Okay, suppose you're a crazy liberal obsessed with concerned about global warming. Every day, a little evidence turns up to suggest that things are not as bad as global warming alarmists have been saying. The question is: How are you supposed to feel about this?
I mean, if you're a rational person, and you're worried about a climate apocalypse, then anything that turns the balance of available data against the gloom-and-doom forecast is a good thing, right?
But how do you think liberals really feel when they learn that global warming "science" is made up?
Try it this way: Maybe you're a liberal, and you actually like big government regulating all the wealth that you think mankind should feel guilty about. Sure, climate-saving measures overlap with your Master Plan, but that's just a perk, right? I mean, the real point is drowning polar bears, rising sea levels, evaporating glaciers, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph, isn't it?
So I guess if you learn that the polar bears were just swimming, and that their population is growing, that could be a good thing. Unless, of course, you fear that we could all remain complacent about the rising sea levels, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph, right? After all, if you care about those things, you might be a little troubled by news that the polar bears are okay. At the very worst, it's good-news/bad-news, and it still threatens the Master Plan.
Then you find out that the whole sea-level thing's not so bad, either. We're centuries from drowning. That's a relief, right? Unless of course, it fosters complacency about evaporating glaciers, record temperatures and the hockey stick graph. And, ultimately, the Master Plan.
You see where this is going. So the question is, which are the fools who really believe the global warming stuff a little too much, and which are the ones who are really in it for the Master Plan?
Well, your first clue is that the ones who really care will be relieved by good news, and the ones who care about the Master Plan will say anything to keep the scheme alive.
And the problem is that the Master Plan is much more important to many more people than it should be.
Perhaps even enough to reach that critical mass "scientists" call "consensus."
Oh, I almost forgot -- this is very powerful stuff. Imagine going up to a tree hugger liberal every time some aspect of climate change is debunked, and asking them two questions: First, "Do you feel relieved at this news?" And, second, "Why or why not?"
Because you already know how he's going to feel about it, even if he says he's relieved. But I'm willing to bet that he's never stopped to ponder why.
It'll make them think. And God knows they need that.
If you're talking to a committed (read: certifiable) lefty, they will not be relieved. They will be in denial.
Posted by: Jonathan | 02/15/2010 at 07:50 PM
Both sides are in denial about Global Climate Change. Those on the Right see any and every irregularity as "Proof" that there is no human-made climate change afoot. Lefties see any irregularity as a Right-wing plot to undermine the facts that are out there...
Posted by: John "Left is Right" Smithson | 02/16/2010 at 11:37 AM
Regardless of political orientation, the "skeptics" have valid objections to climate science based on both the laws of physics and climate sampling methodology. The major objections that spring to my mind are 1) Beer Lambert's law, 2) the variability IR absorbance/retention based on local relative humidity, 3) the proximity of temperature sensors to urban heat sources like airports, and 4) the statistical uncertainty inherent in comparing data from any kind of direct-reading instrument (like a thermometer) against inferential data (like tree ring thickness).
Posted by: Hank Rearden | 02/17/2010 at 12:06 PM
This sums it up for me.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/18/friday-funnies
Posted by: ConservativeLibertine | 02/20/2010 at 03:27 PM
Here's your answer. As a father of two, I would love to hear "good news" about climate change, if it was news that filtered up through peer-reviewed scientific literature and caused the majority of climate scientists to change their minds about the course of climate change. Yes, that's the best thing I could imagine. But I can't get excited about "good news" that's obviously anecdotal or simple, unsubstantiated assertions on someone's blog, especially if climate change messes with the blogger's ideological "master plan."
If I go to 10 doctors and they all tell me I have cancer, but my friend, who's not a doctor says I look fine and I probably don't have cancer, I would be a fool not to seek cancer treatment, wouldn't I? I would be a fool even if 3 out of those 10 doctors said I didn't have cancer.
Posted by: John | 02/25/2010 at 08:26 AM
That's great, John! So you must have thought it was really good news when NASA GISS fixed a bug and revised their "adjusted" historical temps downward, huh? Or when a UN scientist retreated on glacier melting which, it turns out, was based on flawed undergrad work; or when Phil Jones admitted there's been no global warming for the last 15 years, huh?
Is all this "anecdotal" because you won't look it up for yourself? And just what is my "master plan," if not to get you to simply think for yourself?
If you really have cancer, then the 7 doctors who think so should probably be able to convince the 3 who don't believe it, shouldn't they? After all, science is precisely about proving things, isn't it?
But I do like your doctor analogy. Because it seems to me that if you have 7 doctors telling you that you should cut off your arm to stop the cancer -- and 3 more telling you that you don't have cancer -- it seems to me that you're going to postpone the surgery and get the doctors together to reconcile their differences. After all, it's hardly "scientific" to take action on some kind of majority vote -- the truth is out there somewhere, and real science should be discernible to all 10.
Except that in the case of global warming, the 7 who see the cancer (and it's actually closer to 5) are refusing to share their raw data with the ones who think it might be a little premature to cut off your arm. Evidence of that can be found in the East Anglia CRU emails -- unless for some reason you think information "leaked" from peer-reviewed sources is more "anectodal" than the information they "filter."
Are you not the slightest bit curious why GISS is stonewalling efforts to see their source data? Why should it take FOIA petitions to see weather observations? A source is not "peer-reviewed" if it picks and chooses which peers it will permit to do the reviewing.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/25/2010 at 09:19 AM
Thanks for the substantial response, JG, and for forcing me to do my homework. The GISS "bug" issue wasn't easy to find with a quick Google search; neither was the "UN scientist" (name?), but the Phil Jones interview was (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm). This would indeed be great news if Dr. Jones hadn't added that he's "100% confident that the climate has warmed" and that he "would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
I'm glad you took up my analogy, but I'm beginning to think it's not quite appropriate and that it favors Libertarianism because it's about one person making a choice for his or herself, whereas climate change affects everyone equally—it's a collective problem. Postponing surgery for the sake of your arm is probably a good idea, but what if you *can't* get the doctors to reconcile their differences? Do you keep the arm and risk dying? Or do you sacrifice the arm ("our" collective arm) and live either way?
Unfortunately, in a way, "majority vote" (i.e., consensus) is *precisely* the way science works. Unanimity is rare, as is "proving things." All scientific knowledge is provisional. Any scientist who claims to have capital-T truth is either annoyed, speaking informally, or is not worth his salt. We take the best information we have and act on it.
As for stonewalling, etc., I *would* be interested. Links? And if you're saying that 50 percent of climate scientists do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, I'd be *very* interested to read about that. Links?
I must admit, my master plan *is* to get people to think like me, because, obviously, I think I'm right. Do you deny that you have a master plan to convince as many people as possible, through logic and reason, that free markets and personal freedom and responsibility are the highest values? What if I think for myself and decide that radical Islam is the way to go? And if I'm disposed to believe climate science (not like, *believe*) because it fits my master plan, because addressing it necessitates tighter regulation, "green" policies, collective action—i.e., because it meshes with my political prejudices—aren't you equally disposed to disbelieve it *and* dislike it for precisely the same reasons? Doesn't that argument run both ways, and thus cancel itself out?
I'm not a scientist, but I work with scientists of all kinds. I know firsthand, how ego, outside influence, poltics, and simple error can creep into data and its interpretation, because part of my job is to ferret it out. If there was one report that said the world is warming, I'd feel comfortable shrugging it off. But the magnitude of the consensus, if you really understand it, is overwhelming. I'm pretty conservative in some ways--in particular, I tend to be a skeptic about good news, but take bad news to heart. This is definitely bad news to take to heart.
Posted by: John | 02/26/2010 at 12:16 AM
"The GISS "bug" issue wasn't easy to find with a quick Google search"
Google GISS y2k
"This would indeed be great news if Dr. Jones hadn't added that he's "100% confident that the climate has warmed" and that he "would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Really? Why isn't it great news anyway? Even if he said all that, shouldn't it still be good news? You posted a broken link, BTW.
"I'm glad you took up my analogy, but I'm beginning to think it's not quite appropriate and that it favors Libertarianism because it's about one person making a choice for his or herself, whereas climate change affects everyone equally—it's a collective problem."
I disagree. I agree the analogy is inadequate for you, but your real objection is that leftists don't value the economy like they value limbs. If it was a collective matter involving collective limbs, you would still demand a higher burden of proof than you would demand before crippling the global economy.
The fact is that you would want the "remedies" even if there was no problem. Anything for the Master Plan. Therefore, any evidence of global warming is sufficient for us to rein in human prosperity. At no time do questions like "How much warming is acceptable?", "Is warmer better?" or "Would we be better off with a healthy economy or a pristine environment?" enter your equation. Global warming is merely a trigger for enacting policies you already want.
"Unfortunately, in a way, "majority vote" (i.e., consensus) is *precisely* the way science works. Unanimity is rare, as is "proving things.""
I suspect a team of doctors could in fact reach near-universal agreement on a cancer diagnosis before a patient would get cut. And a self-interested patient would insist on it. Without a similar level of confidence that economic sanctions would do more good than harm -- a much higher standard than any liberal applies -- it would be equally foolish to take a saw to the economy.
"As for stonewalling, etc., I *would* be interested. Links?"
Google GISS FOIA One of the articles mentioned that the UN Himalayan glacier fiasco was based on a magazine article, and not on an undergrad as I had recalled. IPCC assertions are not all "peer-reviewed."
"And if you're saying that 50 percent of climate scientists do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, I'd be *very* interested to read about that. Links?"
That's a very tough call. But consider the East Anglia CRU emails. What we find is that behind a facade of an institution, having x number of scientists, and asserting with 100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic, is bad, will be catastrophic, etc... -- what we find is that as individuals the scientists within this institution are far less certain, and in fact appear to be trying to make a specific case rather than earnestly searching for the truth.
"I must admit, my master plan *is* to get people to think like me, because, obviously, I think I'm right."
That's not liberalism. The plan is to get people to believe whatever's necessary for them to behave as you want them to, with the implication that the behavior sought is not necessarily in anyone's best interests as much as it is "fair." Whether you understand this about your own philosophy determines whether you are an "elite," but that is how the philosophy works. Any other interpretation is merely you convincing yourself whatever you need to believe in order for you to behave as someone else deems "fair."
"Do you deny that you have a master plan to convince as many people as possible, through logic and reason, that free markets and personal freedom and responsibility are the highest values?"
No, but only as long as it's understood that "responsibility" implies a consciousness of environmental issues -- but in a balance of costs and benefits, not as some excuse to restrict liberties.
If you're looking for moral equivalency, I'll cut to the chase: My worldview permits you to espouse your beliefs as long as you do not impose them on anyone else with force or fraud. Carried to its logical conclusion, however, your worldview does not afford me the same respect. You're allowed to be a collectivist in a free society, but nobody's allowed to be free in a collectivist society.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/26/2010 at 09:55 AM
John (not Galt) is trying to make Pascal's argument with climate change. He's basically saying, "Right or wrong, doing something about AGW is the best choice because 1) if AGW theory is correct, then taking action prevents catastrophe, and 2) if AGW is wrong, the economic consequences weren't all that substantial anyway, especially compared to the cost of inaction should the AGW theory be correct." This kind of a "cheap shot" argument would actually be sound except that the economic consequences of unnecessary action are NOT, in fact, trivial. Not by a long shot. Especially when you're talking about 1) how unreliable "green" energy is to begin with and 2) how dramatically significant global action would reduce the standard of living in developing nations who rely primarily on fossil (and in some cases even cellulose) fuels.
Posted by: Hank Rearden | 02/26/2010 at 04:24 PM
Thanks for the Google search terms. From a cursory search, the Y2K thing seems to have produced some outliers in one of the measurements of global warming that don't affect the general trend. The other search terms are a still a bit vague.
"Really? Why isn't it great news anyway? Even if he said all that, shouldn't it still be good news? You posted a broken link, BTW."
Because this 15-year trend hasn't changed his mind about the general trend and its direction. As he explains, it's not statistically significant. As someone who accepts mainstream AGW theory, in order for me to get excited about it, it would have to change the minds of the experts and organizations who currently espouse AGW. Isn't that a reasonable criterion?
JG, I'm curious: what exactly do you believe and not believe about AGW and why?
Sorry about the link—it's the BBC interview.
"I disagree. I agree the analogy is inadequate for you, but your real objection is that leftists don't value the economy like they value limbs. If it was a collective matter involving collective limbs, you would still demand a higher burden of proof than you would demand before crippling the global economy."
Can you describe what you would consider sufficient proof?
Also, it sounds like you're beginning with the premise that any action against climate change would necessarily "cripple the global economy," so even if you had satisfactory proof of AGW, to you, it still wouldn't justify action to combat it. So, basically, you've already made up your mind about it, and even if you were offered what you would consider sufficient proof, you wouldn't be interested, because you're more interested in avoiding market regulation. JG, honestly, doesn't this sound like you have your own Master Plan?
"The fact is that you would want the "remedies" even if there was no problem. Anything for the Master Plan. Therefore, any evidence of global warming is sufficient for us to rein in human prosperity. At no time do questions like "How much warming is acceptable?", "Is warmer better?" or "Would we be better off with a healthy economy or a pristine environment?" enter your equation. Global warming is merely a trigger for enacting policies you already want."
Absolutely I would want the remedies even if there was no problem—I grant you that freely—but I would love—seriously, LOVE—to pursue those remedies without the spectre of climate change. As you can tell by the failure of the last climate conference, that spectre is somehow not really helping enact policies! As a lynchpin rationale for even a moderately liberal agenda, it sucks!
"How much warming is acceptable?" is not a terrible question, but I suspect we don't have the luxury of fine-tuning the level of warming by our actions, just of slowing or accelerating the trend, so it's not terribly relevant. The other two I can answer: a warmer planet is not better, as our economies are based on a relatively stable climate, and wrecking that climate would wreck the world's economies. For that reason, your third question offers a false choice: a healthy economy requires a predictable, functioning (not "pristine") environment. In fact, the real problem with global warming—why anyone should give a crap about it—is not that we'll all be uncomfortably hot, or even that the northwest fancy crested sapsucking throatwarbler or whatever will go extinct, but that it will lead to *economic chaos*, if not collapse. Look: Here's one tiny example of how extreme weather can depress the economy, ripped from today's headlines:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35606058/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/. Multiply it by a thousand.
"I suspect a team of doctors could in fact reach near-universal agreement on a cancer diagnosis before a patient would get cut. And a self-interested patient would insist on it. Without a similar level of confidence that economic sanctions would do more good than harm -- a much higher standard than any liberal applies -- it would be equally foolish to take a saw to the economy."
Well, here's where the analogy breaks down: sure, a group of doctors could agree that you have cancer, because an individual cancer is a directly observable thing, whereas AGW grapples with multiple, diffuse, often intangible phenomena spread out across space and time and mostly takes the form of number crunching and absract models. There's a lot more we don't know about it than about cancer and a lot more room for interpretation, error, and disagreement. To expect unanimity in this field is unreasonable. But the consensus is nonetheless very impressive.
"That's a very tough call. But consider the East Anglia CRU emails. What we find is that behind a facade of an institution, having x number of scientists, and asserting with 100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic, is bad, will be catastrophic, etc... -- what we find is that as individuals the scientists within this institution are far less certain, and in fact appear to be trying to make a specific case rather than earnestly searching for the truth."
But internal disagreement and external consensus are not incompatible, JG. A group can disagree about particulars but agree on the big picture. In fact, in a way, the disagreement lends credence to the consensus, because monolithic unanimity would *really* be suspect. That being said, if it were made public, uncontroversially, that half of climate scientists thought AGW was bunk, that would begin to make me happy. Show me that, and I'll totally buy you a drink and put your bumper sticker on my car.
I'm not wedded to AGW because I think it's the best hope for my master plan—it may even be damaging to the master plan. I credit it because it's the worst-case scenario, given by those in the best position to know, and I would like to avoid that worst case. I would celebrate the discrediting of AGW as heartily as anyone at the Cato Institute—I'd do a dance of joy—but I'm not puttin' on my tap shoes just because one guy wrote "hide the decline."
Posted by: John | 02/26/2010 at 08:51 PM
Thanks for weighing in, Hank. You're right, it is a bit of a Pascal's wager (though why a "cheap shot"?). There's one crucial difference however: Pascal's wager is a wager because there's no way to predict the outcome—you can't know for sure whether there's an afterlife and a Judeo-Christian God until you actually die—and there's 50/50 chance either way. With climate change, we have the benefit of observability and scientific research. If we had as much scientific evidence of the existence of the Biblical God and His hell—even if it was just 60/40—you bet I'd be at church right now!
Also, AGW or not, we *will* have to stop using fossil fuels at some point, because they *will* run out! Beginning that process now seems like a wise thing to do, for the sake of future generations.
Posted by: John | 02/26/2010 at 09:23 PM
"Thanks for the Google search terms. From a cursory search, the Y2K thing seems to have produced some outliers in one of the measurements of global warming that don't affect the general trend."
Well, as I understand it, the Y2K thing actually forced NASA to revisit whether the 1990s were the hottest decade on record in the US. That's not insignificant.
"As someone who accepts mainstream AGW theory, in order for me to get excited about it, it would have to change the minds of the experts and organizations who currently espouse AGW. Isn't that a reasonable criterion?"
Sheeple-talk. "As someone who accepts AGW theory, it would have to change the minds of experts who espouse AGW theory." And even that's not true -- East Anglia shows that the experts who "espouse" it already don't actually believe it as much as you do.
"JG, I'm curious: what exactly do you believe and not believe about AGW and why?"
I believe that the globe has always warmed and cooled, and not just because of a few predictable or well-known cycles. Therefore, human activity is not "the cause" of climate change, but rather a single potential factor.
History suggests that warmer periods have been prosperous times for humanity. So even before you can figure out how much global warming is the cost of human activity, you still have to establish the premise that it's a cost and not a benefit in the first place.
The use of fossil fuels benefits humanity immeasurably. Even if you showed that man-made CO2 harms man, you'd still have to show that the harm it does is greater than the benefits man reaps from using the fuels. And you'd have to show that the costs of the cuts you'd propose, in our CO2 use, would be outweighed by the benefits of the marginal reductions in CO2 content that would result.
Of course, there's the problem that only a fraction of global CO2 production is human caused. And that nature releases more dangerous greenhouse gases than man does. Or that methane from livestock is a much more potent emission than simple CO2. And that water vapor is far and away the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In proper scale, there's an argument that fretting over CO2 is pointless even if it is helpfully alarmist for people with an anti-prosperity agenda.
And of course, I care. I already know that if I recognized a genuine threat I would demand action. And I know that you are accordingly inclined to create fear in me as a result, because you want the prosperity cuts and the taxes for reasons of your own. Global warming is not an end you fear, it is a means you embrace for achieving an end you seek. You welcome global warming because you need an excuse to implement your agenda. Just as your kind welcomed "global cooling" for the same ridiculous reasons. The fact is that I probably actually care more than you do. At least I'm trying to cultivate something that I value; something that requires a life-sustaining environment. You, on the other hand, seek human misery. And yes, I realize you don't see it that way, but that's why someone on your side invented the term "useful idiot."
"Can you describe what you would consider sufficient proof?"
When people who value the same things I value actually recognize that those things are jeopardized. When they start to suggest that net results will be better after making cuts than the net results would be after accounting for the costs of not making cuts. And that evaluation has to be made by people who appreciate prosperity -- someone who sees global warming and prosperity as a cost and a benefit, unlike anyone on your side who simply sees two costs.
"To expect unanimity in this field is unreasonable. But the consensus is nonetheless very impressive."
It's not impressive. People who see both the cost and the benefits are not impressed. My point is that only the people who see two costs are impressed.
"if it were made public, uncontroversially, that half of climate scientists thought AGW was bunk, that would begin to make me happy."
Then you should be happy that East Anglia is full of people who are having a problem proving that AGW is even measurable. The point of the post is that this is a problem for them (and you) and not a source of relief.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/27/2010 at 10:56 AM
"Also, AGW or not, we *will* have to stop using fossil fuels at some point, because they *will* run out! Beginning that process now seems like a wise thing to do, for the sake of future generations."
In fact, fossil fuels will never run out. At some point they will become scarce enough that some other source's relative abundance will make it cheaper. And undoubtedly the rising costs of hydrocarbons will create natural incentives to find those alternatives, at some point in the future when we can also expect better technologies for finding them.
To force people limited by today's technology to search for those solutions while enough energy lies in the ground to provide for man's needs for at least another century is insane.
And the reality is that man will not stop using fossil fuels on America's say-so, anyway. Your best solution would have Americans living more poorly on "green" energy sources while our reduced consumption of petroleum makes it cheaper for everyone else. Sounds like an "unintended consequence," but once again it's actually a liberal goal.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/27/2010 at 11:13 AM
I'll give you props, Mr. Galt, for actually engaging those making comments, but you yield absolutely no ground whatsoever and stubbornly frame your arguments in terms that suggest you already know the answers. It demonstrates little integrity, IMO, and isn't really very intellectually interesting. Why does anyone bother (myself no less than others)?
Here's where you demonstrate your basic disconnect from reality: In fact, fossil fuels will never run out. At some point they will become scarce enough that some other source's relative abundance will make it cheaper. And undoubtedly the rising costs of hydrocarbons will create natural incentives to find those alternatives, at some point in the future when we can also expect better technologies for finding them.
The world is finite, not infinite. Whether every last bit of fossil fuel gets used up or falls below some cost-benefit threshold to be worthwhile is tantamount to the same. And the magical switch to an as yet unknown alternative is a pipe dream, a useless canard. I don't delude myself that you can be convinced of this fact, though. You're among a huge cross-section of the population who foolishly believe they can enjoy the benefits of limitless energy into an uncharted future.
Let me make two further observations. You justify numerous arguments on hopes of (universal?) prosperity, as though that alone were an unmitigated good. Well, it's not. Our current prosperity, relative to millennia of human history, is the result of an energy binge that can't continue or be repeated within any meaningful human timescale. It's enabled us to create a high standard of living (in the First World, anyway), specialize our cultural institutions, grow our population, and destroy huge swathes of the natural world in the process. Meanwhile, many people feel adrift in life, disconnected, and generally without overriding purpose other than consumption and procreation. Consumption is a false idol, closely related to prosperity, which I'll add is enjoyed quite unevenly. Little social justice to be found there.
The other problem is your framing AGW in terms of moral agency, as though the issue were really about personal freedom vs. enacting someone's master plan. As you said about human activity being a single factor, the moral implications behind AGW is also only a single factor, but probably not the most important one. In fact, you're really just restating Thomas Sowell's formulation of constrained and unconstrained ideologies. I'm no fan of Sowell, and although there is certainly some truth behind his model, just as there is some truth behind your restatement of it (see how it's possible to yield a little bit?), it's a rather specialized politicization of what is in truth a major threat not just to our survival but much of the rest of the biosphere.
Since you're already disconnected from reality, as evidenced by yoking yourself to the illusion of continued prosperity and economic growth, again, I don't expect to convince you of anything or to obtain even the mildest concession on any argument. Maybe your other interlocutors have something to add.
Posted by: Brutus.wordpress.com | 02/27/2010 at 01:26 PM
"The world is finite, not infinite. Whether every last bit of fossil fuel gets used up or falls below some cost-benefit threshold to be worthwhile is tantamount to the same."
The two views are the same in the absolute context of whether we will someday be off oil. But that was not the context of the original quote, which was, "Beginning that process (of getting off oil) now seems like a wise thing to do, for the sake of future generations."
In that context, beginning the process now is more costly, for those of us who have sufficient oil and finite technology, than it will be for future generations with less oil and better technologies. Even if it would be just as expensive for those future generations, it will still be more cost effective for them than it is for us, simply because they will not have the same alternatives (in terms of available oil) that we currently enjoy.
"Our current prosperity, relative to millennia of human history, is the result of an energy binge that can't continue or be repeated within any meaningful human timescale..."
I like this passage, because it reveals you to be something of an elitist. You are that rarest of all things, an honest liberal. "This is not prosperity; it is excess. It is unsustainable, and we should all learn to live poorer, starting now."
Now if only your side would actually run for office on its true beliefs, instead of all the empty promises that you'll help everyone live better. It would save me the trouble of explaining why your policies ultimately make us all poorer if you simply admitted that's your goal from the outset.
"The other problem is your framing AGW in terms of moral agency, as though the issue were really about personal freedom vs. enacting someone's master plan."
That's not how I frame it. But that is how I reject suggestions that a desire for personal freedom is morally equivalent to a master plan. If your master plan has value, then convince people to accept it voluntarily -- the point being that my "master plan" of free will and other "master plans" are perfectly compatible. What you libs need to deal with is why your particular master plan calls for the suppression of free will.
I have A Conflict of Visions, and I can't say I agree with Sowell. I liked Haidt's explanation better, loosely paraphrased as "Liberalism is a personality disorder."
Posted by: John Galt | 02/27/2010 at 04:50 PM
I appreciate your letting me continue to pester you like this, JG. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time.
"Well, as I understand it, the Y2K thing actually forced NASA to revisit whether the 1990s were the hottest decade on record in the US. That's not insignificant."
This story appears to be from 2007. Since then, we've had a year (2009) that tied 2005 for hottest year on record (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249). You're right that NASA revised it's stance on 1990 as the hottest decade—when it was exceeded by the 2000–2009! That's why I say the early-century outliers don't affect the general trend.
And you're right, the data about 1934 et al. was on U.S. temperatures, not global temperatures, so they have even less bearing on *global* warming.
"And even that's not true -- East Anglia shows that the experts who "espouse" it already don't actually believe it as much as you do."
I'm sure you're more up on the East Anglia hack than I am. Maybe I have something to learn here, but there are over 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 other documents. Can you point me to the specific evidence that climate scientists don't really believe in AGW? Is it the "hide the decline" thing?
"I believe that the globe has always warmed and cooled, and not just because of a few predictable or well-known cycles. Therefore, human activity is not "the cause" of climate change, but rather a single potential factor."
Well, hell, we agree! That's pretty much mainstream climate science, as I understand it, except for the "potential" part. And absolutely no one is saying it's "the cause"—the only factor. Just a big one, and one we can do something about. Can you tell me what you do/don't believe about the current episode and its consequences?
"History suggests that warmer periods have been prosperous times for humanity. So even before you can figure out how much global warming is the cost of human activity, you still have to establish the premise that it's a cost and not a benefit in the first place."
Okay, warmth may be conducive to prosperity, sure. But the warmth itself isn't the problem. The problem is the rapid rate of change that will wreck havoc with the climate regime (and the ecosystems that have developed under it) that forms the primary basis of any current human prosperity. You can't *have* an economy without a stable environment. If fish we eat die out because the ocean no longer supports them, the commercial fisheries go under and the fishermen are out of work. If the fishermen don't have money to buy goods, manufacturers and retailers suffer and more jobs are lost, etc. . . . You know this drill. Again, multiply by a thousand. And that's a relatively benign example. Past warming episodes have been tied to
massive extinction events (http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/11/great_dying_tied_to_global_war.php). So, yes, it's a cost, to use a bit of understatement.
"The use of fossil fuels benefits humanity immeasurably. Even if you showed that man-made CO2 harms man, you'd still have to show that the harm it does is greater than the benefits man reaps from using the fuels. And you'd have to show that the costs of the cuts you'd propose, in our CO2 use, would be outweighed by the benefits of the marginal reductions in CO2 content that would result."
If you're saying that fossil fuels are the basis of human prosperity, such as it is, then I agree. We all do—it's not controversial. But if you're asking for a cost-benefit analysis between unchecked global warming, then maybe you're not understanding the projected consequences: famine, drought, mass extinctions, loss of coastal areas, including major
cities—Four Horsemen stuff. Is anyone projecting similar scenarios as a result of phasing out the use of fossil fuels?
"Of course, there's the problem that only a fraction of global CO2 production is human caused. And that nature releases more dangerous greenhouse gases than man does. Or that methane from livestock is a much more potent emission than simple CO2. And that water vapor is far and away the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In proper scale, there's an argument that fretting over CO2 is pointless even if it is helpfully alarmist for people with an anti-prosperity agenda."
Again, you're right: there's a lot of CO2 in the air that's not our fault. But it's disingenuous to call them "dangerous" greenhouse gases, because they're part of an equilibrium that's been in place for millenia. What we're doing is adding more carbon than the system can absorb. And I agree that methane is a problem, but that's a reason to address it along with CO2, not to ignore both.
"When people who value the same things I value actually recognize that those things are jeopardized. When they start to suggest that net results will be better after making cuts than the net results would be after accounting for the costs of not making cuts. And that evaluation has to be made by people who appreciate prosperity -- someone who sees global warming and prosperity as a cost and a benefit, unlike anyone on your side who simply sees two costs."
Okay, how about a profit-seeking, private insurance firm? Allianz takes the IPCC report at face value and appears to favor cutting CO2 emissions. Who could care more about markets and "prosperity"?
JG, I'm trying to figure out where we differ. You don't seem to reject AGW outright and wholesale—you don't say it's a hoax—but you do pick at it here and there and mock those who believe in it "too much." How much is the appropriate amount to believe in it? *Do* you think it's a hoax, a conspiracy among thousands of scientists and technocrats to push a particular economic agenda?
Posted by: John | 02/27/2010 at 05:07 PM
I like this passage, because it reveals you to be something of an elitist. You are that rarest of all things, an honest liberal. "This is not prosperity; it is excess. It is unsustainable, and we should all learn to live poorer, starting now."
I'm an elitist for observing something fundamentally true? Then you put words in my mouth? I haven't advocated anything, yet you've pegged me as a liberal. This hardly even warrants a retort.
Now if only your side would actually run for office on its true beliefs, instead of all the empty promises that you'll help everyone live better. It would save me the trouble of explaining why your policies ultimately make us all poorer if you simply admitted that's your goal from the outset.
I've seen this argument plenty of times, and it's always been flim-flam economics: the cost of something now is presumably always more than the cost of that same thing in the future, so why not put it off until technological innovation makes it cheaper or indefinitely until it's virtually free? However, we live in the here and now, and human needs for food, housing, clothing, etc. are somewhat inflexible compared to the wildly fluctuating notional value of fiat currency. Our current gambit with deficit spending is soon to reveal how out of touch the current economics paradigm truly is. Then we'll all become better acquainted with real austerity.
Posted by: Brutus.wordpress.com | 02/27/2010 at 05:54 PM
This is just fascinating. On one side we have reason, supported by an ocean of observations and models. On the other we have an ocean of denial, supported by wishful thinking about the finite nature of fossil fuels and the impacts of burning them on global climate change.
Which side to side with? I understand fully why people choose wishful thinking: If the evidence is too scary, or actually requires changes in behavior, denial is the preferred choice. But as a rationalist, I'm staring into the abyss of reality and going with reason anyway.
Posted by: Guy McPherson | 02/27/2010 at 07:06 PM
John,
Global temperatures appear to be going up over a geologically insignificant period. There's evidence that temperatures go up and down historically, and despite such "instability" we've seen prosperous times when temperatures have gone up. Phil Jones recently admitted that he is unable to say whether this recent trend is warmer than one that occurred, with great benefit to humans, during medieval times.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but it was also increasing during the 70s when all of today's global warming crowd was warning of a pending ice age. CO2 levels have also risen and fallen in the past due to non-human factors. For perspective, CO2 is currently less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, and all human activity only contributes a fraction of that. How much of the greenhouse effect can possibly come from this? It's not a "big" factor.
"...if you're asking for a cost-benefit analysis between unchecked global warming, then maybe you're not understanding the projected consequences: famine, drought, mass extinctions, loss of coastal areas, including major cities—Four Horsemen stuff."
Fiction. Every time I hear one of these "projections" being revised, they're pushing it back another hundred -- or another thousand -- years. That's good news, right? I certainly think so, but I don't think you do.
I believe it's good business to embrace politically correct causes, so I'm not fazed by companies that publicly jump onto the global warming bandwagon. As I understand it, GE stands to make a fortune on "green" technology subsidies, just as Al Gore can afford to fly his private jet on what he gets from selling carbon offsets.
"*Do* you think it's a hoax, a conspiracy among thousands of scientists and technocrats to push a particular economic agenda?"
Yes. The hysteria is clearly a hoax. The warming is certainly real, but that's not cause for alarm. Climate changes -- it always has. The man-made part is improbable, but it's increasingly profitable to look for proof of it. So yes, I expect increasing efforts to establish a link, just as they were looking to blame us for an ice age a few decades ago. The alarms were unwarranted then, and they'll be proven unwarranted now.
As far as I'm concerned, every liberal ought to just recuse himself from global warming debate. You have a conflict of interests. You want the world to be poorer.
You're a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/27/2010 at 08:40 PM
"Our current gambit with deficit spending is soon to reveal how out of touch the current economics paradigm truly is. Then we'll all become better acquainted with real austerity."
Now, there's something I can agree with, Brutus. I frequently wish our government's credit wasn't so good.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/27/2010 at 08:53 PM
This is a typically erudite comment: "You're a bunch of idiots."
Actually, the evidence indicates liberals and atheists are smarter than folks like you, John Galt.
Oh, that's right. You don't believe in evidence!
Posted by: Guy McPherson | 02/27/2010 at 11:06 PM
The weird thing, Guy, is that being smarter is of no use if you're just plain fucking crazy.
Let's consider your own blog, undoubtedly an island of superior evidence-based intelligence in the sea of internet mediocrity.
Now, you global warmists are kind of taking this thread off its original track with debate over specifics about global warming, which was never really my point.
But that part where you "hope" that we'll be in a "new Dark Age" by 2015? That part's golden. Because, by that, you imply that every bit of good news about global warming -- any evidence that things aren't as bad as the IPCC and people carrying the internet equivalent of "The End is Near" signs would have us believe -- you imply that instead of being relieved to hear this, you'll be disappointed. You're actually looking forward to "much suffering and death among industrial humans."
That doesn't strike me as rational, but it is curiously consistent with my observation that the loudest voices in global warming will not be relieved to hear good news.
Then there's this:
Now, I know what you mean by "ultra-conservative," but trust me: That's a decidedly liberal projection.
Posted by: John Galt | 02/28/2010 at 09:05 AM
John, if you'd read even a fraction of the material on my blog, you would notice I'm in favor of a quick trip to the post-industrial Stone Age because all available evidence indicates that's the only way we'll save the living planet, and therefore our own species, from the impacts of ecological overshoot. Like most intelligent liberals, I'd be ecstatic to learn of any politically viable solution to global climate change. Have you got one?
By the way, denial is not a solution.
Posted by: Guy McPherson | 02/28/2010 at 09:36 AM
"Like most intelligent liberals, I'd be ecstatic to learn of any politically viable solution to global climate change. Have you got one?"
Guy, the climate has changed forever. CO2 levels have changed forever. Temperatures have changed forever. The sun itself has a climate of its own, and that, too, has been changing forever.
About the only certain development, with the current period of climate change, is that this is the historical dawn of man's ability to measure it. And I think we have a pretty limited dataset to be concluding that the first climate changes we can measure herald the end of the world. As I recall, the last change we measured was supposed to end in an ice age. How did that work out?
Humanity today is a product of all preceding climate changes. We're still here, we adapted. And even if we ourselves cause the next change, there's no reason we can't adapt to that as well. And it's not just us -- nature adapts, too. I don't know about you, but I'm getting by just fine without wooly mammoths, mastodons and saber-toothed tigers.
We will survive.
But there's no reason we can't be better citizens. Take, for example, an article I saw in Tucson Weekly. I hail your adherence to principles: Cashing in your life insurance and your retirement plans -- selling your "financial future" as it were.
Tell me, fellow concerned citizen: Are you going to be expecting me to fund your old age after leaving yourself exposed in this way? Will you be on welfare, or expecting my children to pay for your retirement?
If all us ants are still here after d-day comes and goes, Mister Grasshopper, what assurances do we have from you that the price of your folly will not have to be our concern?
Are you sure we both understand who, exactly, is in denial???
Posted by: John Galt | 02/28/2010 at 10:33 AM
"We will survive." How? The last time it was 4 C warmer on this planet, we had snakes the size of yellow school buses in the tropics, and the largest mammal was the size of a shrew. There is simply no way for large mammals to thermoregulate in light of rapid increases in global average temperatures. Never mind the total absence of planetary ice and near absence of fresh water. Oh that's right: We're clever. Just not as clever as cockroaches or yeast.
The consummate folly is to base your expectations on the past alone, with no other evidence except our prior survival. Our species has been here 0.004% as long as Earth.
John, I don't need your subsidy now and I won't need it later. I'm comfortably living without fiat currency already. You, on the other hand, no doubt will be looking for somebody to save you when the trucks stop showing up at the grocery store, the power goes out, and the water stops coming out the taps.
You depend heavily on government support already, without acknowledging it. After all, the only reason we have an industrial economy in this country is because of oppression abroad and obedience at home. If not for the never-ending acts by the most lethal killing force in the history of the world and the associated occupation of oil-rich countries, we'd be firmly in the Stone Age already. My liberal (i.e., broad-thinking) friends and I will be fine when we finally terminate the industrial economy on which most imperialists depend. I'm betting you're in the latter camp.
How will you get along when American Empire completes its fall?
Posted by: Guy McPherson | 02/28/2010 at 11:26 AM