Reason in the Ether: Ron Bailey Talks with the Libertarian Dime About Climate Change

Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey returns to the Libertarian Dime. From the LD website:

The main topic of the show was climate change, and a number of things were covered. Each person on the show explained where the stood on the issue, and then the panel went on to talk about such issues as "Climategate", The Copenhagen Consensus, Al Gore, and the environmental movement in general when it comes to policy versus science. A must listen show for any libertarian still on the fence about climate change.

Go here to listen.

Comments

[OO]

the ice ages are geologic history which proves climate chg. deniers therefore must specify AGW since climate chg is the geologic record

[TheZeitgeist]

That is a devastating observation.

[OO]

the article does NOT specify that diff sherlock

[kinnath]

If you must come here to troll, please try to be some what interesting.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Kinnath,

If you must come here to troll, please try to be some what interesting.

I would settle for some coherence, never mind the interest.

[Zeb]

No shit. That's why many of us who are convinced that humans have some effect on climate still think that the idea that we must stop climate change at all costs is silly. The world is not going to stay just like it is now no matter what we do.

[OO]

another ice age would extinct the northern hemishpere. we better try something in that event

[Michael Ejercito]

another ice age would extinct the northern hemishpere. we better try something in that event

Global warming is expected to delay the next ice age by a century or two. If we are lucky, we can make sure it does not happen until after 12011.

[OO]

u mean 2111 to 2211 using ur data.

[spencer]

I like the use of extinct as a verb. I hope it catches on grammatically.

[Michael Ejercito]

The biggest problem in AGW theory is that the relation between temps and CO2 concentration is logarithmic. In other words, the marginal temperature increase decreases towards zero with the increase of CO2 concentration, implying that most of the "damage" was already done.

[Doc S]

It actually doesn't imply that most of the damage has already been done. I think you go too far in making that claim.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Doc S,

It actually doesn't imply that most of the damage has already been done.

Read carefully what Michael is saying, Doc: the supposed relation between temps and CO2 concentration is logarithmic, which would mean that we're already at the point where more CO2 will not make a dime of difference.

[Doc S]

I understand completely what he's saying, and thats why I disagree. I don't think the damage has been done as it's on a much larger time scale than just the initial temperature increase.
I think it is just starting to begin, even if the log growth stops at an additional .5 degrees or 1 degree. The damage is not something that will come all at one time but will continually increase as things such as ocean currents change or stagnate.

[Doc S]

I guess to clairfy: he's saying the change in temp has basically maxed out to the log relationship, therefor the worst has happened. Now, if temperature increasing were the only effect of climate change i might agree (although I don't believe we have yet reached the point where any further increases will be benign).

[prolefeed]

So your point is that in the past, the climate kept changing continuously without any human intervention, and this is proof of a theory that the current changes are due to human intervention?

What are you, 8 years old? Or retarded?

[OO]

sense u can onlly refut wat i said with adhoms u conseed my ponit and no iam not retrad

[Old Mexican]

Spoof! Spoof! Spoof!

(At least I think it is....)

[OO]

AGW vs climate chg sherlock. do try to keep up

[agammamon]

Wow moron. AGW deniers don't deny the existence of climate change. Its obvious climate has changed, from ice age to temperate and back.
We just have great difficulty accepting that Man's actions are having a significant effect since the average temperature has fluctuated at least as much in the past, before mankind even existed, as is predicted to change in the future.

[Free2Booze]

And even if mans actions did have a significant effect, the cost of government policies to combat climate change, out weigh the benefits.

[Ron Bailey]

Free2Booze: Just what I said.

[spencer]

Matt Ridley wrote this a little while ago:

"But for some time I have been noticing that the correlations between certain aspects of solar activity and certain aspects of climate are getting really rather impressive -- far more so than anything relating to carbon dioxide."

Today he wrote this:

"climate policy is, in my terminology, a tourniquet for a nosebleed"

The first I don't pretend to understand, the second makes perfect sense to me.

[Doc S]

Ron:

I understand the libertarian fear of the government trying to establish methods for climate change prevention. Obvioulsy there's a lot of of evidence to show the incompetence of our government in dealing with any number of issues. But this is the point where I always run into problems in looking for the ideal solution.

I don't see industry moving fast enough (or being capable of good self policing). I also believe that due to human nature, our fight or flight response isn't good at assessing long term risks, and the general public will likely only respond to a crisis (which would at that point likely be too late).
So what's the effective, not necessarily ideal, libertarian solution to this problem??

[Ballchinian]

And even if the cost of government policies to combat climate change didn't outweigh the benefits, I still don't give a shit about something that might turn out to be a problem long after I'm dead.

[Old Mexican]

Re: agammamon,

Wow moron.

Please don't call OhioOrrin a "moron." Remember that morons can turn violent if provoked...

[kinnath]

So declining morals cause global warming?

[Southerner]

No, look at the picture: global warming causes swimsuits to be 95% off.

I'm not talking about the price, mind you...

[spencer]

Come on you Global Warming! Only 5% left to go!

[Achtung Coma Baby]

I bet Penn Jillette thinks Ron Bailey is full of shit...you know, he has that "gut feeling" that's important to skepticism.

[Ron Bailey]

Achtung Coma Baby: Penn Jillette on AGW: "I don't know." As far as I know that's still his position.

[Ron Bailey]

Grrr. Can't get the link to work. For Jillette on AGW see URL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....kepticism/

[Achtung Coma Baby]

Penn's most intellectually honest statement about AGW is "I don't know." Unfortunately, he should've shut up right then instead of going on and saying that he "felt" environmentalism was bullshit.

[Tman]

Penn's THE most intellectually honest statement about AGW is "I don't know."

FTFY.

[Achtung Coma Baby]

A lot of climate scientists have reached some solid conclusions regarding climate change, and for them it is no longer intellectually honest for them to say "I don't know."

What makes Penn intellectually dishonest is that he can put a lot of faith in the work of evolutionary scientists. I doubt he is any more adept at understanding evolutionary theory than he is at climate theory. Yet, he's more willing to accept their conclusions...But he can't accept climate change because of something he "feels."

[Achtung Coma Baby]

Also, I'm sure that he doesn't have as much doubt when it comes to medicine.

[Tman]

A lot of climate scientists have reached some solid conclusions regarding climate change, and for them it is no longer intellectually honest for them to say "I don't know."

Climate change, yes. Anthropogenic climate change, not so much. There is a consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to the greenhouse effect more so than it would without them, but the there is ZERO "consensus" on how much this contribution affects the normal cycles of climate change. And so far, the models have shown that our "best guesses" have been remarkably wrong.

[Achtung Coma Baby]

It seemed like the idea that Penn was trying to describe at the 2008 TAM (where he was questioned about environmentalism) is that environmentalism was a pseudo-scientific (read: religious) and that he that because "Al Gore is an annoying asshole."

I think we can agree that Gore is an annoying asshole, BUT the truly honest answer (which Penn seems to give for almost all other questions) is "I don't know," and leave it at that.

[Tman]

environmentalism was a pseudo-scientific (read: religious) and that he that because "Al Gore is an annoying asshole."

Without knowing the context, I'll take it at your word that this is what he was trying to say. If you look at environmentalism you can find both people who genuinely care about improving the quality of our environment by taking reasonable steps in terms of conservation and recycling etc., and also people who think that man is some sort of pox on the earth and therefore we should give up our material gains in order to "appease Gaia" or some other such nonsense.

The sad fact is that environmentalism is currently the foundation behind many very damaging policies that have been enacted such as the ethanol subsidies that have raised world food prices and caused greater world hunger or ineffectual "environmental impact" studies that unnecessarily delay projects that will have immediate benefit to both man and the environment (see Mine Your Own Business - http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/).

Maybe you can easily separate the two between the Al Gore's and the clean air act, but I have more trouble with this.

[dennis]

Wasn't his contention that he felt that there "was some bullshit here" I might not remember precisely, so I could well be wrong. I think that is a valid statement, given that Gore has always had to scare us about something (music lyrics, Sadaam in 1991). If the "there is some bullshit" statement was meant to imply that while the science certainly suggests a relation between human activity and climate change, that the discourse on the matter is likely rife with exaggerations and fabrications designed to make the government more powerful and people with messiah complexes feel more important, that would not only be a fair observation but an utterly reasonable one. Saying that there are problems with much of what people like Gore say about the subject is not the same as being a "denier" (a terrible term meant to equate people to Holocaust deniers.)

[Cytotoxic]

Environmentalism IS pseudo-religious bullshit that centers on the idea that nature is greater than man. It's not a gut feeling it's the truth. If you need further confirmation just look up the bullshit the environmental movement has been up to wrt GMO, Love Canal, 'fracking', etc.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Achtung Coma Baby,

A lot of climate scientists have reached some solid conclusions regarding climate change

Which should be no wonder, as climate ALWAYS changes.

and for them it is no longer intellectually honest for them to say "I don't know."

That is not what Penn means by that. He asks: "Is global warming a human-provoked phenomenon? I don't know. Is it a problem? I don't know."

One thing is Global Warming (a.k.a. "climate change,") quite another Man-made Global Warming - there is a HUGE leap from one to the other; it is within that chasm where the controversy resides, not if there's global warming (there HAS to be GW, otherwise we would call this place "Ice" instead of "Earth.")

[Old Mexican]

Re: Achtung Coma Baby,

Unfortunately, he should've shut up right then instead of going on and saying that he "felt" environmentalism was bullshit.

Environmentalism and Climate Science are NOT the same thing, ACB. Environmentalism is a mystical religion, which makes it fair game for Penn and other skeptics.

[Tim]

Climate changes, minds don't.

[OO]

well said +1

[Old Mexican]

Reason in the Ether: Ron Bailey Talks with the Libertarian Dime About Climate Change

And the kids, work, the wife...

I also open the small talk with the pretty co-eds with a conversation on Climate Change...

[Pretty Co-ed]

But I thought you were talking about the weather!

[Old Mexican]

Well, my dear, you see: It's only weather when it contradicts AGW, and Climate Change when it does not.

[OO]

on faux "news" maybe

[Free2Booze]

I bet you spent all last night coming up with that witty retort.

[OO]

I listen to PMSNBC

[OO]

^another imitator thx!^

[Old Mexican]

Re: OO,

on faux "news" maybe

You're progressing. You may now begin with lesson 2: Punctuation marks.

[Joel]

Wait . . . Fox News endorses AGW?

[Old Mexican]

A must listen show for any libertarian still on the fence about climate change.

That would be around like, what? Four, or five of them?

[Doc S]

which side of the fence?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Doc S,

which side of the fence?

On the fence, Doc. On.

http://bratgrrl.com/stashfence.jpg

[Doc S]

I actually laughed at that picture. Which side of the fence are the people other than the 4-5 on the fence on?

[Old Mexican]

Doc, I have no idea. Bailey mentioned any libertarians still on the fence, which I imagine would be something like four or five of them...

[Doc S]

Ahh.. I get your point. Meaning most people have made up their mind one way or the other, regardless of which side.

I didn't know if there was a general libretarian consensus. From these boards it seems that 90% of libretarians think ACC is bullhooey and smoke and mirrors.
But listening to the talk I was actually surprised to hear the admittance of Ron and the other fellow that they admit there is anthropogenic contribution and there will be effects from it.

Honestly the climate issue (and a few other environmental/energy related issues)are the only thing that keep me from being a full fledged libretarian.

[Free2Booze]

If the alarmist are so fearful of the effects of climate change, why don't we see more homes with solar panels, windmills, and droves of hybrid cars on the road.

Who knows, once you drive the cost down enough, maybe some of us deniers will consider buying them too.

[Mike M.]

It seems like only yesterday when we were talking about overreaction to scare stories and infinitesimal risk.

[Mort]

And then we had the financial crisis, the BP oil spill, and the Fukushima Nuclear disaster. So it seems like we tend to underestimate the cost of highly unlikely (but possible) events.

Huh. Fancy that.

[Cytotoxic]

Although the cost of the latter two isn't all that high actually, rather it is the reaction to them that is damaging. Life over-inflammatory response in certain pathologies.