't wreck the economy, it's going to wreck the economy?
...that's the pitch--and we're quibbling about the details?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Anyway, there is obviously a range of predictions in the IPCC statement. Now some areas of the range are more apparently "likely" than others (according to what climate scientists have so far discovered), but the fact at a range exists should elicit caution at the very least.
|3.21.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"I think Gore must have stolen a page from some Chaney
speech about how our children's children will feel about us after
what's sure to happen next. ...unless we do what we're
told!"
I suppose I should actually credit Harold Hill.
"Our children's children gonna have trouble, trouble,
trouble..."
|3.21.07 @ 3:12PM|#
What I don't understand is how Lomborg's lack of acknowledging
the most dire predictions in his press release somehow equates to
his being a complete liar.
Seems a bit of a leap one can only make from a tremendously
partisan platform.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Uh, no, that we suspect there will be more weather-related
deaths when people are living in climates their habits and
settlements aren't prepared for, due to rapid change, tells us that
we have somewhat of a clue about how human beings
operate.
Aha! That explains why, unlike most other species, human being are
incapable of adapting to hot or cold climates which is why we all
live in San Diego.
|3.21.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Joe, it seems to me you missed this part:
sea levels worldwide would increase between 18 and 20 feet,
Lomborg said, is "simply positing a hypothetical and then in full
graphic and gory detail showing us what - hypothetically - would
happen to Miami, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Beijing, Shanghai, Dhaka
and then New York."
Lumborg isn't saying that Gore is wrong about what would happen in
the case of a catastrophic melt off, he's saying is is misguided to
present that as a likely scenario when it is really a worst case
scenario.
You tell us that the IPCC information is in line with Gore on the
magnitude of sea level change given an ice sheet melt off, but does
the IPCC give a similar impression of the likelyhood of that
occuring?
Lumborg's claim boils down to "Gore offers a 20 foot sea level rise
as the likely scenario, whereas the IPCC suggests 1/20th of that as
the likely scenario".
I don't know if he is right or wrong, as I haven't read the reports
myself and I don't have time to at the moment.
I do know that you haven't refuted that claim, or backed your claim
that Lumborg is a hack. What you have done is claimed (without
evidence) that Gore's hypothetical is in line with a hypothetical
put forward by the IPCC, and in so doing you've missed the
issue.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Al, former vice president and jounalism professor from
Columbia University. Making believe there should be a "free" market
on air
Don't leave out the rest of the resume:
Flunked out of Georgetown Law and Vanderbilt Divinity, gave us the
"V" chip (after he invented the internet in Vietnam), gave his wife
a platform for record censorship with the PMRC, and helped defeat
Kyoto while he was for it.
fyodor|3.21.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I'll take Lomborg's point about the cold deaths in so far as it
points out that there will likely be pros and cons to climate
change the pros will to some degree mitigate the cons.
BUT, I'm very skeptical about the notion that the pros could
outweigh the cons or are likely to mitigate them to any significant
degree.
As a metaphor, consider that central planners may sometimes come up
with a plan better than voluntary players in a free market and that
lay people can sometimes come up with a better prediction than
experts. Neither, however, is what we would ever expect to happen.
Likewise, while it's possible that humans may have mal-adapted to
the world in such a way that a random and fairly large and quick
change may improve things for us, the better bet is that the change
will make things worse. And a large and quick change could make
things much worse.
Of course, further adaptation will mitigate the potentially harmful
effects (as compared to a static model) as well, at least to some
degree, at least for many of us....
|3.21.07 @ 3:19PM|#
DA,
What is it about the term "rapid" that confuses you? Ever look at
the mortality rates of Europeans in America during the first five
decades of their occupation? Yikes!
mediageek,
What makes Lomborg dishonest is his statement that Gore is
contradicting the IPCC report. No, he is not - his statement about
what will happen if ice sheets melt is right in line with the IPCC
Report's statement about what will happen if the ice sheets melt,
and Lomborg - you kmow, a guy called to testify before the Senate
on climate change because of his expertise on the issue - knows
damn well about that the lower figures he cites were arrived at by
ignoring the effects of ice sheets melting.
|3.21.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Guy, don't forget that whole bit where Gore publicly cried over losing his father to smoking, while still owning and profiting from a tobacco farm.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of funny to hear a
Scandanavian talk about deaths from cold?
As somebody who was born and raised in a cold climate where many
people of Scandanavian stock live (Wisconsin), I thought it was a
matter of pride to talk about how "We can take anything."
Yeah, yeah, extreme cold weather can indeed be deadly. Still, being
from a cold climate he's supposed to pretend that cold weather is
harmless. It's a matter of pride.
|3.21.07 @ 3:22PM|#
I'd wager that full gory and graphic detail of only the worst case scenario counts as a bit disingenuous. Joe didn't you criticize the claim that the economy would suffer from requiring seat belts? This is a bit like that, no? A gross exaggeration. Fear mongering, if you will?
|3.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Fear will keep them in line. Fear of this battlestation/global warming/WMDs/drugs/poverty/godless commies/heartless Christians.
|3.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Brian Terrell,
'Lumborg's claim boils down to "Gore offers a 20 foot sea level
rise as the likely scenario, whereas the IPCC suggests 1/20th of
that as the likely scenario".'
The IPCC doesn't suggest a 1 foot rise as the likely scenario. It
suggests a 1 foot rise excluding the effects of ice sheet melting.
It then acknowledges that this figure is too low, because there
will be ice sheet melting, and goes on to give ranges of how much
more sea level rise needs to be added onto that one foot because of
said melting.
When Lomborg states that the IPCC report suggests a one foot rise,
he is incorrectly reporting the contents of the study, and I have
enough respect for his reading comprehension to conclude that he
knows it.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 3:25PM|#
What is it about the term "rapid" that confuses
you?
Probably the way you use it, joe.
Jim Henley|3.21.07 @ 3:27PM|#
" . . . each year about 1.5 million people die from excessive
cold in Europe . . . ?" Really?
Europe's estimated population is about 730 million. That's one out
of 350 of them every year dying of cold.
I'm not saying it can't be true, but on the face of it, it's as
bizarre a claim as any that Gore is making. Can anyone offer any
substantiation?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:27PM|#
thoreau,
Lomborg is from Denmark, not from Lapland. The minimum average
temperature in a city like Copenhagen is in the 30s (F).
|3.21.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Hmmm, people move from Detroit to Atlanta all the time and don't
die from the rapid climate change involved there.
Humans are a pretty adaptable species I guess.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Ever look at the mortality rates of Europeans in America
during the first five decades of their occupation?
Yikes!
100%, just like today?
|3.21.07 @ 3:28PM|#
You guys stop picking on joe. His religious beliefs are his own
business. You don't taunt nuns to their face, do you?*
*Actually, I've always wondered about the whole "Bride of Christ"
thing. If they are all brides of Christ, doesn't that make Jesus a
massive polygamist?
|3.21.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Jim Henley,
I suspect that Lomborg is including, for example, people who have
heart attacks shoveling snow. Deaths attributable to cold-weather
events. Still, it would be good to see where he gets this
figure.
|3.21.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Joe;
A few years ago, I moved from the Canadian prairies to the shores
of the Gulf of Arabia. But I'm yet to perish from this rather
drastic and very rapid climate change.
Am I an anomoly? Or are humans actually adaptable?
|3.21.07 @ 3:30PM|#
the Danish are all a bunch of right wing nut-bags. We know this already, this should come as no suprise.
|3.21.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Joe, but does he have a requirement to address the worst case scenario, or is it better if he just addresses the most likely one?
|3.21.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I've had a lot of respect for Lomborg ever since I read his book. He's a big government, environmentalist, so I shouldn't really be sympathetic to him. But he actually looks at environmental issues by looking at the facts, and not distorting them. Then he proposes solutions, many of which I disagree with. But at least I get the impression that he has some integrity, and that I can comfortably rely on him not to be deliberately deceiving me or the public. If there was an environmental group or movement with his integrity, I, along with many libertarians and conservatives, would support them; instead we get the Gore/fearmongers.
|3.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Joe:
Good to know, that certainly paint's Mr. Lumborg in an unfavorable
light.
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this report re: ice
sheets melting or perhaps the title so i can look it up later?
|3.21.07 @ 3:34PM|#
matth,
"Hmmm, people move from Detroit to Atlanta all the time and don't
die from the rapid climate change involved there."
And when they move to Atlanta, they move into housing built for the
climate in Atlanta, in a city with infrastructure and services
designed for the prevailing conditions in Atlanta.
Should the climate in Atlanta become like the climate in Ecuador,
it will still have housing, infrastructure, etc. designed for the
conditions of present-day Atlanta.
Jim Henley|3.21.07 @ 3:35PM|#
I suspect that Lomborg is including, for example, people who have heart attacks shoveling snow. Deaths attributable to cold-weather events. Still, it would be good to see where he gets this figure.
So like, car crashes on the ice and suchlike? Okay, I can sort of
see it if I squint. Will we start attributing heart attacks while
gardening the the heat, though? (I realize the anti-gardening lobby
must already do this . . . )
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:36PM|#
joe,
What part of Ecuador? Ecuador's climate is pretty variable
depending on where one is in the country.
|3.21.07 @ 3:36PM|#
D.A.,
"100%, just like today?" Are we supposed to conclude that your
stance towards threats to human life is "We're all going to die
sometime," or are you just giving up?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Jim Henley,
Consider how many cases of pneumonia and like illnesses are
exacerbated by cold weather.
|3.21.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Joe,
The Vikings in Greenland died because things got too cold, not too
warm. Warmth is great for life (witness tropical jungles, now more
commonly known as "the rainforest"), not bad for it, while cold
kills. One can argue that a gradual rise of 5 degrees in
temperature over the course of a century is sudden, but only when
taking a very long term framework. From the point of view of
adjustment to temperature change, this is by no means too sudden to
adjust to. Additionally it is a well advertised threat so people
have an awfully long heads up warning that perhaps they ought to
buy an airconditioner.
Finally, in case you haven't noticed, technology is much better
suited to mitigating temperature changes today that it was a couple
hundred years ago for the new American settlers, let alone for the
Vikings in Greenland who died because of global
cooling, not global warming. I am not aware of any society
dying out because of global warming before.
I'm not saying that global warming is not something to be blase
about, merely that the alarmism that you and Gore are engaged in
hasn't been substantiated by either of you.
|3.21.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Fellas, typing "IPCC Report" into google isn't that hard.
What am I, your executive assistant?
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 3:38PM|#
i>Hmmm, people move from Detroit to Atlanta all the time and
don't die from the rapid climate change involved there.
Don't forget those WWII bomber crews in un-pressurized aircraft.
They went from hot to cold and back daily while defeating National
Socialism.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:39PM|#
joe,
The IPCC is a fairly large report as I recall. You've read it and
thus can point us to the appropriate subheading presumably.
Jim Henley|3.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
When we're talking about adaptability, though, we're really
talking about how some very poor people in already hot and marginal
low-lying areas will handle warming, no? The issue isn't really how
French or American middle classes living inland will "adapt."
Here's where the non-denialist argument that it's more important to
allow the poor of the world to get richer - through trade and
industrialization - than to try to mitigate temperature rises in
ways that will tend to keep people poor, is strongest, IMHO. It at
least hasn't been refuted yet.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Should the climate in Atlanta become like the climate in
Ecuador, it will still have housing, infrastructure, etc. designed
for the conditions of present-day Atlanta.
And this will happen "rapidly" (practically overnight!) and none of
the people will be able or permitted to leave and there's no
possibility of installing insulation or air conditioning or heating
systems into any of those houses and they're all going to die,
die, DIE!
Are we supposed to conclude that your stance towards threats to
human life is "We're all going to die sometime," or are you just
giving up?
Well, you can if you want. A more reasonable interpretation of my
response would be (1) the comment I was responding to was poorly
worded and I enjoy making fun of you when you do that and (2)
pulling mortality rates from the 1600s is just a tad disingenuous
because, sheesh, see above.
|3.21.07 @ 3:40PM|#
happyjuggler,
"The Vikings in Greenland died because things got too cold, not too
warm."
No, the Viking colony in Greenlhand died out because things changed
too rapidly. As others have pointed out (though failing to grasp
the implication), people can live in widely divergent climate
conditions. People continued to live in Greenland after there were
no more Vikings - people whose socieites had millenia of experience
in living in those conditions, and who were subsequently prepared,
in their physical culture and practices, to thrive in that
climate.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Will we start attributing heart attacks while gardening the
the heat, though? (I realize the anti-gardening lobby must already
do this . . . )
I heard of a drummer expiring from a freak gardening accident. It
was in a Rob Ryner documentry I think.
|3.21.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Ah, I see. We have the technology to painlessly adapt to
changing climate, but the idea that technology can reduce our
greenhouse gas output without causing us all to DIE DIE DIE and
"freeze in the dark" is crazy talk.
'Kay.
|3.21.07 @ 3:43PM|#
And when they move to Atlanta, they move into housing built
for the climate in Atlanta, in a city with infrastructure and
services designed for the prevailing conditions in Atlanta.
Should the climate in Atlanta become like the climate in Ecuador,
it will still have housing, infrastructure, etc. designed for the
conditions of present-day Atlanta.
I would guess, based on my experience, that it's easier to adapt
buildings infrastructure to a warmer climate that to a colder
climate. Freezing temperature can do serious damage to structures
that aren't designed to withstand continuous cold weather. A change
to a warmer climate shouldn't be as difficult to deal with.
Jim Henley|3.21.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Consider how many cases of pneumonia and like illnesses are exacerbated by cold weather.
Sure. Then I'll also consider how pest-borne diseases like malaria
and sleeping sickness are exacerbated by warm weather. Or let's say
50 years from now water mocassins have taken to the streams of
Pennsylvania and New York and there are scorpions in Poland. There
will be a marginal increase in "deaths due to heat" from that
too.
If we get creative about it, we can attribute all kinds of death's
to cold weather. Fair's fair. But I'm not sure that Lomborg is
being equally creative on both sides of the excess deaths
ledger.
|3.21.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Joe, this arguement of yours is frankly dishonest, the top end, worst case scenario for sea level rise in the 4th assesment is 10-23 inches. The IPCC does not include ice sheet melting in the estimate because "Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude." The Third assesment, which did include ice sheets in the models gives a top end of only 3 feet. So Gore is off the reservation scientifically at 20 and your recourse to the IPCC is either based in ignorance or mendacity as even a quick wiki search can confirm.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:44PM|#
joe,
The basic problem with the Greenland colony is that had very little
to offer the outside world. Even when the climate made the region
comparatively warm it was a backwater. That and there were
technological issues associated with trade between Greenland and
Europe - mainly that the ships involved were small and didn't have
more accurate navigational equipment (indeed, if you read the sagas
you'll note that it was common for sailors to get lost for days or
more and often never to return).
|3.21.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"And this will happen "rapidly" (practically overnight!) and
none of the people will be able or permitted to leave and there's
no possibility of installing insulation or air conditioning or
heating systems into any of those houses and they're all going to
die, die, DIE!"
They have therapies and medication for panic attacks these
days.
Guy Montag|3.21.07 @ 3:45PM|#
So Gore is off the reservation
So, now we are back to the Columbus thread? ACK!
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Jim Henley,
These are exactly the sort of factors that epidemiologists look at.
Lomborg isn't doing something unusual or unique.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Regarding the 1.5 million winter-related deaths in Europe:
I suppose that in addition to those who froze to death and deaths
from snow shoveling and other obvious winter-related deaths we
could look at diseases that have some sort of seasonal correlation
or are exacerbated during winter.
e.g. Cold and flu season can be deadly for elderly folks. And it
wouldn't shock me if having to stay inside for a few months due to
cold and ice and frail bones exacerbates certain diseases of the
elderly.
But while milder winters might somewhat alleviate the worst of the
flu season, I doubt the effect will be big. For instance, even
southern California has a winter flu season (trust me, I lived
there), albeit not as bad as, say, Maine or Alaska. So talking
about 1.5 million winter-related deaths seems a bit misleading.
Especially since there's no way that global warming will turn Oslo
into Athens.
Also, it doesn't seem particularly helpful to compare on the one
hand tropical diseases and floods and whatnot (things that can have
significant effects on all age brackets) and on the other hand a
slight reduction in illnesses that predominantly afflict the
elderly. When you start talking about life years lost and economic
impact (things that sound cold and cruel to those with
grandparents, but are nonetheless difficult and pertinent
realities). you have to be careful with what you're
comparing.
Mind you, I'm not here to offer any particular estimates of deaths
from floods or tropical diseases or whatever else. But when
some guy steps forward to act as the voice of reason, to counter
what he claims is fear mongering, and then tosses out a horrifying
number that is missing a lot of context, I'm not going to be
impressed. The best response that he can hope for is a Cathy
Young-esque "Well, looks like both sides have their fear
mongers." (That's the best response. The worst response,
at least from his perspective, is that I might take the other side
more seriously.)
In other words, guys, if you want to call Al Gore a fear-monger,
well, fine. But don't swallow everything said by those who disagree
with him. That number on winter-related deaths stinks like a corpse
floating in a malaria-infested swamp.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:50PM|#
joe,
BTW, if you ever get a chance to read them the Icelandic and Norse
sagas are great yarns.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:52PM|#
thoreau,
Or not.
But when some guy steps forward to act as the voice of reason,
to counter what he claims is fear mongering, and then tosses out a
horrifying number that is missing a lot of context, I'm not going
to be impressed.
Wouldn't the context presumably be in his written report?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 3:53PM|#
thoreau,
In other words, read this:
Lomborg's whole press release and his complete formal testimony
can be downloaded from the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
|3.21.07 @ 3:53PM|#
What am I, your executive assistant?
Well, you do seem to have plenty of spare time today.
|3.21.07 @ 3:53PM|#
your recourse to the IPCC is either based in ignorance or
mendacity as even a quick wiki search can confirm
This is standard practice for joe.
Refer to content outside the thread.
Refuse to provide summaries of the arguments made in this outside
content.
Refuse to provide links, and tell people you use Google.
This is joe's way of lying without having the guts to actually type
false statements.
There is little point in discussing any topic with joe because of
his penchant for such dishonesty.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Here's where the non-denialist argument that it's more
important to allow the poor of the world to get richer - through
trade and industrialization - than to try to mitigate temperature
rises in ways that will tend to keep people poor, is strongest,
IMHO. It at least hasn't been refuted yet.
Ah, but that sort of argument requires careful reasoning and a
willingness to deal with the complexities of the real world.
Denialist arguments are so much more fun! "Hey, look: I did some
creative death accounting on one side of the ledger and applied
some really stubborn and selective skepticism on the other side,
and I came up with numbers that contradict somebody who said
something worrisome. Whoo-hoo!"
Gilbert Martin|3.21.07 @ 3:54PM|#
I don't know why all you people let Joe get to you.
Like Gore, he's not an authority on global warming or anything else
- he's just a liberal.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 3:56PM|#
We've already got Jim kicking ass in this thread, with me
offering long-winded but weak support. All we need is for Mona to
join us and none shall be able to withstand our Unqualified
Postings!
:)
|3.21.07 @ 3:58PM|#
I doubt anyone here objects to using technology to make our use
of energy more efficient, to reduce the pollution caused by energy
production, or to otherwise mitigate any effects that human
populations have on the environment. However, Gore and others like
him are using many extreme examples to advocate rather radical
changes imposed by government. That's a problem, not just
because some of us see the government as a bogey man, but because
its ability to anticipate new technologies and adapt to change is
horrifically bad.
Furthermore, what if technological solutions don't end up supplying
us that 90% reduction? What then? Zod's solution? I'm a technology
optimist and think that things in the West are going in the right
direction without Gore or any other politician's help, but I fear
mandates of this kind. And there is absolutely no one who can say
for sure that this warming trend will continue at the same level.
I'd prefer a little more certainty before we issue any absolute and
mandated solutions. Until such time, why not use technology to
improve things? That's fine, and there are a multitude of reasons
to pursue more efficient and cleaner energy alternatives. And maybe
letting the rest of the world catch up to the West's standard of
living would do even more to improve things.
thoreau,
I, too, miss some of the old posters, crazy or otherwise. Things
have changed, man, with all of these Hit & Run
whippersnappers.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Yes, PL, but the Unqualified Offerings alliance between me, Jim, and Mona is of fairly recent vintage. We kick ass!
|3.21.07 @ 4:01PM|#
thoreau:
I don't like the exaggeration, but there is a bit of hypocrisy to
its current form.
The guy asking us to spend bazillions necessarily has a higher bar.
You can't mount a crusade about selective use of data by your
opponents, then throw out selective data of your own. This cuts
both ways, but only one of the two camps is reaching into your
wallet.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:03PM|#
The guy asking us to spend bazillions necessarily has a
higher bar.
Which makes it all the more crucial that his critics argue
honestly, so that he isn't able to score easy points.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:05PM|#
In other words, I believe that if a case is worth making then
it's worth making right. You don't get to say "But look how
important this is!" or "Look how dangerous the other guy's ideas
are!" as an excuse to ignore sloppiness by the enemy of your enemy.
My response will be "OK, you claim it's crucial that this guy's
arguments be refuted, but it's not crucial enough to do it
honestly?"
The same might be said in certain other contexts: "But we had to do
something!" is never an excuse for incompetence,
dishonesty, and such.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:07PM|#
thoreau,
Until you have, you really need to get off the particular high
horse you are sitting on right now.
|3.21.07 @ 4:07PM|#
grotius:
My read is that the use of cold weather deaths is at least
questionable. I don't find the rest of his report exaggerated in
the same way joe does.
|3.21.07 @ 4:08PM|#
hunter,
From the February 2 IPCC release:
"Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about
125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th
century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data
indicate that average polartemperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C
higher than present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit.
The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica."
Keeping in mind that a 3-5 degree increase in temperature is within
the range of plausible temperature increases according to the
report.
|3.21.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Thoreau, Lomborg is not a denialist. He
1) believes human CO2 output is causing global warming
2) believes some cutting of CO2 production would be beneficial to
humanity without harming humanity more by hurting the development
and economic growth which might save untold millions
3) proposes best-practice guidance gor environmental spending
4) thinks scare-mongering hurts the environment and humanity by
emphasising catastrophic outcomes on all fronts, making rational
choice of action impossible.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:10PM|#
JasonL,
Then that is a bad read. I took a course that and epi component
once and in my experience that sort of thing doesn't seem outside
the bounds of we talked about in class (though we never discussed
this particular issue).
|3.21.07 @ 4:12PM|#
jake,
Oooooooh, that quote I posted has got to hurt!
I believe "pwned" is the term the kids are using these days,
asshat.
But I like Gilbert Martin's comment best: "I don't know why all you
people let Joe get to you. bLike Gore, he's not an authority on
global warming or anything else - he's just a liberal."
Pretty much sums up the denialist argument.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Memnon,
Anyone who read Lomborg's full report could pretty easily grasp
that Lomborg doesn't denial anthropogenic climate change.
Especially since on pg. 2 he clearly states in a subject heading
(in bold) that:
Global warming is real and man-made
|3.21.07 @ 4:14PM|#
And all this time AL GORE is telling us to save energy he himself is using up all that to go all over the world and blabber about this global warming fruad i mean this whole thing its the biggest fruad ever and the fact is school text books are also spreading this same lie about global warming and even this rant against the INTERNAL COMBUTION ENGINE and now that liar gare wants to inact tese same greenhouse junk science on us all. AL GORE IS ADANGEROUS RADICAL ZELOT AS RADICAL AS ANY AL QUEDA FANATIC HE WOULD MAKE BIN LADEN LOOK MILD IN COMPAASON
|3.21.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I think David Friedman's point is salient here. It is insane to
try to draw a picture of human life on Earth one century from
now.
Really. Look back at 1907 and try to have this same discussion
about any feature of life at the time by projecting forward in a
"if we don't change our ways" manner.
|3.21.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Oooooooh, that quote I posted has got to hurt!
First time I've ever seen you do that in direct response to a
request to provide the content you are referencing.
I suppose people should point out your dishonesty on a regular
basis.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Yes, Grotius, I read the relevant section of the report.
Footnote 12 says that numbers from reference 10 were extrapolated
to the rest of Europe using the methods of footnote 11. That sort
of extrapolation, for a geography-sensitive phenomenon seems
questionable, but we'll leave that aside for now. Reference 10 is a
BBC synopsis of a government report, and does not give any guidance
on the extent to which winter-related deaths would be alleviated by
global climate change (since there will still be a winter flu
season, even if a less nasty one).
When one person predicts a certain number of additional
fatalities, the way to refute it is to either challenge the basis
of the prediction (e.g. the underlying climate model and estimates
from it) or talk about an offsetting phenomenon. Talking about 1.5
million winter deaths currently, without offering a prediction for
the extent to which those numbers will change as a result of
warming, does not provide any basis for comparing predicted body
counts.
The report also implies that most of those winter fatalities occur
among the elderly. As I alluded to in my post earlier, we need to
consider the distribution of deaths and number of years lost. Dying
of pneumonia at age 85 instead of age 86 is not the same as dying
40 years prematurely in a flood. So not only does he not address
the change in winter fatalities as a result of warming, he
doesn't address the number of life years lost (which may sound like
a cold-blooded thing to talk about, but when talking about social
and economic impacts it is very relevant.)
So yes, I did read the report, and my horse is no higher than the
one you mount with your air of never worrying about anything.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Lomborg's discussion of heat and cold deaths is on pg. 3-4 of his report. It isn't on its face an unreasonable discussion of the issue.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:25PM|#
I'm not here to persuade anybody to believe in anthropogenic
global warming or embrace any proposed solution or anything like
that. I'm here as a scientist to say that some of Lomborg's
statements strike me as fishy.
If you think somebody's ideas are dangerous and costly, make damn
sure that you counter them with good arguments that leave no room
for the opposition to score cheap points. Otherwise you might as
well take aim at your own foot and squeeze the trigger.
BTW, the stuff about marginal deaths involves the sort of "on the
margin" thinking that microeconomists are famous for. I thought
that we libertarians fancy ourselves experts on
microeconomics.
One other thing: I stand corrected on the word "denialist." Lomborg
does not deny the basic phenomenon, he only questions the effects.
Fair enough, but I still think his arguments about the effects are
fishy.
|3.21.07 @ 4:25PM|#
jake, it is not dishonest to provide accurate information and tell your opponents to do their own research. Just lazy.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Yes, I read pages 3 and 4. I even checked out the footnotes and
skimmed a reference.
Next!
|3.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Really. Look back at 1907 and try to have this same
discussion about any feature of life at the time by projecting
forward in a "if we don't change our ways" manner.
Global warming alarmists were treated quite differently in
1907.
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/003505.php
HT: divisionoflabour.com
|3.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during
the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core
data indicate that average polartemperatures at that time were 3 to
5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth's
orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica."
So now please explain how this past warming event occurred before
mankind had the ability to artificially raise the average
temperature of the atmosphere.
Please explain how we know that the current warming trend is
actually caused by human intervention as opposed to another
iteration of the last naturally occurring hot spell.
Please explain how we can reverse the current warming trend without
destroying the economies of all the developed world if we really
are the cause of the current trend.
Please prove that the consequences of letting the warming trend
continue are actually worse for mankind that the consequences of
trying to reverse the trend.
grylliade|3.21.07 @ 4:28PM|#
joe,
Using the Greenland colony as an argument is wrong. The colony was
marginal at the best of times; probably the only thing that made
European colonization possible was the medieval warm period, and
when the climate changed back that was the end for the colony. To
compare a marginal settlement that was just scraping by at the best
of times to modern Europe is just silly. Using European colonies in
North America is just as wrong. Again, you're comparing people who
were just scraping by at the best of times for half a century or so
to modern societies who have wealth to throw around on jetting
celebrities around the world. We can adapt. It might not be the
best thing to do, but we can adapt.
You also cite a climate change figure of five degrees (I'm guessing
Celsius) over the next century. That is near the top end of the
projected change. Three degrees is the actual most likely
projection. If you read the IPCC report, you'll see that.
The whole controversy now is over what to do about global warming.
You keep on insisting that there is no discussion on this topic,
which is I think dishonest. Maybe that's the way you feel, but
there are many issues to be decided here. Firstly, if you want to
defer to experts, defer to economists here. Scaremongering that
preventing climate change through emissions reduction is certainly
wrong; saying that emissions reduction isn't the most
cost-effective way may be wrong, but it's something to be
discussed. Maybe emissions reduction is the only thing that will
work. Maybe a mixture of emissions reduction and adaptation to
higher temperatures will work better. Maybe it would be better to
do nothing (though I doubt it).
To be honest, I think that it would be alright if we did nothing.
The earth would warm (more than the deniers think, less than the
doomsayers think), and we would adapt. Carbon-based fuel technology
is probably already on its way out, for various reasons. By 2050,
we'd have enough wealth and technical know-how to better address
global warming in an intelligent way. If we want to be
conservative, maybe it's best to start doing something about it
now. But overreacting might do as much harm as underreacting. The
earth can wait for five years while we look at the best evidence.
It could probably wait for longer, but I wouldn't want the
doomsayers to piss their pants waiting. Rather than jump into
anything, why don't we make an intelligent, informed
decision?
As an aside, I'm guessing that not much is going to be done about
this. The "do nothing" scenario is likely to be tested; look at how
much Europe is doing to comply with Kyoto, and Europe is the heart
of the Green movement! Don't worry, though; the sky won't fall.
|3.21.07 @ 4:28PM|#
I'm not saying that Al Qaeda isn't a threat, and I'm not
saying that global warming isn't a problem. I think Gore must have
stolen a page from some Chaney speech about how our children's
children will feel about us after what's sure to happen next.
...unless we do what we're told!
It's the same freakin' pitch.
I agree completely. There's a clear parallel between
environmentalist arguments and warmonger arguments. Both try to
create the perception that it's better to accept a certain disaster
in the present than the possibility of a (worse) disaster in the
distant future.
VM|3.21.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Dr.T: microeconomics only inasmuch as taught in Econ 79 (DEMAND
KURV!)
but like the lingo you use, "back off, man. I'm a scientist"
oh yeah! :)
Jake how about this (grin):
man made warm cold warm
cold warm cold warm cold warm cold
warmer you moron!
Gilbert Martin|3.21.07 @ 4:29PM|#
"Pretty much sums up the denialist argument."
Nope.
I don't need an "argument".
The burden of proof is on those proposing the existence of
something (global warnming or anything else).
I don't have to prove a negative.
And despite all the yakking about "consensus" -there is no proof.
It is all theory and speculation.
So until the eco-chicken littles can prove cause and effect with
the exact same degree of certainty that it can be proven that
gasoline is a flammable substance, I don't need to pay them any
heed.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:29PM|#
thoreau,
Yes, Grotius, I read the relevant section of the
report.
Before or after I asked you?
...with your air of never worrying about anything.
On what is this based exactly?
That sort of extrapolation, for a geography-sensitive
phenomenon seems questionable, but we'll leave that aside for
now.
He merely calls it a "reasonable estimate."
So not only does he not address the change in winter fatalities
as a result of warming, he doesn't address the number of life years
lost (which may sound like a cold-blooded thing to talk about, but
when talking about social and economic impacts it is very
relevant.)
Well, Lomborg is clearly not trying to do a full-scale analysis of
the issue (indeed, he never claims that is the case). What he is
trying to do is ask people to step back and start to figure out
just how bad climate change might be.
|3.21.07 @ 4:30PM|#
jake,
No.
No.
No.
No.
The first two of your questions are answered in the IPCC Report,
and that last two are unlikely to lead to productive conversation,
given your obvious bias.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:32PM|#
thoreau,
I stand corrected on the word "denialist." Lomborg does not
deny the basic phenomenon, he only questions the effects. Fair
enough, but I still think his arguments about the effects are
fishy.
Since you made an erroneous claim with regard to the "denialist"
claim, why should we put much stock in your other claims?
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:33PM|#
VM-
I thought that "on the margin" analysis was also important in more
advanced economics courses as well. I remember marginal analysis in
my senior-level econ classes as well as freshman classes, but I
never took any grad econ.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:36PM|#
thoreau,
...make damn sure that you counter them with good
arguments...
In light of your denialist claim this statement is filled with some
degree of irony.
|3.21.07 @ 4:39PM|#
No.
No.
No.
No.
The first two of your questions are answered in the IPCC Report,
and that last two are unlikely to lead to productive conversation,
given your obvious bias.
It is unfortunate then that the rest of the readers of the thread
will be deprived of the benefit your research and analytical
skills.
do cvidaniye joe
|3.21.07 @ 4:40PM|#
grylliade,
Were I predicting outcomes in modern European cities comparable to
the extinction of the Greenland Norse and the death rates of the
original Jamestown settlements, your criticisms would be valid. But
I am not, so they are not.
There would certainly be a quantitative difference between those
events and the likely effects of global warming on modern western
cities, but that wasn't the question I was answering. Several
commenters made the statement that climate change over several
decades would be unlikely to have an effect, and I pointed out some
real-world examples that proved different.
For the record, except for cities currently at or below sea level,
I am not predicting suffering as serious as those faced by the
Vikings in Greenland or the Jamestown colonists.
"You also cite a climate change figure of five degrees..." No, 3-5
degrees.
"The whole controversy now is over what to do about global
warming." I wish that was true, but the comments on the thread
simply do not back that up. If a single Senate seat was Republican
instead of Democrat, the Senate Committee on the Environment and
Public Works would be chaired by a man who says that global warming
is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind." We're talking
about a party which commands the loyalty of about 50% of
Americans.
The American public needs to have the reality of global warming
driven home to them. At a certain point, a critical mass of people
will understand the truth, the denialists will retire to the nice
houses they've bought, and a useful discussion of policy can
begin.
|3.21.07 @ 4:41PM|#
joe:
Shoot straight here. Do you not feel Gore is being alarmist to make
his pill easier (possible?) to swallow? Is it possible you are
giving him a pass on the same tactics you've criticized others for
employing?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:42PM|#
joe,
I think we can all agree that the experiences of the Vikings at
Greenland is a poor analogy at best.
|3.21.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Grotius,
You've been interesting and decent lately, but your behavior on
this thread towards thoreau is reminding me of the old days.
grylliade|3.21.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polartemperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from Antarctica."
Keeping in mind that a 3-5 degree increase in temperature is within the range of plausible temperature increases according to the report.
Yes, but joe, that's not the whole story. Ice takes time to melt.
The Greenland ice sheet would take a few centuries to completely
melt. The Antarctic ice sheet, which is about ten times as large as
the Greenland ice sheet, would take a few millennia. According to
the IPCC, if Greenland warmed by 3° by the end of the century, it
would raise sea level by about a meter over the next millennium. Of
course, that was the 2001 report, and maybe things have changed in
the intervening time. But to suggest that sea level might rise 3 m
over the next century due to ice sheet melting, when the IPCC
suggests that ice sheet melting will contribute 1 m over the next
millennium, is pretty dishonest.
|3.21.07 @ 4:45PM|#
JasonL,
Gore is a politican arguing a position, and behaving like one.
Still, he is adhering closer to the facts than his opponents.
And, most importantly, he is not deliberately and significantly
misrepresenting his opponents' statements in an effort to discredit
him, while they most certainly are doing so to him.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:47PM|#
joe,
My behavior towards thoreau? Heh.
You call people liars constantly, and my behavior is bad? You need
to look in the mirror before you say anything about the behavior
anyone else.
|3.21.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Still, he is adhering closer to the facts than his
opponents.
That is your opinion. Even in NPR, on an interview this morning, a
scientist was worried that Al Gore might be exaggerating
things a tad too much. Even that timid statement indicates that Mr.
Gore is NOT closer to the facts.
|3.21.07 @ 4:49PM|#
grylliade,
"According to the IPCC, if Greenland warmed by 3° by the end of the
century, it would raise sea level by about a meter over the next
millennium."
You're misreading the report here. If the globe warmed by 3 deg
(how did you get the degree sign to show?), it would raise sea
levels by 1 meter of the next centure, EXCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF ICE
SHEET MELTING. The report (or, rather, the summary report issued on
2/2) is quite clear on that point.
They did not analyze the effect of a 3 degree localized increase on
Greenland (warming temperatures would not be evenly spread
throughout the world), and they did not incorporate the effect of
melting caused by a 3 degree temperature increase in Greenland.
|3.21.07 @ 4:50PM|#
One other thing: I stand corrected on the word "denialist."
Lomborg does not deny the basic phenomenon, he only questions the
effects. Fair enough, but I still think his arguments about the
effects are fishy.
AND, Mr. Gore's are NOT.
Right?
|3.21.07 @ 4:50PM|#
thereau, joe, henley, any other and all reasonable - whatever
that means - folk....
I can see clearly now that the rain is gone, that Lomborg made a
hack argument (a few?) about the utility of warm vs. cold deaths,
and so on.
The IPCC report is long. I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth yet.
This debate makes one stuck in no mans land want to build a fort
out of blankets and hide until the lava turns back into carpet
again.
*gasp*
So….
Can anyone tell me what, if any, exaggerations were made in the
film? Is there any credit to this "rebuttal"?
|3.21.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Grotius,
I'm not interested in your feelings about my posting. I'm giving
you a warning: it got awful quiet here for you a little while ago,
and nobody wants to see a repeat of that.
Don't bother to argue with me any more about this, because it's my
last word on the subject.
|3.21.07 @ 4:51PM|#
"And, most importantly, he is not deliberately and significantly
misrepresenting his opponents' statements in an effort to discredit
him, while they most certainly are doing so to him."
Eh. I think there is quite a bit of that in the movie. The oil
industry shill angle is a tar and feather job.
|3.21.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Setting aside who is more right and who is more wrong, it stands
to reason that Gore et al. would be more likely to persuade
Americans (and others) to change their behaviors using more
reasonable forecasts and proposed solutions to the potential
problems reflected in those forecasts than in making extreme
statements. I'm disturbed by the absolutist position taken by even
some scientists on this issue, especially considering the
uncertainties associated with climatology.
thoreau, whether you are in love with the statements that Lomborg
has made, I think that his position is certainly more reasonable
and plausible than Gore's. To be fair, he is in the position of
having to refute extrapolations and assumptions. Not an easy task
and certainly one subject to error.
Whatever we conclude in this august setting, little will be done
about global warming that involves rolling back economic growth. We
all know that, whether we like it or not. Technology will probably
save the day, but not because of any mandates. Again, everything
looks to be moving in the right direction, and, to the extent that
we may pay the piper for our excesses, I think that we'll be able
to adapt and to endure. If things look really bad at some point,
more radical measures may become more acceptable to the people at
large.
VM|3.21.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Dr T:
you're all good!
""on the margin" analysis " is important - as you know, that's
where all the fun stuff happens!
I liked your answer and was ripping some others - unfortunately, I
don't see any of them here now, but was ripping them and supporting
you.
Apparently in my wonderful zeal for premature articulation, the
attempt at humor was, to quote Klingon Commander Kruge,
"unfortunate".
/kicks baby seal who's broken off on an ice drift. it ends up
gagging on the exhaust of my pimped out SUV
jake - what does, "do cvidaniye joe" mean?
|3.21.07 @ 4:53PM|#
JasonL,
The important part of my statement was "misrepresenting his
opponents' statements."
Jennifer|3.21.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Somebody remind Gunnels to take his goddamned mood medication, for Christ's sake.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:57PM|#
whether you are in love with the statements that Lomborg has
made, I think that his position is certainly more reasonable and
plausible than Gore's. To be fair, he is in the position of having
to refute extrapolations and assumptions. Not an easy task and
certainly one subject to error.
Which makes it all the more important that he not do sloppy things.
A few good arguments might take as much time as a bunch of weak
arguments, but they'll be more persuasive.
"We have to do something!" is not an excuse for
sloppiness.
Gamito-
I never said that Gore's arguments were strong. If I'm going to
spend time trying to root out bad arguments, I'm more likely to try
to root out those arguments from the pro-market camp (i.e. the camp
I'm sympathetic to).
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 4:57PM|#
joe,
I think at this point I'll do what a lot of people and simply put
you in the filter.
|3.21.07 @ 4:57PM|#
joe:
Purely an opinion, but I think Lomborg addressed the case Gore
intended to convey. If a 20 foot scenario isn't likely, why spend
your whole presentation talking about it?
I don't think there was malicious misrepresentation.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 4:59PM|#
I think at this point I'll do what a lot of people and
simply put you in the filter.
Pot of water from melted glaciers, meet kettle of water from flood
plain.
|3.21.07 @ 4:59PM|#
do cvidaniye
transliteration of the cyrillic characters in the Russian word for
good-bye into roman characters
|3.21.07 @ 4:59PM|#
jake - what does, "do cvidaniye joe" mean?
VM:
I'm not that "jake", but I think I recognize the song to which he
refers:
If it hadn't been for cvidaniye joe
I'd been married long time ago
Where did you come from, where did you go
Where did you come from cvidaniye joe
I think it's by the band "Rednyechs."
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.21.07 @ 5:00PM|#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=swindle&hl=en
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:01PM|#
thoreau,
Pot of water from melted glaciers, meet kettle of water from
flood plain.
You and Jennifer would be amazed at what folks say behind your back
to me. ;)
|3.21.07 @ 5:01PM|#
I was watching the teevee the other night, and one of those
Wentworth(?) ads came on; the one where the guy says he wants to
buy your "structured settlement" so you can have your money Right
Now.
And it occurred to me: "I bet they have some big fun explaining
discount rates and the present value of a dollar to some hillbilly
who thinks five hundred dollars per month for twenty years is the
same as $120k today."
I don't know why skipping around the comments in this thread made
me think of that.
|3.21.07 @ 5:03PM|#
but I think I recognize the song to which he
refers
I'm not that bright, but I am that jake.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:03PM|#
thoreau,
I could post it all, but I ain't involed that sort of long term
animosity.
You jumped to apparently a number of ill-concieved conclusions
about Lomborg's arguments, etc. And now you are now falling back on
stuff that has nothing to do with with the argument at hand.
VM|3.21.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Thanks Jake and Jake Boon!
I really like JB's translation, too! That's hilarious!
(sounded it out with that prompt, and get it! woo hoo! "dos ve
danya")
LOL!
for all of those using the filter - it's really fun to put yourself
in the filter. I found it's particularly good for ignoring any
posts that embarrass myself further! I recommend that (as well as
the shorn scrotum, of course)
P Brooks - JG Wentworth. Thank Cthulu for mute!
|3.21.07 @ 5:05PM|#
But thoreau, that applies triple to what Gore is saying. Look, I'd prefer to have Jesus come and tell me the exact truth of what's going on here and what we should do, but that's not going to happen. Barring omniscient advice, why is Gore's flagrant errorosity any worse than Lomborg's? Who is making the extraordinary claims and requiring the greatest actions on our part? If you're expressing disappointment in Lomborg as a scientist and holding him to a higher standard, well, I don't have a problem with that. But as far as truth-seeking goes, I'm not happy with the guy who is getting all of the attention. And Lomborg isn't a potential candidate for the White House, either.
von Laue|3.21.07 @ 5:06PM|#
RAAAAH GLOBAL WARMENING RAAAH FACK YOU
Jesus. I'm starting to really hate every single one of you
limp-dick intarweb warriors. STFU & GTBW.
|3.21.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Because you all asked for my opinion:
If everyone would stop arguing from assumed motives by the
opposition, the world would be a better place.
"Lefties blah blah blah..."
"Denialists blah blah ..."
"Chickenhawks blah ..."
"Alarmists always ...."
If these people are making arguments, at a place called Reason, we
should address those arguments. If they are themselves making
sloppy generalizations, we should probably ignore them for the
duration of the time they employ that tactic.
If someone catches me doing this, please burn me for it.
That was me on a high horse. I apologize.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.21.07 @ 5:09PM|#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=swindle&hl=en
Thoreau,
Please watch this video and blog about it. As someone that is
constantly questioning global warming skeptics based on science,
I'd like to know how you're going to attack the scientists in this
video.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Anyway, for the sort of argument that Lomborg is making his clearly non-definitive assessment of heat and cold deaths seems reasonable.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 5:10PM|#
You jumped to apparently a number of ill-concieved
conclusions about Lomborg's arguments, etc.
I used the adjective "denialist" as a general description. His
arguments certainly have that flavor, although he himself is not a
denialist.
Still, I admitted my errors there.
For my more specific criticisms, I referred specifically to the
report, the footnotes, and references. So I'd say I was quite
reasonable there. You can't counter "X number of additional deaths
will happen" with "1.5 million deaths are happening right now." You
have to be able to say "Yes, but Y number of those 1.5 million
winter-related deaths will be avoided."
PL-
I'm not saying that the other side should be held to a lower
standard. I'm saying that the best way to counter bad arguments is
with good arguments. If people that I generally sympathize with are
casting their lot with a guy using sloppy arguments, I'm going to
say "Whoah, careful!" I'm not going to say "Eh, whatever, the other
side is worse."
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Jason-
If everyone would stop arguing from assumed motives by the
opposition, the world would be a better place.
I may have used an adjective that makes implications about motives,
but I also made specific criticisms of his arguments, and suggested
that he isn't actually refuting anything, he's merely sounding like
he's refuting anything.
TPG-
Like I said, I'm more interested in persuading the people that I'm
generally sympathetic to that they need to find the best possible
arguments for their side.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:15PM|#
thoreau,
For the sake of eternal peace between us, if I was really
interested in a personal flame war with you I have a ton of
ammunition I could use that I don't use because in a personal flame
with you. I am sure that is also the case with you.
Anyway...
His arguments certainly have that flavor...
See, I don't think that they do. They sound like a lot of what I
see of what "moderate" climate change folks think.
Still, I admitted my errors there.
And that was really shiny of you to do so.
For my more specific criticisms, I referred specifically to the
report, the footnotes, and references. So I'd say I was quite
reasonable there. You can't counter "X number of additional deaths
will happen" with "1.5 million deaths are happening right now." You
have to be able to say "Yes, but Y number of those 1.5 million
winter-related deaths will be avoided."
Yes, but he merely stated that was a "reasonable estimate" and that
must be read in the context of the whole report. So yes, if you
read that statement in isolation it may whacked, but it doesn't
seem whacked in light of the full report and its overall theme.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Several commenters made the statement that climate change
over several decades would be unlikely to have an effect
I've looked (briefly) for them. Who? Which comments.
Okay, taking a break from joe-baiting for a minute here, I see
thoreau's point and generally agree; but -- deep cleansing breath
-- both Gore and Lomborg in this particular case are doing
roughly the same thing; to wit, one says "Hey, look at this!" and
the other goes "Yeah, but look at that!"
Gore's a true believer, by which I mean I think he is absolutely
sincere in his beliefs about global warming (a hypocrite in his
lifestyle as a result, but that's a different rant). Lomborg? Seems
to me he's not so much a true believer as, in general, a guy with
some actual scientific training who has come to the conclusion that
many of the public arguments being advanced by Gore and others (but
not necessarily every global warming activist or believer) are
exaggerated and deserving of criticism. So, are some of his
arguments equally deserving of criticism? Sure. We might expect him
to be all the more careful but, hell, we might expect the same of
Gore.
joe likes to throw the word "deniers" a lot. I know a few people
who fit that category (and they are true believers, too), but I
don't hear that nearly as much here as I hear what I take
to be fairly healthy skepticism. Perhaps that skepticism is less
and less reasonable as far as the scientific part of the debate is
concerned (hence Mr. Bailey's about-face), but I have yet to hear a
good argument as to why continued skepticism on the political /
policy side of the argument isn't merited, especially when it seems
to me that it is invariably in those policy arguments that both
sides whip out their best case / worst case scenarios to beat each
other over the head and sway the undecided with. (JasonL's 4:57
comment is on the money in that regard.)
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Yes, but he merely stated that was a "reasonable estimate"
and that must be read in the context of the whole
report.
In the context of the report it becomes clear that he says nothing
about the extent to which the 1.5 million number would change, and
hence offers nothing to refute body count predictions from those
talking about floods, tropical diseases, etc. It's a number that
sounds scary but in the context of the report does not actually
refute anything.
I hope that the people that I sympathize with will stay away from
such arguments.
VM|3.21.07 @ 5:19PM|#
more on Lomborg's career
Dr. T has spoken about this in other threads, too. He clearly has
stated in the past that there are some good arguments and some bad
ones. Whenever there's a bad one, he talks about the idea,
regardless of the team.
Remember the SUV vs Electric car controversy?
It's about making a good argument. Sure we play fast and loose with
the rhetoric, cuz it's a board, but there are those times when an
argument for the good guys is based on the "moon = green chaez
(sic)" premise.
That does not do any favors. Media does this when gun arguments are
brought up.
It's cool. Gro was probing and challenging. Again, it's all
good.
c'mon.... Group hug!
no?
group yiffing?
/kicks pebble
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.21.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Like I said, I'm more interested in persuading the people
that I'm generally sympathetic to that they need to find the best
possible arguments for their side.
Watch the damned video.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:20PM|#
JasonL,
If everyone would stop arguing from assumed motives by the
opposition, the world would be a better place.
Yes, I agree, on the money.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 5:21PM|#
both Gore and Lomborg in this particular case are doing
roughly the same thing; to wit, one says "Hey, look at this!" and
the other goes "Yeah, but look at that!"
Symbolic logic:
If Gore's tactics = Lomborg's tactics
and
Gore's tactics = weak
What does that say about Lomborg's tactics?
What does that say about the wisdom of citing Lomborg as a useful
refutation?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:22PM|#
thoreau,
In the context of the report it becomes clear that he says
nothing about the extent to which the 1.5 million number would
change, and hence offers nothing to refute body count predictions
from those talking about floods, tropical diseases, etc. It's a
number that sounds scary but in the context of the report does not
actually refute anything.
I don't that it was supposed to definitively refute anything,
except for perhaps alarmism. Which it does.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:24PM|#
thoreau,
Lomborg's main deal appears to be reign to in alarmism. It isn't to
come up with definitive solutions, conclusions, etc. So in light of
what I see as the nature of the report his again seems
reasonable.
|3.21.07 @ 5:30PM|#
I really don't see the big problem with Lomborg's statements. He
simply says that global warming is a real and man-made problem, but
it's not going to kill everyone.
Further, if it is human life we are worried about saving, then we
can save many more lives for a lot less money by focusing on other
issues. Cutting carbon emissions ala Kyoto, by comparison, will
cost a lot and do very, very little.
While we're busy mitigating diseases, improving the economies of
3rd world countries, improving sanitation and feeding people, we
can also be researching better methods of checking AGW. That way,
in 50-100 years, after saving millions and millions of lives we
will be able to focus our attention on AGW... and have the
technology to implement a rational and cost-effective
solution.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound crazy to me at all. That sounds
downright practical.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Stretch,
In the interviews I've seen of him he appears to favor a
cost-benefit analysis approach to environmental issues.
|3.21.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Oh Nostradamus....I can't give you partial credit for your tortured historical pronunciation...so close though!
VM|3.21.07 @ 5:42PM|#
"Grotius | March 21, 2007, 5:29pm | #
VM,
Remember, when I'm probing and such I'm clearly off my meds.
;)"
Understood! I'd let you borrow some of mine, but I seemed to have
thrown them away! You'll be happy (right?) that Auburn repeated
NCAA swimming title! Amazing!
Hey Nostradamus - you do know what you're saying, right? That
Grotius is the River Danube??? Not the same thing. Not fair.
hrumph.
HUMPERDINK!
HUMPERDINK HUMPERDINK HUMPERDINK!!!
|3.21.07 @ 5:43PM|#
joe-
So, you're saying, that while the ippc authors decided not to
include putative ice sheet contributions due to limited
understanding or a lack of consensus on the magnitude, Al "none of
this is controversial, the science is in" Gore extrapolated future
sea levels from historic polar temperatures and sea levels?
Brilliant. And it gets better. These historic sea levels were still
lower than the 20 feet increase he's fond of. This is some very,
very lame stuff joe.
I'm going to give him the benefit and assume he just hasn't updated
his talking points from the TAR. Which I'm still plowing through
trying to find his justification for the 20 feet business.
|3.21.07 @ 5:46PM|#
D.A.R.,
No, I don't feel like going back through the comment thread for
you, and I don't feel like an exchange parsing the term "no
effect." I think it's pretty clear who I'm talking about, and what
they were saying, to a reasonably intelligent reader, and I'll not
waste my time with fools.
"but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why continued
skepticism on the political / policy side of the argument isn't
merited"
I haven't heard a single argument, good bad or indifferent, as to
why skepticism on the political/policy side of the argument isn't
merited. By all means, let's have a vigorous debate about the best
way to solve this real, serious, manmade, dangerous problem.
D.A. Ridgely|3.21.07 @ 5:47PM|#
thoreau:
A snippy reply would start with a critique of your, um, symbolic
logic, but I don't want to play. The non-snippy answer is, sure,
Lomborg is a less than ideal source and yadda, yadda. But this
isn't purely a matter of science, let alone of logic and
(1) it's foolish to expect Lomborg (let alone Gore) to play by your
preferred rules in this particular context and (2) neither of them
have to do so in order for their claims to have some probative
value.
No one (except God, and He isn't playing) can say for sure what the
weather will be like in 2107, as you well know; so we're left with
a hodge-podge of overlapping and conflicting predictions and we're
trying to figure out which claim is credible and just how credible
it is and what might make it more or less credible, which claim is
dubious and how dubious it is, etc., etc.
Look, if all you want to contend is that no one should take Lombord
as the final word on these questions, fine. You're right. If you
want to say "Hey, look at this... his assertion doesn't seem to be
satisfactorily substantiated for this reason or that," that's fine,
too. Hell, e-mail the guy and pose your concerns. (My guess is you
might even get a fairly well reasoned reply.)
But my earlier statement that in some respects both Gore and
Lombord are engaged in the same sort of (non-scientific) process
here does not permit the inference that they are therefore equally
credible or equally lacking in credibility. All sorts of other
factors go into that determination.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 5:48PM|#
VM,
So Hister is another term for the River Danube? Hmm, didn't know
that.
|3.21.07 @ 5:49PM|#
I have not read the IPCC report thoroughly, but see page 17. It
says that, with complete melting of ice in Greenland, sea levels
could go up an additional 7 m (22 feet) over MILLENIA! That gives
us a little time to figure this thing out.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
VM and Grotius:
War Eagle! By the way, Auburn repeated as National Champions in
both men's and women's swimming.
|3.21.07 @ 5:49PM|#
"If everyone would stop arguing from assumed motives by the
opposition, the world would be a better place."
Here here.
|3.21.07 @ 5:54PM|#
thoreau,
Point taken, and I generally agree. Using a good argument to attack
a bad one is certainly better than using a weak one. It's like
attacking Creationism because everyone knows that God was out of
town that week.
|3.21.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Kent,
Florida mocks you, and mocks you well. Feel the mockery flowing
through you and the rest of the SEC. Ah, glory.
I hope this last a while longer.
VM|3.21.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Hi Gro!
IIRC it's the lower Danube (Romania/Bulgaria??? area)
Kent! wow - I didn't know Auburn also won the women's title!
Amazing! And in D3, Kenyon women didn't win! amazing news all
around!
ProL: yeah - cuz your team might do the Football/Hoops double!
Would be hilarious against OSU a second time!
|3.21.07 @ 6:09PM|#
VM,
Although internal SEC chest-thumping is enjoyable, the
schadenfreude associated with Ohio State is even better :)
We'll get ours soon enough, of course. Too many opportunities to
stumble to expect any repeats, but I'd love to see it. I do think
UF's basketball team is still the nation's best, but the best has
lost Tournament before.
|3.21.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Pro Libertate,
I hope you are talking about basketball, which no self-respecting
Alabaman even knows about. If you are talking about football:
Auburn 27, National Champions 17! Do you think maybe UF was a
beneficiary of BCS regret for having chosen Oklahoma over Auburn in
2004?
As much as UF humbled OSU, and USC humbled UM, I saw where some
Michigan fans STILL thought the NC game should have been an OSU/UM
rematch. Go figure.
Grotius,
I spent a week in Iceland a couple of years ago and was inspired to
read the sagas. I was amazed at how advanced Icelandic culture
(legal system, e.g.) was and the volume of literature put out by a
tiny settlement in the middle of nowhere 7-800 years ago.
|3.21.07 @ 6:19PM|#
"I haven't heard a single argument, good bad or indifferent, as
to why skepticism on the political/policy side of the argument
isn't merited. By all means, let's have a vigorous debate about the
best way to solve this real, serious, manmade, dangerous
problem."
I'd position that a bit differently. If the problem is defined as
the net negative outcomes that we know will result from global
warming, and we hold ourselves to that standard, I don't think
there is a lot of disagreement.
My concerns are:
1) Carbon control is not temperature control. If drastic carbon
control is proposed as a solution to a problem, I want to know the
costs and benefits. The costs to the whole Gore plan are really
high. I have no idea if I'm buying even a degree reduction in
average temperature in a hundred years. Even a true believer would
be nuts to take that deal.
2) We can't overlook opportunity costs. At some level of cost, we'd
be much better off investing in living on a warmer planet. Also,
and this is important, it doesn't matter if warming was man made or
not. All we should care about is the outcome.
3) Projections 100 years out are pure fantasy due to the variables
involved. I don't think you can legitimately make an urgency claim
this far in advance.
|3.21.07 @ 6:22PM|#
joe-
What I found in the TAR ...
"This range is higher than the 0.7-3.5°C of the SAR because of
higher levels of radiative forcing in the SRES scenarios than in
the IS92a-f scenariosâprimarily as a result of lower sulfate
aerosol emissions, especially after 2050. The equivalent range of
estimates of global sea-level rise (for this range of global
temperature change in combination with a range of ice melt
sensitivities) to 2100 is 9-88 cm (compared to 15-95 cm in the
SAR). [3.2.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2]" Working Group II, section 3.5
of the technical summary
So, including ice melt we're talking 1/3 to 3 feet. I'm still
looking for that outside projection of 20 feet. Want to help me
out?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Kent,
I've wanted to go Iceland for a while now. Looks like a fun place
to visit.
|3.21.07 @ 6:24PM|#
I've been swamped with a new job and impending marriage, so I
skipped the picks this year. I recall having a weird SEC moment and
thinking it might be Vandy-UF, but I'm not enough of a homer to
pick that one. I think UF might be able to do it, but I don't blame
anyone for doubting that they'll roll all sevens again.
Kent,
Oh, sure, but an SEC championship and national glory erase such
defeats. That was a weird game, but you won, nonetheless. As for
people who think the Big Ten should've had any representation in
the BCS bowl games. . .ha! It's Big Ten homerism that gets us these
absurdly high rankings for clearly inferior teams (I speak of the
present--the Big 10 has had its moments, of course).
|3.21.07 @ 6:32PM|#
JasonL,
Those are reasonable points. Let me take them one by one.
1. On carbon reduction, everyone realizes there will need to be a
certain period of ramp-up before we're getting into serious cuts.
We start now with what we can do, and we work towards practices and
technologies that would require greater reductions later. Both our
knowledge of the problem and of possible solutions will only expand
with time. It's an interesting theoretical debate to discuss
whether a dramatic cut right now would be a net gain or loss, but
it's a moot argument.
2. Well put. And since we're going to have to start our responses
and adaptations to climate change regardless of what we do, and
since they, too, would take time, this is an iterative process,
just like carbon reduction efforts.
3. That depends on the projections. Obviously, they can only be
made a certain degree of specificity. But if your only point here
is that we shouldn't take action immediately necessary to ward off
what is projected 100 years from now, don't worry. Once again,
we're talking about a ramp-up.
|3.21.07 @ 6:34PM|#
pigwiggle,
Stop looking at the six-year-old TAR and look at the month and a
half old fourth report - or, actually, the executive summary that's
been released.
Hope that was helpful.
|3.21.07 @ 6:42PM|#
joe-
Don't be ignorant. Gore didn't get his 20 feet figure from the
newest executive summary. He's been running that thing since
Inconvenient Truth. And if you insist, well, I refer you to my 5:43
post. That quote you pulled is all but worthless.
|3.21.07 @ 6:43PM|#
joe:
So, you'd agree to a public policy stamp on policies that are not
expensive or substantially harmful to economic growth, holding out
on more expensive/drastic measures until we know they are worth
doing?
You could call this a 'ramp up' phase to appease your sense that we
are taking steps but more will be required. I can call it a cheap
compromise creates some bureaucracy and regulation, but by
definition doesn't cause a lot of pain.
If so, all we have to do is define 'expensive' in a mutually
agreeable way. I'm sure that won't be contentious ...
|3.21.07 @ 6:45PM|#
"He's been running that thing since Inconvenient Truth."
Apparently, he's been following the research and the state of the
science closer than you or I.
I understand he's rather committed to the issue.
|3.21.07 @ 6:48PM|#
JasonL,
No, I think we should make the commitment to major steps right now.
Not the steps right now, the commitment.
First we do A, then we do B, then we do C, and on and on, each step
more substantial than the last.
At the level of philosophy, this is quite different than what you
suggest, but at the level of practice, we aren't going to diverge
until B or C or D, at which point one or both of us is going to
have moved closer to the other's position.
|3.21.07 @ 6:48PM|#
TPG-
I misunderstood you. I thought that you were asking me to be
even-handed and go after scientists pushing bad arguments for
reducing CO2 emissions. Now I see that you're asking me whether
I'll agree with what the scientists in that video say, since those
scientists argue against reducing CO2 emissions.
For all I know the scientists in that video may be right, and they
may be putting forth very good arguments for their side. Fair
enough. At some point I'll watch it and comment.
I haven't said much in favor of reducing CO2 emissions. Mostly what
I've said is that if libertarians are interested in arguing against
climate scientists they should either make good scientific
arguments or stick to areas where they have some useful insights to
offer. Libertarians, as a group, have a lot of insights to offer on
matters of policy. But while some individual libertarians may have
useful insights and detailed knowledge concerning climate science,
the libertarian movement as a whole (including its think-tanks)
doesn't have an especial advantage on matters of heat transport,
fluid flow, and whatnot. Yet a movement without especial expertise
in that area nonetheless features a great many people who until
recently argued quite strongly that the science was weak.
It seems a poor allocation of intellectual resources.
FWIW, many of my fellow scientists are shockingly ignorant on
matters of economics and naive on unintended consequences and human
consequences in policy. Libertarians have much to teach them.
|3.21.07 @ 6:52PM|#
I understand he's rather committed to the issue.
Just not committed enough to, say, live in just one house, with
less than 20x what his neighbors use in energy. Or to stop flying
everywhere by private jet. I know, hypocrisy doesn't mean he's
wrong -- but it does suggest he's not as committed as he
claims.
(I assume zinc strip-mines do not contribute to global
warming.)
|3.21.07 @ 6:56PM|#
"No, I think we should make the commitment to major steps right
now. Not the steps right now, the commitment."
Hmm. I don't know what 'commitment to major steps' means. If it
means I have to write a check in the absence of knowing what I'm
buying, or if it means that I'm constraining myself to a certain
course of action because of a fuzzy picture of what human activity
in 100 years will look like, I'm not on board.
I'm willing to pay a little to buy some carbon reduction even
though I don't know what objective benefit (i.e. the impact to
temperature) might be. As the cost of my commitment to carbon
reduction goes up, I have to eventually ask "Why do I care about
carbon instead of outcomes again?"
|3.21.07 @ 6:56PM|#
If thoreau's suggesting that if we're going to rent a room from
a guy that throws a lot of rocks, that we'd better make sure the
house isn't made of glass, then the point's well taken.
...'cause these days, I'm probably too quick to congratulate just
about anybody who's denouncing fear mongering.
|3.21.07 @ 6:56PM|#
Grotius,
Iceland is a very interesting place, from the fact that people are
listed in the (and it is "the") phonebook by first names to all the
weird geological stuff.
Pro Libertate,
Auburn won its only NC in football (or any major sport, for that
matter) the year before I was born. I don't think they will win
another before I die no matter how good they are. They always seem
to be on the wrong side of the argument:
BYU won a NC in football because they were the only undefeated
team. Auburn was the only undefeated team in the nation in 1993,
but they finished fourth in the final poll because their schedule
was supposedly weak. Weaker than BYU's??
However, Auburn had perhaps the toughest schedule in the nation in
1983 (Having played 4 of the final top eight teams.) and had a
record as good as anyone in the nation. They finished third behind
Miami (Which lost handily to UF, Auburn and Miami's only common
oppoent, while AU beat UF.) and Nebraska (Which only played one of
the final top 25 teams!). Go figure.
Of course, the 2004 snub is fresh in every collge football fans'
memory.
|3.21.07 @ 6:59PM|#
joe-
I see. You just want to dodge the question. Someone calls your
bluff and digs into the ipcc, and you get shifty. That's fine.
Lame, but fine with me.
|3.21.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Ah, Shelby, you need to keep up on your talking points.
Otherwise, you end up easily dismissed through a simple cut and
paste job.
Like so:
"It's funny, you see conservatives raise five complaints about
environmentalist reforms:
1. They're coercive, not voluntary.
2. They're one-size-fits-all, not tailored to individual
situations.
3. They harm the economy.
4. They don't utilize the profit motive to create a market for the
changes they'd like to see.
5. They insist on drastic steps that would harm "our way of
life."
So Gore starts taking money out of his own pocket to subsidize a
clean energy project in Europe - a voluntary measure, tailored to
his own situation, that doesn't harm the economy in any way
whatwsoever, that serves to create a market for clean power, and
that makes barely a dent in his way of life - and he's accused for
hypocrisy for not adopting positions that Shelby is just sure all
environmentalists really support."
|3.21.07 @ 7:07PM|#
JasonL,
"Hmm. I don't know what 'commitment to major steps' means."
It means you get engaged before you get married.
It means you call in your pledge to PBS, work the donation into
your budget, and send the check a few weeks later.
Let's keep in mind that the initial steps - such as those called
for under Kyoto - may have a low cost/benefit analysis, but they
will pave the way for future advances that will have a much more
attractive ratio.
|3.21.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Whatever, pigwiggle. You want to ask where Al Gore gets his data, ask Al Gore. If you want to discuss global warming, do so.
|3.21.07 @ 7:12PM|#
"It means you get engaged before you get married."
Somehow, this doesn't clarify. ;)
Is it like being engaged for 20 years to a girl I met in the club
last weekend, buying a new and more expensive ring every year?
|3.21.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Global Warming is a scam cooked up by the Clintons, Gore, and
some other leading Dems. They have formed a syndicate that has been
buying large tracts of land in Upstate New York dirt-cheap. How
they are telling people that the earth is warming and the oceans
rising - so where would the best place to invest your money? That's
right, Buffalo and Syracuse New York. In a couple of years the
Queen City and Salt City will be the new South Beach. They are
telling people that they have a once in a lifetime chance to get in
on the ground floor (at a 400% mark-up).
How do I know? I cooked up the scheme sold it to the syndicate and
then sold them large tracts of land at a 300% mark-up.
|3.21.07 @ 7:24PM|#
JasonL,
That wouldn't be a good comparison, because additional rings don't
make you any more engaged.
Paul|3.21.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Should the climate in Atlanta become like the climate in
Ecuador, it will still have housing, infrastructure, etc. designed
for the conditions of present-day Atlanta.
This, on its face, is deceptive joe. On the one hand, one could say
that Atlanta wouldn't still have the infrastructure of modern day
Atlanta should the effects of GW become apparent. Unless of course
the climate changed to that of Ecuador in a three month period.
That won't happen. It simply won't. The next issue wrong with this
is you make grand assumptions about the range of climate change
that may affect a city like Atlanta. Will the climate of Atlanta be
more like Ecuador, or a little hotter or a little dryer than
Atlanta is now? Or will it be a little hotter and a little more
moist? Or, joe, will the climate in Atlanta become cooler? Y'see,
the problem with this here climate change debate as presented by
the Global Warming Industrial Complex is that often times the
argument for what changes will occur are wildly different depending
on the location. Some places get more rain, some less. Some places
get warmer, some cooler. Some places see floods, some see droughts.
Even if we take the prognostications from the Global Warming
Industrial Compex at face value, some places with the
infrastructure built to deal with whatever localized weather
affects the area is used to could actually see the stresses on that
infrastructure diminish. Let me be more clear: Not every
effect of GW will be a net negative. There will be mixes of
poistives and negatives, and few people- including but not limited
to the IPCC can say what, where, or how much that effect will
be.
Lomborg is not being dishonest here at all. Not at all. He's merely
alluding to the issue that along with the negative effects there
are also positive effects which may balance eachother out.
|3.21.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Ken-
Pretty much. If environmentalist proposals are the greatest threat
facing continued economic growth, then a guy whose arguments smell
funny is not the champion I'm looking for to avert this threat.
|3.21.07 @ 7:30PM|#
joe-
Whatever, pigwiggle. You want to ask where Al Gore gets his
data, ask Al Gore. If you want to discuss global warming, do
so.
You said it ..."Uh, no, the figures Gore gives for what would
happen IF THE ICE SHEETS MELT are completely in line with what the
IPCC says would happen IF THE ICE SHEETS MELT." ... and I say you
are full of shit. That's all.
I even went digging to find where the ipcc (including the tar and
sar) says if the ice sheets melt the sea will rise 20 feet. It
doesn't. The tar and sar do include estimates based on ice melt.
They are in the range of 1/3 to 3 feet. But apparently the ice melt
models are too flakey to include and they were set aside for the
fourth assessment. Sack up; admit you were talking out your
ass.
|3.21.07 @ 7:35PM|#
hey!
thoreau, gunnels!
i thought i told you two to cut this out. you're arguing again, but
i have yet to get one laugh out of it.
if you two can't bitch at each other without making one witty
cultural reference, posting a picture of a crazy owl, or some other
variety of fun i have yet to countenance, maybe you'd best not
bitch at all.
don't make me demonstrate on mr. moose's noam chomsky doll.
"where did the man touch you. show us on the doll"
you have our... ingratitude.
|3.21.07 @ 7:37PM|#
Joe,
I'm afraid you didn't actually address my point. It IS hypocritical
of him, regardless of his European projects. He's still emitting
the excessive amounts of carbon and other warming gasses in the US,
while lecturing everyone about the need to reduce emissions of
same.
Second, I AM an environmentalist (as well as a libertarian), so I
don't know what you think you accomplish by projecting your
anti-environmentalist stereotype about libertarians onto me.
Next time, stay away from the cut-and-paste; it may just stay stuck
on you.
|3.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
"We can't overlook opportunity costs. At some level of cost,
we'd be much better off investing in living on a warmer planet.
Also, and this is important, it doesn't matter if warming was man
made or not. All we should care about is the outcome."
Just a small point about the "worst-case scenario."
Gore does not present the worst case scenario.The worst case
scenario has to do with oceanic anoxia resulting from global
warming...
"A model put forward by Lee Kump, Alexander Pavlov and Michael
Arthur in 2005 suggests that oceanic anoxic events may have been
characterized by upwelling of water rich in highly toxic hydrogen
sulfide gas which was then injected into the atmosphere. This
phenomenon would likely have poisoned plants and animals and caused
mass extinctions. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the
hydrogen sulfide rose to the upper atmosphere and attacked the
ozone layer, which normally blocks the deadly ultraviolet radiation
of the Sun. The increased UV radiation caused by this ozone
depletion would have amplified the destruction of plant and animal
life. Fossil spores from strata recording the Permian extinction
show deformities consistent with UV radiation. This evidence,
combined with fossil biomarkers of green sulfur bacteria, indicates
that this process could have played a role in that mass extinction
event, and possibly other extinction events. The trigger for these
mass extinctions appears to be a warming of the ocean caused by a
rise of carbon dioxide levels to about 1000 parts per
million."
IIRC that level of carbon dioxide will be reached in roughly 200
years at the current rate of acceleration. The numbers on species
extinction are in the low 90%.
This would be much more difficult to adapt to than coastal
flooding. We have much longer to deal with the worst case scenario,
but Gore does not present the worst case scenario.
What I don't understand in the debate is the attitude that says,
essentially, "just ignore the problem and the market and technology
will take care of it." When, in fact, the market and technology
will only respond to the problem if we don't ignore it and set
goals (such as reducing CO2 by 90% in 43 years). Setting a goals of
90% reduction does not by itself do anything to harm the economy.
Requiring the market to adapt to new goals doesn't, in itself, do
any harm to the economy. The predictions on the impact of certain
solutions on both the climate and the economy have a great degree
of uncertainty. People should be skeptical about both the climate
effects and the economic effects... but ignoring the problem or
taking a business as usual approach seems unwise.
Given the worst case scenario we would want to avoid.
|3.21.07 @ 7:43PM|#
pigwiggle,
You want the quote again? OK.
"Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about
125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar
ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present,
because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed
no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica."
Neither I, nor Gore, are talking out of our asses. There's one
possible source for the claim, right there, in the fourth report.
As I already told you.
|3.21.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Shelby,
Why is this so confusing?
"He's still emitting the excessive amounts of carbon and other
warming gasses in the US, while lecturing everyone about the need
to reduce emissions of same."
He's both reducing his carbon output in the short term, and
contributing to transformational efforts to reduce it in the long
term. Gee, he's not living in a mud hut? He didn't say we need to
live in mud huts. He said we need to start making changes in our
own lives, as well as work collectively for transformation
solutions.
|3.21.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Never mind, Joe. You seem unwilling to see my point. Rest assured that, more broadly and aside from Mr. Gore, I agree with you on the potential problems of global warming. I'm less confident that it's manmade and that it's very predictable, but it nonetheless needs to be taken seriously and addressed by changes in human behavior, including but not limited to energy generation and usage.
|3.21.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Shelby,
I see your point, and if Gore was one of those "deep ecologists"
arguing that only a return to pre-industrial levels of technology
could solve the problem, it would be a good one.
Frankly, there are a lot of Chicken Littles running around and
wailing that environmentalists like Gore want exactly that. It's
probably a good thing that he's demonstrating otherwise.
|3.21.07 @ 7:56PM|#
"Setting a goals of 90% reduction does not by itself do anything
to harm the economy."
A goal proposed over 43 years doesn't seem to have an impact, but
what are the yearly targets? What are the consequences for not
meeting those targets? What are the costs of meeting them? What
else would that money have been spent on? On the surface you would
at least be talking about an increased cost for all meaningful
energy production. That is an additional cost for every action
taken by every individual and every company.
|3.21.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Pigwiggle,
I posted this earlier:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
Page 17 refers to the ocean levels possibly rising 7 m (23 feet) in
MILLENIA due to melting of Greenland's ice cap. I'll let someone 50
generations or so from now start worrying about it rather than
getting worked up about it myself.
|3.21.07 @ 7:59PM|#
I've never thought Gore needs to live in a mud hut to demonstrate his seriousness. Flying commercial (first class if he pleases) and limiting his heating bill to, say, five times the average for his city would be a start. His lifestyle is blatantly at odds with his rhetoric; that undercuts the rhetoric. If he understood that better, he might be president now.
|3.21.07 @ 8:05PM|#
More on the Oceanic Anoxia thing...From SciAm Online October
2006...
"Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But
with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and
expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by
the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place."
JasonL.
Those are indeed the questions to ask when a specific policy
proposal is made. I don't think Gore's proposal is detailed enough
to probe at that level yet.
|3.21.07 @ 8:10PM|#
"On the surface you would at least be talking about an increased
cost for all meaningful energy production. That is an additional
cost for every action taken by every individual and every
company."
This, I believe, is not accurate.
It means that since energy costs more, you choose the most energy
efficient way to take that action. No need to choose to use the
same amount of energy to get that task done. It means a shift in
the means and methods for meeting goals, but it does not lead,
automatically, to increased cost for each goal to be met.
If you are actually interested in a more detailed look at the
issues from a market friendly perspective, I would suggest this
book.
http://www.natcap.org/
|3.21.07 @ 8:25PM|#
I'm not well educated enough to have a strong opinion about
various theories and counter-theories related to climate change. I
am well educated enough to say categorically that when a guy lives
in three houses, and flys on a private jet, while advocating (and
let's be clear what the guy had advocated) that people do all that
they can to reduce their carbon footprint PRIOR to purchasing
carbon offsets, because human civilization rests in the balance, he
is a deeply silly man, or thinks everybody else is a dunce.
Before the ridiculous argument is put forth that "do all that you
can" is synonymous with an individually tailored "as much as you
can handle", as was done in this forum a few weeks ago, let it be
noted that a guy who can only handle living in three homes and
flying by private jet should just shut up rather than advise other
people regarding their living habits.
|3.21.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Neu, Gore explicitly casts his argument in moral terms, in regards to the implications of carbon consumption. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to examine his behavior as an indicator of whether he is sincere in his beliefs. No, hypocrisy is not the worst of all human behaviors, but it is something to consider when examining arguments pertaining to morality.
|3.21.07 @ 8:33PM|#
A couple of companies that have just decided to make money based
on a market for green solutions to peoples problems...
http://www.flexcar.com/
http://www.interfaceinc.com/
More of this kind of innovation will go farther to reduce
government solutions to the problem than any amount of complaining
about Gore's rhetoric.
|3.21.07 @ 8:35PM|#
Neu, serial adulterers aren't listened to when they talk about
the value of fidelity. People who have a 30% body fat percentage
are not listened to if they talk about gluttony as bad behavior.
O.J. Simpson isn't listened to if he talks about the evils of
domestic abuse.
This is wholly unsurprising.
|3.21.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Neu, how is repeating Gore's words wasting words? Do the words he emits mean something? Maybe he should hold up a red flag when he is saying words which are meant to be wasted?
|3.21.07 @ 8:43PM|#
Will.
You are not repeating Gore's words.
You are wasting many of your owns on a pointless debate about his
character. Move past it to see if the ideas he promotes have any
merit. The value of those ideas will have nothing to do with his
character.
|3.21.07 @ 8:50PM|#
Joe,
Yes, and Bill Clinton's ideas regarding fidelity to one's spouse
should be considered on their own merits. But if you don't live up
to your own rhetoric, people start to tune you out even if your
ideas make sense.
|3.21.07 @ 8:52PM|#
Joe,
Yes.
And that is why you should spend less time fueling debates about
his character.
|3.21.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Sorry, Neu, when one casts one words in explicitly moral terms,
as Gore has chosen to do (why do you object so much when others
attempt to take Gore's moral pronouncements at face value?), then,
no, one's character simply is not going to be ignored. That is how
the world works.
Gore should either be smart enough to grasp this, or Gore should
shut up, because listening to stupid politicians is a negative
externality also.
|3.21.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Shelby, Will,
I haven't noticed Mr. Gore having a great deal of trouble getting
his message out. Nor have I noticed the growing awareness and
concern about global warming slowing. Quite the opposite, as a
matter of fact.
N.M.,
Right you are. I shouldn't let these people drag me down to their
level. I guess I have an emotional response to the sight of bullies
and heathers picking on the smart kid, but I should be more careful
about being drawn in, and letting them change the subject.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Mr. Steven Crane,
What, you didn't like my "Petered out" line to fish? Come on man,
the apostles were supposed to be fishers of men! Peter was an
apostle... ;)
|3.21.07 @ 9:30PM|#
none of you are funny.
guy montag is funnier than you are, and he has a crap sense of
humor. his jokes about carbon credits are the equivalent of
gallagher smashing a watermelon.
|3.21.07 @ 9:35PM|#
joe, at what level is one, when one notes that when a speaker
advocates x as a moral imperative, an observation is almost always
made as to whether the speaker is adhering to his own advocacy? Not
for the first time today, joe, it has to be noted that you are
writing some very, very, odd statements.
Lemme know when Gulfstream Al starts convincing large numbers of
people to, in his words, "reduce their carbon footprint as much as
possible" prior to purchasing offsets. I'm sure his sterling
example will be inspirational.
|3.21.07 @ 9:37PM|#
didn't see that, grotius. but then again my eyes are still burning from the formula 409 spray.
|3.21.07 @ 9:41PM|#
Do tell, joe. What is "smart" about trying to convince a
substantial percentage of the population that behavior x is a moral
imperative, while openly deciding to not pursue behavior x
oneself?
Al Gore. So smart. Indeed.
|3.21.07 @ 9:49PM|#
Small minds talk about people.
Mediocre minds talk about things.
Great minds talk about ideas.
Nicknames, Will? Nicknames?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 9:56PM|#
Mr. Steven Crane,
That's ok. Be careful of those household cleaning products.
|3.21.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Ah, c'mon joe. Have you ever castigated anyone for using an
unflattering nickname for a Republican president? Your transparency
is showing.
Now, explain, once and for all, what a "smart kid" Gore is being
when he lives in the manner he does, while engaging in the moral
advocacy he pursues.
|3.21.07 @ 9:57PM|#
"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the
doctor. If the doctor says, 'You have to intervene here,' you don't
say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that says this isn't
important.' "
-- Al Gore, responding to criticism today in D.C. from
environmental science skeptic Joe Barton, a GOP Congressman from
Texas.
|3.21.07 @ 9:59PM|#
If you want to use an unflattering nickname while making
substantive criticisms of Gore's words and policies, have at.
Using unflattering nicknames while making the point that Al gore is
a poopyhead, not so much.
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Will Allen,
Gore isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things.
He doesn't set policy, he is no longer in government, etc.
|3.21.07 @ 10:03PM|#
"Now, explain, once and for all, what a "smart kid" Gore is
being when he lives in the manner he does, while engaging in the
moral advocacy he pursues."
No. Can I explain what a transparent partisan you're being when you
try to turn discussion of global warming into strings of ad
homenims aimed at Al Gore, instead?
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.21.07 @ 10:06PM|#
I haven't said much in favor of reducing CO2 emissions.
Mostly what I've said is that if libertarians are interested in
arguing against climate scientists they should either make good
scientific arguments or stick to areas where they have some useful
insights to offer.
Let us know when you watch the video.
|3.21.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Please explain, joe. How is noting that a speaker is fundamentally unserious when he refuses to adhere to behavior which he asserts is a moral imperative, and indeed makes no attempt to adhere to, the equivalent of saying that the speaker is a "poopyhead"?
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.21.07 @ 10:13PM|#
According to a group of scientists brought together by
documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it
isn't your fault ... all » and there's nothing you can do about
it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a
man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think
they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to
slay the whole premise of global warming.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=swindle&hl=en
|3.21.07 @ 10:15PM|#
PL,
I do think UF's basketball team is still the nation's best, but the best has lost Tournament before.
Nicely done. Even if OSU does beat UF, you've already staked your
claim that UF is the best basketball team anyway, win or
lose.
What size trophy do they get for that?
|3.21.07 @ 10:20PM|#
Joe, your use of the English language is either dishonest or ignorant. What is ad hominem about noting that an advocate of behavior x as a moral imperative makes no effort to puruse such behavior himself?
|3.21.07 @ 10:43PM|#
joe:
"Small minds talk about people.
Mediocre minds talk about things.
Great minds talk about ideas.
Nicknames, Will? Nicknames?"
2:32 pm: "Wow, what a dishonest hack Lomborg is."
2:57 pm: "I think National Review is just looking to bash Democrats
and environmentalists, and any connection to a legitimate,
principled, fact-based argument is purely coincidental."
3:04 pm: "ed, you tool"
3:19 pm: "What makes Lomborg dishonest is his statement that Gore
is contradicting the IPCC report."
3:24 pm: "When Lomborg states that the IPCC report suggests a one
foot rise, he is incorrectly reporting the contents of the study,
and I have enough respect for his reading comprehension to conclude
that he knows it."
3:44 pm: "They have therapies and medication for panic attacks
these days."
4:12 pm: "I believe "pwned" is the term the kids are using these
days, asshat."
4:30 pm: "given your obvious bias."
4:40 pm: "If a single Senate seat was Republican instead of
Democrat, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
would be chaired by a man who says that global warming is "the
greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind." We're talking about a
party which commands the loyalty of about 50% of Americans."
"At a certain point, a critical mass of people will understand the
truth, the denialists will retire to the nice houses they've
bought, and a useful discussion of policy can begin."
4:45 pm: "And, most importantly, he is not deliberately and
significantly misrepresenting his opponents' statements in an
effort to discredit him, while they most certainly are doing so to
him."
7:56 pm: "Frankly, there are a lot of Chicken Littles running
around and wailing that environmentalists like Gore want exactly
that."
9:22 pm: "I shouldn't let these people drag me down to their level.
I guess I have an emotional response to the sight of bullies and
heathers picking on the smart kid, but I should be more careful
about being drawn in, and letting them change the subject."
9:57 pm: "environmental science skeptic Joe Barton, a GOP
Congressman from Texas."
|3.21.07 @ 10:55PM|#
Well, Grotius, I were convinced that Gore would never again run
for office, I would be in more agreement as to his importance. You
are likely correct, however. I just find it striking, as I did the
Rush Limbaugh affair, for instance, when a person develops a large
following based upon what he himself characterizes as moral
advocacy, while blatantly engaging in behavior which contradicts
the advocacy.
What is more interesting regarding Gore's moral advocacy of
reducing one's carbon footprint as much as possible, as opposed to
Limbaugh's railing against drug use, however, is that Gore makes
very little attempt to conceal the fact that he has no intention of
adhering to his moral advocacy. What is also interesting is that
people like joe, and he certainly isn't alone, will stop at nothing
in defending a moral advocate who makes no attempt to adhere to his
own advocacy.
Would it really be so psychologically painful for the Gore
followers to simply say that Gore's refusal to adhere to his own
moral advocacy is harmful to their cause, but it does not have an
impact on the scientific argument? Instead, they puruse a dogged
defense of hypocrisy. Like I stated above, I don't even think
hypocrisy is all that horrible of a human failing in the grand
scheme of things; I just think it odd to see it defended so
zealously.
|3.21.07 @ 11:12PM|#
TPG-
I watched a few minutes of it, just to see what it's about. I'll
watch it in full at some point. Let's say that these scientists are
completely correct. Does that mean that it was wise for people in
various threads to make the weak arguments that they've made when
they could have been citing the excellent data put forth by these
scientists?
I still stand by my contention that weak arguments should be
avoided. Especially if there's excellent data out there that could
be cited and discussed in refutation of the anti-CO2 activists.
VM|3.21.07 @ 11:12PM|#
"Gallagher | March 21, 2007, 9:47pm | #
Fuck you, Craney."
mein Gott. We have a tough guy in our midst.
And one who is probably a regular but is posting under the guise of
some Showtime Entertainer. So he's real (sic) brave, too! Almost as
tough as a meletary lawyer!
hmmmm.
"Craney"? Mymy. You stretched the little gray cells for that one,
didntcha?
wow. An intellectual tough guy.
Gil will be by to take a stool sample. From the long way
around.
You're the linguistic equivalent to cheetos, my man! good job!
|3.21.07 @ 11:21PM|#
"Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit.
To misuse a phrase, this begs the question of whether or not we are
living in an interglacial period. Looking outside, considering I
live at the border of the last glacial epoch, I think it's safe to
say no, we aren't, so the fact that our average sea level is 4 to
6m lower than the last time doesn't exactly strike
fear into my heart.
As far as the 3 to 5°C higher temperatures, while they may be well
withing the IPCC projections, I think you have conflated global
averages with average polar temperatures. I will openly admit I
haven't read the data, but it looks like a mixing of data to
me.
|3.21.07 @ 11:26PM|#
"You're the linguistic equivalent to cheetos, my man!"
So that would make you...stale cheetos?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 11:49PM|#
thoreau,
We can all agree that weak arguments, etc. should be avoided (no
matter what the subject matter).
|3.22.07 @ 12:12AM|#
A much needed reality check is provided at the blog linked to
below.
if we look at the geological record, we see that the climate
changes of the last 1000 years -- both warmer and colder, wetter
and drier -- are more radical than most anything the global warming
alarmists are predicting. Look at the last 15,000 years and you've
got an ice age with a mile-deep sheet of ice covering most of North
America north of the 40th parallel, and a millenium-long drought
that had open blowing sand extending from western Wyoming to
central Nebraska. None of that climate change can be realistically
attributed to anthropogenic causes.
Tremendous climate changes happened long before humans arrived on
the scene. The wise response to the possibility of man made climate
change is to learn how to adapt to it. That way we will be able to
respond when the next episode of natural climate
change occurs. It would also allow us to better
respond to other potential disasters like asteroid impacts, climate
changing volcanic eruption, or disease pandemics.
|3.22.07 @ 12:24AM|#
Dern,
I came to hear a debate and it descended into a pissing
contest.
joe, I'm actually interested in your arguments but if you make a
claim, you do need to cite where it is you found it. Is not even a
simple quote of the 20 foot estimate so hard to do? Page number,
etc.? Sure, I could say, "Go read 'War and Peace' for yourself
where Tolstoy says blah blah blah" but it might be a stronger
argument to at least say, "On page 693 where he says...."
|3.22.07 @ 12:40AM|#
And joe, I don't know if you're dishonest or not, but an unwillingness to cite page numbers to back up your claims, makes you "look" dishonest.
|3.22.07 @ 12:47AM|#
TJIT,
No "global warming alarmists" with even half a clue are arguing
that more dramatic climate change hasn't occurred in the past
(although in that quote of yours, the 15,000 year claim is
certainly true, but the 1,000 year claim is a little sketchy). So
congratulations - you've managed to beat the holy living shit out
of a strawman.
The problem is that those changes generally took place on a scale
of millenia, while the current changes are taking place on a scale
of _decades_. And it seems to me that an even wiser response to man
made climate change, rather than just learning to adapt to it,
would be to take measures to stop or at least slow it down, since
the consequences are difficult to predict but certainly expensive
and potentially catastrophic.
I'm also a little skeptical of the rationality of an argument that
goes something like "natural climate cycles periodically make the
earth very difficult for humans to inhabit; so what's wrong with us
doing the same thing ourselves?" We're talking about glacial cycles
with roughly 100,000 year periodicity - on the order of magnitude
of the age of our species - vs. temperature increases on the scale
of decades. That's a little different situation in terms of our
ability to adapt or our need to consider the consequences.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|3.22.07 @ 1:32AM|#
I still stand by my contention that weak arguments should be
avoided. Especially if there's excellent data out there that could
be cited and discussed in refutation of the anti-CO2
activists.
If there was an honest debate about the issues, I would agree with
you. But there is no debate, there is screeching and
irrationality.
|3.22.07 @ 2:36AM|#
I'm terribly concerned with what Lomberg says. After all, he's a
former senator, has been espousing these views for a couple of
decades, ran for US president, and has a great deal of popularity
and influence partly due to the successful documentary he was
involved with. When he suggests that we need to be forced to
massively reconfigure our economy...
What, that's the other guy? Lomberg is some guy from
another country - a statistician who runs a think tank - and is
about roughly as influential in American politics as Ron Paul? And
he's not demanding huge changes to American society?
Oh.
Sorry, then I don't much care at all what Lomberg says, or whether
an argument he made might have involved a claim that didn't stand
up.
I'm not defending him, nor am I excusing any mistake or
misrepresentation he may have made. To use a device Thoreau's fond
of, please reread that last sentence as many times as you find
it necessary to understand it. I'm not defending him,
nor am I excusing any mistake or misrepresentation he may have
made.
I don't know whether he's wrong or not. I don't give a damn
because he doesn't matter. If folks feel a moral
imperative to hack on - or pay attention to - that academic while
leaving alone the politician actually trying to steamroller us,
that's cool.
To be completely fair, it's not like who we go after in
whatever proportion matters. We're libertarians - nobody gives a
damn what we think. It may do no harm at all for us to scowl at and
kneecap anyone arguing against Gore & Co. while his supporters
cast out anyone who even mildly criticizes his presentation as a
"denialist". I don't know that doing such will accomplish any
good, but it apparently pleases some people to do so, and
who are we of all people to discourage that?
|3.22.07 @ 3:11AM|#
So, if we're just supposed to give Gore a pass on his voracious
carbon-rich consumption, can all the Bailey haters around here be
expected to STFU about the fact that half a percent of the Reason
Foundation's budget comes from Exxon? I mean, it's all about the
ideas, right?
Although I'm starting to enjoy Ron's snarky disclosures on every
H&R post ....
|3.22.07 @ 5:36AM|#
dang...
not one but three (*^$#&^&!!~!! threads of climate change
in one day and I missed the start of them all...sorta.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 6:48AM|#
http://www.draftgore.com
"He won it once. He can win it again. Help us draft Gore in
2008."
Albert Gore, Jr. is the most influential and greatest thinker in
the Democrat party, next to Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.us
!
If you don't believe me, just go to the video archive and watch the
big sloppy verbal sex act Nanci Pelosi performed on VP Gore for his
appearance before the committee!
Gore '08
Disclosure: I will probably vote against any candidate that party
nominates, but am glad to help them pick who I am voting
against.
|3.22.07 @ 8:03AM|#
Eric-
If you don't want to cite Lomborg as a source to argue against
Gore, that's fair enough. I won't accuse you of citing Lomborg as a
source when you argue against Gore, nor will I suggest that you
need to find a stronger ally/source/whatever. You've made it quite
clear that you don't consider Lomborg relevant.
So why am I going after some of Lomborg's testimony? Well, judging
from the attention it got here, including the fact that a staff
writer for this magazine considered it worthy of quoting for a
post, and the fact that some people early in the thread seemed to
like what he said, it seems clear that some people do
consider him an interesting source or ally or whatever for arguing
against Gore's dangerous proposals. And I'm saying that there's
some reason to be cautious here.
In arguing against Gore's proposals it will be necessary to find
sources of data as well as arguments, and some of the information
and ideas put forth by Lomborg seem dubious. Yet some of the people
inclined to argue against Gore seem interested in what Lomborg has
to say. (I know, you don't, you've made it clear. Fair enough.) So
I'd say that cautioning against the use of Lomborg's ideas and
arguments is reasonable.
If I posted something arguing "Here's why it's a bad idea to vote
for Candidate X" in a place where at least some of the posters seem
inclined to vote for Candidate X, would you say "Stop bugging me,
I'm voting for Y"?
Likewise, if I gave a talk to my colleagues about "Here's why the
data in such-and-such widely-cited paper is unreliable" nobody
would say "Why are you focusing your efforts on this paper when
what really matters is cancer?" No, they'd realize that I'm trying
to find the best way to tackle the problem, and part of it comes
from ruling out unproductive avenues of research.
|3.22.07 @ 8:07AM|#
Steven Crane-
Come on, I gave you guys "Pot of water from melted glaciers, meet
kettle of water from flood plain." I thought that was a funny turn
of phrase.
No? Not even a little.
Well, I tried.
Anyway, most of the argument was about footnotes, which I
considered a perfectly intelligent and non-personal thing to argue
about.
I promise not to get personal again until I have something
funnier.
|3.22.07 @ 8:36AM|#
Eric on Lomborg
I don't know whether he's wrong or not. I don't give a damn
because he doesn't matter. If folks feel a moral imperative to hack
on - or pay attention to - that academic while leaving alone the
politician actually trying to steamroller us, that's
cool.
You're wrong about Lomborg. He's had tremendous influence on many
thoughtful people who ARE interested in environmental issues, but
not in the socialist agenda and fearmongering typical of the
"movement" and Gore himself.
The absolutely hysterical reaction to both his book, and almost any
comments he makes, shows that those in the "movement" recognize him
as a dangerous adversary (even though he's largely on their
side).
He reminds me of Milton Friedman, one of my heroes.
|3.22.07 @ 9:18AM|#
I listened to some of Gore's testimony. What annoyed me was his
taking the authority of scientific consensus from the first of the
following statements and acting like it applies equally to the
subsequent ideas:
Global warming is real and in significant part man made according
to overwhelming scientific consensus.
If we don't act now, we know there will be dire consequences.
Drastic reduction in carbon emmissions will make a meaningful
difference in average global temperature.
We have to act now.
There is consensus only on the first statement. Not a single person
said "Uh, Mr. Gore, how do you feel about error bars on seal level
that range from 2" to 20'? Is the 20' scenario the one scientific
consensus is talking about? If we had greater confidence that we
would be closer to 2", would your proposals be justified?
Grotius|3.22.07 @ 9:26AM|#
thoreau,
And I'm saying that there's some reason to be cautious
here.
You implied that the fellow was a denialist when he clearly isn't
one. So why shouldn't we be careful about what you are saying about
Lomborg?
|3.22.07 @ 9:37AM|#
I am worried about the delicate balance on Mars being disrupted by global warming. What is Gore proposing for Mars!
|3.22.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Nice editing job, Kent. If Maureen Dows is ever looking for an
assistant, you should totally send in your resume.
"So, if we're just supposed to give Gore a pass on his voracious
carbon-rich consumption, can all the Bailey haters around here be
expected to STFU about the fact that half a percent of the Reason
Foundation's budget comes from Exxon?"
Gore's ownership of more than house doesn't imply any interest one
way or the other on the issue of global warming. Reason's economic
relationship with Exxon, and Exxon's economic interest in seeing
one side of the debate win, implies a clear economic interest on
Reason's part to push that side of the debate.
|3.22.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Nice editing job, Kent. If Maureen Dows is ever looking for
an assistant, you should totally send in your resume.
It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!
|3.22.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Thanks, joe. I'd love to work with Maureen Dows - whoever she
is.
Sorry, but I forgot that pointing out hypocrisy is off-limits in
this thread.
|3.22.07 @ 10:29AM|#
" I'd love to work with Maureen Dows - whoever she is."
She's married to that guy from "Leave it to Beaver."
Right?
|3.22.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Sparky (from more than 20 "Lomborg's a deliar!" "No he's not!"
posts ago),
"The problem is that those changes generally took place on a scale
of millenia, while the current changes are taking place on a scale
of _decades_."
There's plenty of recent evidence, presented externally to the AGW
debate, that there have been many drastic temperature changes on
the order of decades, betwixt the longer-term glacial-interglacial
trends.
Kind of like the recent science on the swapping of the poles.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.07 @ 11:02AM|#
"Reason's economic relationship with Exxon, and Exxon's economic
interest in seeing one side of the debate win, implies a clear
economic interest on Reason's part to push that side of the
debate."
No more so than the clear implications of economic interests on the
part of various government and foundation scientists who jump on
the global warming bandwagon to get more research grant money to
study and find solutions to the "problem".
And no more so that the clear implications of economic interests of
other nations with less robust economic systems than ours to carp
about the US not signing the Kyoto protocol because they want us to
kneecap ourselves and throw away the competitive advantages we have
in the global marketplace.
|3.22.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Sparky,
You built a strawman not me. If you had bothered to follow the link
you would have read the following.
It appears that some climate changes in the past occurred rather
abruptly, for reasons we're only barely beginning to understand.
Those climate changes destroyed civilizations that were living a
lot closer to the earth, with a lot smaller population than we have
now. The author also wrote
Yes, we should limit burning of fossil fuels as much as possible, if only for quality of life reasons (my eyes are smarting at the very thought of heading back up the Colorado Front Range next week) and because hydrocarbons are too valuable for manufacturing in the long-term to burn them in the short-term (although there's a lot more oil and gas out there than most people think). However, we shouldn't delude ourselves that we can somehow stabilize the earth's ever-changing climate by driving a Prius and buying carbon offsets.
Emphasis was put in the quote by me.
|3.22.07 @ 11:35AM|#
No discussions about alternative plans yet?
Disappointing.
Not even any substantive criticism of what is wrong with Gore's
plan. Props for some accurate criticism of minutia in his
presentation of the dangers, & some criticism of his
misrepresentation of the scientific consensus, or lack thereof, for
a plan to reduce AGM, but no direct substance on his plan.
Disappointing.
Eric1/2B chimes in with another "no one cares what we say" rant
(not recognizing that many people listen to Cato & Co., which
has a far bigger influence on policy than libertarian voting
numbers would indicate).
Disappointing.
But I guess it is really just about the personalities of the policy
makers. That is what matters.
Disappointing.
Disappointing.
|3.22.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Three points.
1. Their has been massive natural climate change in the past
2. We are told the way to respond to modeled global warming is to
reduce CO2 emissions.
3. India and China are going to create a lot of CO2 raising their
standard of living to first world standards. Their increasing CO2
output is likely to swamp whatever reductions in CO2 the first
world manages to obtain.
So the wise thing to do would be to learn to adapt to climate
change. This has the added benefit of having a system in place that
will help society adapt and respond to the next episode of
natural climate change.
|3.22.07 @ 11:41AM|#
TJIT,
It would be wise to both develop methods to adapt to natural
climate change & avoid exacerbation of the problem by human
activity (see up thread comments regarding the extreme consequences
of high CO2 levels, no matter the source). They are not mutually
exclusive goals.
Thanks for talking about substance.
|3.22.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"India and China are going to create a lot of CO2 raising their
standard of living to first world standards. Their increasing CO2
output is likely to swamp whatever reductions in CO2 the first
world manages to obtain."
Not sure the point of this point, but there is no reason that a
global effort can't avoid this. Assisting India and China to
develop smarter strategies than the 1st world used (distributed
clean power generation, more efficient manufactoring designs,
etc...) can reduce their growing contributions to atmospheric CO2
without stiffling their growing economies.
|3.22.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Here is a link to a company that is actually putting into
practice a business model designed to reduce their waste &
energy footprint.
http://www.interfacesustainability.com/metrics.html
"The cumulative avoided costs from waste elimination activities
since 1995 have totaled over $336 million."
|3.22.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I don't think it's practically possible for the developing world
to follow the West's trajectory to "developed" status exactly.
There's simply been too much technological advance that is cheap
and available.
I think there's too much assumption that China and India will
commit the same "mistakes" but on a bigger scale. At least that's
the impression I get. It seems that both sides argue different
aspects of this assumption, and it's always bothered me.
There's quite a lot of built-in mitigation of future problems in
lessons learned.
|3.22.07 @ 12:09PM|#
TJIT,
Your logic includes two very questionable assumptions: that
economic growth will be as energy-intensive in the 21st and 22nd
centuries as it was in the 19th and 20th?
And that energy production will be as carbon-intensive in the 21st
and 22nd centuries as it was in the 19th and 20th.
Aren't we having a debate right about whether to pursue efforts to
advance energy conservation and cleaner energy production?
|3.22.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Seed Magazine has a nifty short article on the impact of
environmental changes on societies.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/03/the_vanishing_act.php
"More people are being displaced by environmental causes than by
wars today," Oliver-Smith said. "It's a problem we're just starting
to see the beginnings of."
|3.22.07 @ 12:39PM|#
A business model that reduces carbon...
http://www.flexcar.com/default.aspx?tabid=122
* Reduced Congestion: With thousands of members, Flexcar has
effectively taken more than 10,000 vehicles off the roads.
* More Open Space: Assuming that there are on average three parking
spots needed per car (home, work, shopping area), that means
Flexcar has removed the need for 30,000 parking spots. With each
spot requiring three and a half tons of concrete, the need for
105,000 tons of concrete has been removed.
* Less Pollution: Assuming each car taken off the road averages 25
mpg, and the owner drove 12,000 miles per year (US average),
Flexcar has removed 96 million pounds, or 144,000 tons of carbon
from the air.
|3.22.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Not even any substantive criticism of what is wrong with
Gore's plan.
You must have missed the other
thread.
Okay, here's one criticism...
Gore proposes taxing carbon to price its environmental damage in
the market. Since the optimal present-day tax, applied to gasoline,
would be less than 20 cents per gallon, how will federal and state
transportation funds deal with the lower receipts from decreasing
the gas tax to that level?
Think of European nations. How will those governments replace the
massive revenue loss after their extremely high gas tax drops to a
euro-nickel per litre?
|3.22.07 @ 1:03PM|#
MikeP,
Please expand.
Where are you getting your figures for "optimal?"
Why do you assume that we are talking about lowering these taxes on
energy?
The primary tax proposal, as I understand it, is to shift taxes
away from labor and toward resources. Not a shift in overall tax,
but a shift in the sectors of the economy to which it is
applied.
Change the incentives, not the overall revenue stream.
And do I understand you correctly that you have a problem with
reducing taxes?
|3.22.07 @ 1:06PM|#
jf,
Assuming that OSU gets to play UF, it would be rude of me to point
out UF's massacre of Ohio State--I mean the one in
basketball--that occurred earlier this year.
Oops :)
|3.22.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Neu Mejican,
My figures for optimal come from William Nordhaus's models of
environmental economics and global warming. The "optimal" tax is
the tax that maximizes the benefits while minimizing the
costs.
In his
2000 book, he arrives at an optimal tax whose rate rises
through the century, but which starts around 6 cents per gallon. In
his
response [PDF] to the silly economics of the Stern Review, he
uses Stern's assumptions and comes up with an optimal tax around 17
cents per gallon. I would guess that the Stern Review's costs of
environmental damage are greater than the IPCC 4AR, but I don't
know for sure.
And do I understand you correctly that you have a problem with
reducing taxes?
No. I am simply being facetious in pointing out that those people
who are calling for high taxes on carbon don't have a clue what the
actual optimal tax level would be.
Furthermore, I am making the point that nothing in the theory of
Pigouvian taxes says what is to be done with the revenues. So this
tax should not be tacked on after gas taxes designed to pay for
transportation: The transportation tax is already
Pigouvian, and is already higher than the optimal
Pigouvian tax.
A multi-dollar punitive tax on a gallon of gas would simply cost
more than it would benefit.
|3.22.07 @ 2:05PM|#
MikeP,
Thanks for the links.
I looked briefly the pdf.
A comment on "optimal." The carbon tax rate would be added to the
current price, that would include any taxation for other purposes
already imposed. So there is no reason to wonder about lost
revenue.
As for the whole discussion of social discounting, I think he
misses the point.
From my perspective, the point of the carbon tax would be to spur
technological and methodological changes in the current market to
drive innovations that target a specific goal... finding a
different way to power the work we do in our society. In the long
run, this is not going to be a drag on the economy, but a boon.
Given that, optimal becomes based on the level at which the tax
spurs behavior changes in the desired direction. Not one that is
dependent upon sketchy forcasts of the impact on the economy.
Like I said upstream. People need to be just as skeptical of the
economists as they are of the climate scientists. Both are using
similar tools to make their predictions. Policy proposals should be
aimed at effects that are as measurable as possible. The clean air
act is a recent example that the government can use to see what the
impact of regulation is on industry practices and the economic
costs and benefits.
For a very different view from a very different economics, look
into the work of Herman Daly.
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
Has a quick summary of some of his thinking.
|3.22.07 @ 2:29PM|#
PL,
Florida shot in excess of 60%. For ANY college team over an entire
game, that is absolutely mind-blowingly unconscious, unless they're
playing Sisters of the Blind.
OSU shot around 35% from the field. That rarely happens.
Both teams had statistical outliers in FG% that day in opposite
directions. It happens sometimes.
That, and OSU was getting used to Oden. They're a much better team
now than they were then. They also didn't choke away 3 games in a
row at the end of the season (and I'm sorry, but how in the WORLD
did Florida get the overall #1 for the tourney after aforementioned
loss-problem?)
|3.22.07 @ 2:35PM|#
From my perspective, the point of the carbon tax would be to
spur technological and methodological changes in the current market
to drive innovations that target a specific goal... finding a
different way to power the work we do in our society.
I fail to understand why you think innovation cannot happen without
government mandate, tax, or subsidy. If, as you believe, there are
solutions to today's and tomorrow's energy problems which are more
efficient than current technologies and methods, then they will
be discovered and adopted absent government social
engineering!
In the meantime, such mandates, taxes, and subsidies misdirect the
society's wealth and efforts from more productive uses.
Why is your pet project worth the social engineering while someone
else's is not?
People need to be just as skeptical of the economists as they
are of the climate scientists.
Um. In case you haven't been paying attention... The climate
scientists have God's and Gore's mantle of unquestioned scientific
consensus. The economists are utterly ignored. No one in policy or
the media is asking the questions the economists are only now
starting to answer.
|3.22.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I don't think OSU matches up well against UF and expect a
similar game if we do end up with a rematch. OSU is a good team,
though--I was just being obnoxious earlier (I'm a UF alumnus, but I
used to work at OSU--I told them they'd lose to us if we
ever played each other in football, the fools).
UF had a similar bump last season, then never lost again. I think
the SEC tournament performance on top of not seeming to have lost
any steps from last year made the difference. It beats giving the
top seed to Duke, which seems to get it for no other reason than
its name, some years. I think Florida is clearly the team to beat.
. .which doesn't mean that they can't be beaten, of course. I hope
they do repeat, because we'll lose everyone after this season,
anyway. Love that Billy Donovan!
|3.22.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Given that, optimal becomes based on the level at which the
tax spurs behavior changes in the desired direction.
To put it another way...
Per the IPCC 4AR, if atmospheric CO2 levels were somehow frozen at
today's level, the warming experienced by 2100 would be an
insignificant 1°F. It is not we in 2007 who are creating dramatic
warming for 2100. It is those bastards in 2050 piling their CO2
into an already CO2-full atmosphere.
So why should we impoverish ourselves to solve their problem? Why
don't we leave the problem to them? They will be three to four
times wealthier than we. They will have four decades more
understanding of the environment and innovation into all sorts of
technologies and methods. They should figure out how to use their
resources to solve global warming for their future -- or decide
with their better knowledge that it still costs more to
seriously address global warming than not to and that their wealth
and efforts can be put to better uses.
|3.22.07 @ 4:27PM|#
PL,
Hell, I'm worried about tonight, and we've already beaten Tennessee
(and it has nothing to do with the close call last weekend).
It's the old, ingrained Northeast Ohio sports fan mentality: your
team, no matter how good they are, will ALWAYS let you down.
That said, the Xavier game probably did serve as a major wake-up
call. There are too many weapons on offense and when they really
get after it, their defense is absolutely incredible (and it that's
before it comes down to Oden altering a shot).
|3.22.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Timon19,
Good luck, in any event. Tennessee is very tough this year, so it's
certainly not a gimme. Still, it is blowing through a major
challenge that usually helps a team make a serious run for the
title.
|3.22.07 @ 5:32PM|#
The problem with government solutions and mandates is they tend to produce rent seeking policies that are environmentally destructive, provide negative energy returns, and do more harm then good. Ethanol is a good example of this.
|3.22.07 @ 8:04PM|#
MIkeP
"Why is your pet project worth the social engineering while someone
else's is not?"
It is not my pet project. It would be something the society at
large needs to consider and decide. That is why there is advocacy
and political processes actively advocating various sides of any
issue. Why stop the debate before it gets to the point of
well-formed, or well-developed proposals. Progress is an iterative
process of small changes that move, in general in a positive
directions (this is why your future people that you are so fond of
will be wealthier). Why try to stop that process?
"I fail to understand why you think innovation cannot happen
without government mandate, tax, or subsidy."
I fail to see why you think I believe that.
If the topic is what government action should look like, then we
talk about possible government actions. I don't think you noticed
that I posted several examples of private approaches to the issue
that are both successful and profitable. Look up thread. I also
stated explicitly that the best way to minimize government imposed
solutions is to begin working on market-driven private
solutions.
However, I fail to see why you think that government action can't
have an impact on innovation since there is much historical
evidence that government action has supported and accelerated
innovations when properly implemented.
"The economists are utterly ignored. No one in policy or the media
is asking the questions the economists are only now starting to
answer."
I don't think that is an accurate statement. Bush et al used the
economic arguments to bow out of Kyoto, fur example.
"Why don't we leave the problem to them? They will be three to four
times wealthier than we. They will have four decades more
understanding of the environment and innovation into all sorts of
technologies and methods."
I will still be around in 2050, so you are just asking me to
procrastinate.
TJIT
"The problem with government solutions and mandates is they tend
to..."
That is why you want a healthy debate about what the government
action should or shouldn't be... helps to avoid this tendency.
|3.22.07 @ 8:18PM|#
And MikeP,
Don't confuse statements such as
"the point of the carbon tax would be to spur technological and
methodological changes in the current market to drive innovations
that target a specific goal..." with me advocating that tax. I am
just trying to explain what I see the rationale to be. I am not
convinced it is the right approach. It is, however, what Gore
proposed & what you brought up in your criticism of his
plan.
I was trying to discuss the shape and implications of that proposal
and your alternate proposal that involved lower energy taxes to
some "optimal" level based on projections from an economist. I
don't (yet) buy Nordhaus's models of environmental economics (I'll
read more and see if he convinces me), so I don't buy his reasoning
for the "optimal" level for a carbon tax.
|3.22.07 @ 10:41PM|#
Eric1/2B chimes in with another "no one cares what we say" rant (not recognizing that many people listen to Cato & Co., which has a far bigger influence on policy than libertarian voting numbers would indicate).
Disappointing.
I'm terribly sorry to have disappointed you...
Actually, that's not entirely true.
|3.23.07 @ 12:40AM|#
Holy shit!
PL, THAT is why the Buckeyes are #1! I'm just thankful that I
couldn't see the first half due to my indoor soccer game. I
probably would have committed hari-kari in a particularly grotesque
fashion.
Down 20! Fucking hell!
P.S. I'd LOVE to know how they could possibly have tagged both Oden
AND Hunter with that many fouls that early. It's not like the Vols
were getting fouled all that much in the 2nd half.
|3.23.07 @ 10:20AM|#
"Hinode, the newest solar observatory on the space scene, has
obtained never-before-seen images showing that the sun's magnetic
field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known." -
European Space Agency, from a press release makred "Hinode sees the
dynamic and violent sun as sharply as never before"
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=22175
Surely we already knew enough to determine that solar activity has
far less to do with global temperature than things like Bubba
firing up his Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup truck to go
"mudding" and Muffy firing up her Mercedes-Benz SUV to shuttle her
kids to and from soccer practice, right? Right?
In other news, a remarkable article on Al Gore's Brain,
"Brain-damaged people give insights into morality":
"It's wartime, and an enemy doctor is conducting painful and
inevitably fatal experiments on children. You have two kids, ages 8
and 5. You can surrender one of them within 24 hours or the doctor
will kill both. What is the right thing to do?
For most people, this scenario based on one in William Styron's
novel "Sophie's Choice" is almost an impossible dilemma. But for a
group of people with damage in a part of the brain's frontal lobe
that helps govern emotions, the decision was far more clear. They
would choose one child for death."
I'm not saying the guy is actually brain-damaged, but it does seem
eerily similar to the sort of decision that Gore proposes:
Sacrificing Capitalism (the child of Freedom and Liberty) for
Global Warming (the child of Environmentalism and Socialism) is
obviously the sort of choice that Gore is not only comfortable with
but one he believes is necessary.
|3.23.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Oops! The link for "Brain-damaged people give insights into
morality":
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2039270620070321?src=032107_1924_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters
|3.23.07 @ 11:54AM|#
MikeP,
I read some more of Nordhaus.
I think we can dismiss his optimal tax rate. His model is pretty
flimsy. My primary problem is his assumption that all actions taken
to curb CO2 will have a negative economic impact. Doesn't seem to
be a reasonable assumption and would seriously skew his
numbers.
My impression are backed up by some others with more expertise in
the area. This one is worth a read, particularly if you are going
to use Nordhaus as your source on the issue.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/ayers_robert_economists_misjudged_global_warming.html
Eric.5bee -
I am disappointed that you aren't disappointed. Really, I had hoped
your mission in life was to impress me ;^) -- but really the "poor
libertarians, we are such ignored outsiders" schtick gets
old.
Rob,
You miss read the article on morality and the brain. Those with the
brain damage have an easier time making the more utilitarian
choice. They think like Spock and sacrifice the needs of the few or
the one for the needs of the many. Are you claiming Gore is able to
see past the emotional response and find the most rationale and
utilitarian solution?
|3.23.07 @ 12:11PM|#
And Rob,
Please explain how you think the better understanding of the
magnetic field on the sun changes the calculations of its
contribution to heating on the Earth. A cool piece of science, but
you have to really squint to make it seem related to global
climate.
|3.23.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I skimmed that article, especially his three point dismissal of
Nordhaus and essentially all of microeconomics:
1. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works.
2. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works.
3. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works.
To pick on the attempted most damning paragraph...
If the choices available to entrepreneurs are not fixed once and for all, then there is no way they could possibly make optimal choices for the indefinite future, since they do not know now (or ever) what possibilities will be generated by scientific progress in the future. It follows that the entire Nordhaus theory of decreased option space has no basis. The Emperor has no clothes. In short, the intellectual argument underlying the Bush Administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol is completely fallacious.
Entrepreneurs (rather dismissive of investors and workers) do not
make optimal choices for the indefinite future. They make
optimal choices for a future discounted by how indefinite it is.
These choices are constantly being reconsidered -- creative
destruction and all that -- and will be altered as innovations
bring better choices to bear. It is not Nordhaus that is presuming
a static model -- it is this author who is presuming that people
won't innovate or use innovation without government direction.
|3.23.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Which leads to...
My primary problem is his assumption that all actions taken to
curb CO2 will have a negative economic impact.
Those actions taken to curb CO2 that will have a positive
impact do not need government mandate, tax, or subsidy!
Almost by definition those that do need government mandate, tax, or
subsidy cost more than they gain. The only issue is whether hidden
costs are taken into consideration. In this case the hidden costs
of predicted global warming are what yield Nordhaus's optimal
carbon tax.
Asking for a higher tax based on subsidizing imagined future
innovations is both wishful thinking on the anticipated innovations
and wishful thinking on the ability of government to actually
direct the revenues to achieve those innovations.
This is a libertarian forum. This point of view should not be
surprising...
|3.23.07 @ 1:44PM|#
MIkeP,
"Those actions taken to curb CO2 that will have a positive impact
do not need government mandate, tax, or subsidy!"
This does not mean that certain government actions would have a
positive impact. You use a false exclusion in your logic
here.
"1. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works.
2. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works.
3. Market theories are bogus, but government social engineering
works."
Again, when discussing government actions, you are in the realm of
what, if anything, government should do. If you want to advocate
Nordhaus's carbon tax plan I would expect you to consider more
seriously the fact that his numbers are based on dubious
assumptions. You, of course, are actually advocating the do-nothing
course.
I think you misread Ayres quite substantially.
(read his older work here
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80841e/80841E00.htm)
I think you misread me quite substantially.
But, yes, I am not convinced that all government actions result in
negative outcomes (empirically, it is just not true).
I am not surprised by your point of view...
I am a bit surprised by your visceral reaction to suggestions that
Nordhaus's ivory tower model is flawed (better than Stern, but come
on).
Government action will be a piece of the global reaction to the
issue. It should be shaped on the best thinking available.
Nordhaus's work falls far short of that standard.
For what it is worth, I think eliminating subsidy to endeavors with
high CO2 output is a better first step than a carbon tax. Moving
money back into R&D on the issue would also be a reasonable
government action. Changing zoning laws that encourage CO2
inefficient development patterns also makes sense. Carbon taxes
make more sense than carbon markets, but given the international
nature of the problem, I am not sure how a tax scheme would provide
the outcomes desired. The real solutions will come from local
governments and local businesses working together. An internation
framework for encouraging that local behavior would need to be
minimalistic.
|3.23.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Oops...
"This does not mean that certain government actions would have a
positive impact. "
Make that "would not have a positive impact."
|3.23.07 @ 1:58PM|#
For a look at Ayres proposal (old).
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu24ee/uu24ee0v.htm#economic%20policy%20instruments%20and%20mechanisms
"The emerging norms are being translated into a series of
institutional mechanisms to facilitate market mechanisms to
internalize social environmental costs. They include among
others:
- public pricing of previously free goods (e.g. waste disposal
services);
- national and corporate accounting systems that incorporate social
environmental costs in budget forecasts;
- an eco-labelling system that encourages a shift in consumers'
preferences towards environment-friendly products;
- a civil liability system that punishes environment- and health
unfriendly products and practices;
- a mandated requirement for manufacturers to be responsible for
resource preservation over the full life cycle of their
products;
- institutionalization of environmental assessment that discourages
environmentally unfriendly regional development projects.
Added to these is a more general proposition that includes:
- a reform of national tax systems that is "incentive compatible,"
with taxes and charges on the use of non-renewable resources rather
than on incomes and profits; and
- value-oriented science, technology, and education programmes that
enhance the general public's awareness of the requisites of
planetary governance, and stimulate research and development for
generating new seeds of technology that are of value as (both
national and global) public goods.
In order to make the market itself self-correcting, with self
regulation and self-reporting on the part of industry, a great deal
of institutional innovation will be needed so that the state,
consumers, and workers can intervene effectively to prompt the
internalization of environmental and natural resource costs into
market prices. In both Olsonian and Stiglerian situations,
reconciliation and, still better, coalition formation between
public environmental interests and private self-interests may be a
requisite for climbing up the ever-steeper hill toward the
long-term goal of eco-development. There is still a lot of room for
further research on the art of designing incentive compatible
regulatory systems that are efficient, fair, and welfare
enhancing."
|3.23.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Government action will be a piece of the global reaction to
the issue. It should be shaped on the best thinking available.
Nordhaus's work falls far short of that standard.
And yet it's the best available. Why, pray tell, are the
documentary producers, British PMs and shadow PMs, and other
environmental experts of the world demanding immediate action
without understanding the economic implications?
I must take your word for it that you are for private solutions and
public solutions that eliminate subsidies in general. Much of what
you recommend would be unqualified improvements. And most of what
you recommend would be far better than what Gore, et al., are
suggesting.
|3.23.07 @ 2:39PM|#
"And yet it's the best available. "
That is what I am contesting.
Nordhaus's is NOT the best thinking on the issue.
Nordhaus should not be the basis for policy, since he is NOT the
best available thinking on the issue.
Not that Ayres is.
The most influential work to shape my thinking on the issue comes
from this book
http://www.natcap.org/
They are too enthusiastic about hydrogen, but otherwise they make a
strong case.
|3.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#
If you want to advocate Nordhaus's carbon tax
plan...
As you note, I don't advocate his carbon tax plan. The economic
results of the optimal carbon tax are just too small to warrant
giving the governments of the world the authority to tax it.
...I would expect you to consider more seriously the fact that
his numbers are based on dubious assumptions.
Economic growth is exponential. Global warming is not. The fact
that economic modeling shows that expensive means to address global
warming have high costs over a century simply does not surprise
me.
Consider the IPCC SRES scenarios. A1 is a high-growth free market.
B1 is an eco-conscious market oriented world such as Ayres seems to
suggest. According to the IPCC estimates, in the year 2100 the per
capita GDP in the A1 world will be $30,000 higher than in the B1
world.
It is plainly difficult for economic models to avoid the inevitable
gains of wealth with time. Global warming damages have to play
catch-up the whole way.
|3.23.07 @ 2:57PM|#
"in the year 2100 the per capita GDP in the A1 world will be
$30,000 higher than in the B1 world."
This, however, has the inherent flaw of spreading the effect across
groups that will not be equally impacted by the effects of economic
growth or climate change. Impacts will be highly variable across
region, and yet the negative impacts are not caused by local CO2
output.
The US, for instance, is the primary pollution source, but due to
geographic variables, will be disproportionately spared the impacts
of climate change in the near term (2-500 years).
Given the US status in the global economy, this will skew the
impact of both per captia GDP and the real costs of the climate
changes.
|3.23.07 @ 3:08PM|#
This, however, has the inherent flaw of spreading the effect
across groups that will not be equally impacted by the effects of
economic growth or climate change.
Frankly, it looks to me that a world where governments impose
restrictions to reduce CO2 emissions will have greater inequality
than one developing freely.
In effect, poor countries will be prevented from using the cheapest
means (e.g., coal) to increase their own wealth and forced instead
to purchase more expensive high-tech innovations from the rich
countries. And in the rich countries, this is seen as a boon!
The corporate welfare mentality that is starting to permeate the US
over global warming is stomach churning...
|3.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"In effect, poor countries will be prevented from using the
cheapest means (e.g., coal) to increase their own wealth and forced
instead to purchase more expensive high-tech innovations from the
rich countries."
Well, there seems to be an assumption in this that the more
high-tech innovations are somehow more expensive than the
lower-tech solutions. This is not the case unless you ignore the
externalities, and even then is not clearly warranted.
For instance, proper high-tech building design can remove the need
for active heating and cooling, and distributed power generation
can be both more carbon efficient and cheaper to implement than
centralized power generation.
Developing countries have no reason to adopt the older technologies
and methods that we used even 30 years ago. With the pace of
technological change, old tech is only a few years old, and can
provide affordable solutions that are energy efficient without
increasing CO2 emissions beyond projected targets.
Think of it as a graph were the developing world's CO2 output
increases while the developed world's decreases... at the point
where standard of living for the developing world approaches that
of the developed world, the C02 emissions are lower for both.
Standard of living isn't gonna be a victim here.
That it would be is the real unwarranted doomsday message that gets
bandied about.
|3.23.07 @ 3:31PM|#
This point was previously made (more eloquently, perhaps) by
Timon19 up thread...
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119265.html#664319
|3.23.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Well, there seems to be an assumption in this that the more
high-tech innovations are somehow more expensive than the
lower-tech solutions. This is not the case unless you ignore the
externalities, and even then is not clearly warranted.
And it comes back to my main point: If it is cheaper to be more
carbon efficient, then a free society will be more carbon
efficient. No government mandates needed. No hand-wringing
Congressional testimony demanding immediate action needed.
Get rid of the (overstated) subsidies of fossil fuels. Get rid of
the (understated) subsidies of alternative energy sources. Let the
market find the higher efficiency, lower carbon solutions that are
out there. And watch the predicted catastrophic results of global
warming become a minor annoyance to our far far wealthier and more
efficient progeny.
|3.23.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"And it comes back to my main point: If it is cheaper to be more
carbon efficient, then a free society will be more carbon
efficient. No government mandates needed."
And yet you suggest...
"Get rid of the (overstated) subsidies of fossil fuels. Get rid of
the (understated) subsidies of alternative energy sources. Let the
market find the higher efficiency, lower carbon solutions that are
out there. And watch the predicted catastrophic results of global
warming become a minor annoyance to our far far wealthier and more
efficient progeny."
This will require...
"hand-wringing Congressional testimony demanding immediate action
needed." (you simple disagree with Gore on the shape of that
action).
Good to know you are not really in the do-nothing camp. The status
quo is sub-optimal whether you are an anarcho-capitalist or an
anarcho-syndacalist or anything in between. But change won't happen
without advocacy for change.
|3.23.07 @ 3:51PM|#
"Rob, You miss read the article on morality and the brain." -
NM
I definitely did not mis-read the article. It's pretty clear that
Gore is willing to sacrifice the few who have freedom, functioning
societies, and strong economies for the many who don't.
"Those with the brain damage have an easier time making the more
utilitarian choice. They think like Spock and sacrifice the needs
of the few or the one for the needs of the many." - NM
You clearly see this as a bug in human nature, while I see it as a
redeeming feature.
"Are you claiming Gore is able to see past the emotional response
and find the most rationale and utilitarian solution?" - NM
Yep. I'm claiming that Gore's approach is similar to the
brain-damaged people in the article. Sometimes the needs of the few
outweigh the needs of the many, and most human beings have a real
problem with sacrificing the few for the many. It's one of the
things that make people HUMAN, rather than cold, calculating,
inhuman "Vulcans."
Here's the best bit that shows this pretty clearly:
"The scenarios weighed immediate harm or death to one person
against certain future harm or death to many. These brain-damaged
people regularly showed a willingness to bring harm to an
individual, an act others may find repugnant.
'They are perfectly capable of endorsing the kind of extreme
high-conflict dilemma in which indeed you would produce harm to
someone because there would be greater good coming to a larger
group,' said study co-author Antonio Damasio, director of the
University of Southern California's Brain and Creativity Institute.
'And this is something that human beings in general reject.'"
Also, on the subject of the other article…
"Please explain how you think the better understanding of the
magnetic field on the sun changes the calculations of its
contribution to heating on the Earth. A cool piece of science, but
you have to really squint to make it seem related to global
climate." - NM
You really think the giant, fiery ball of thermo-nuclear reaction
in the sky has nothing to do with global temperature? Also, the 3d
paragraph reads:
"'For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of
hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnified atmosphere," said
Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophysics Division. "These
images will open up a new era of study on some of the sun's
processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and
the solar system.'"
That last sentence seems to imply a less-than-perfect understanding
of the Sun's effects on the Earth... Maybe that is surprising to
some folks who have already accepted that greenhouse gasses are
somehow more powerful than the Sun...
|3.23.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Sorry Rob,
No time to deconstruct all of that.
I was mainly just teasing you.
FYI, the sun is already taken into consideration in the climate
models. This new information will not change the amount of energy
the sun puts into the system in aggregate. Like I said, you have to
squint real hard to see it as related to climate.
|3.23.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"FYI, the sun is already taken into consideration in the climate
models. This new information will not change the amount of energy
the sun puts into the system in aggregate. Like I said, you have to
squint real hard to see it as related to climate." - NM
I think it's awfully hard to make a sweeping statement like "the
sun is already taken into consideration in the climate models." On
face it's true, sure. But I think that the idea that it is done
with a low enough error rate, when the sun's effect is not fully
understood (this is clearly a true statement), is a bit off the
reservation.
|3.23.07 @ 9:05PM|#
Rob,
What you are missing is that the nifty science you cite is not
about radiant heat coming from the sun... it is about the magnetic
fields. The thing this will allow us to do will be to study the
sun's magnetic fields at a higher resolution in both time and space
(shorter time/shorter distances). Climate effects work at much
slower rates. This will not have a measurable impact on the climate
models due to the difference in time scales. Maybe you were mislead
by the term "space weather." Certainly this has nothing to do with
the global warming issue and the impact of solar output on the
climate models.
Don't accuse me of being "off the reservation" on this. You were
the one bringing a tangential piece of science in to justify your
skepticism.
Guy Montag|3.25.07 @ 7:22AM|#
Maybe that is surprising to some folks who have already
accepted that greenhouse gasses are somehow more powerful than the
Sun...
What? Human beings lead by Dick Cheney are not the most distructive
force in the history of the universe!?! Stop the presses!
Yes, these guys are really out there.
|3.26.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Hmmm... You've got a point about the differences between solar energy and magnetic effects... But it still seems odd to believe that the effect of the sun on the Earth's global temperatures is sufficiently understood to be able to point to "greenhouse gasses" as a primary causal factor in global climate.
|3.26.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Rob,
Human contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is
considered against a background of natural processes. Given that
background, the human contribution can be scientifically analyzed
and has been found to contribute a real and significant effect on
the dynamics of the complex system. Human activity is a powerful
enough force in the overall system to change the direction of its
development. This is what is meant by humans causing global
warming. The sun is, of course, the primary source of energy
driving the system, but it is part of the background of natural
processes. The energy it puts into the system is fairly well
understood on the time scales that are important for climate
modeling.
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