http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/36839.html
http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/34998.html

With these: “How about the cod fishery in the George’s Bank? Commercial whaling? Most pelagic fisheries today?” Would you not agree that these areas are, today, ruled under the auspicies of many different and overlapping “Governmental” authorities? If so, Have they been successful in reversing the tide that is the continued onslaught of those rapidly and continuously declining Fisheries? No? But, their Kin will be much more able to handle a larger and more ephemeral problem? Yes?

Your comments about religion are entertaining, even if self-contradictory. Are those concerned about climate change simply afraid and trying to propiate the gods, or arrogantly thinking too highly of their own power?

We are just pathetic little creatures scratching a living in this corner of the universe. Self-flagellation has about as much effect as masterbation, only a lot less pleasant.

I suppose Dr. Reisman would strongly disagree with the first, even though he may agree with your second statement, given his disdain for what he sees as a sackcloth and ashes approach by enviros.

GW theory and predictions are not “falsifiable” therefore it is not science, but mere conjecture, just like all the other religious predictions.

Pathetic creatures might feel the need to continue to run an irreversible, global scale climate experiment, but its clear that AGW theory is science, and that there is enough evidence already to confirm it:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258

The remainder of your comments show you do not understand the basic facts of the rise in CO2 levels or the property rights aspects of open-access resources. This might help with the first: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php

On the second, you might see the links I just gave to Mark Hoffer, although this is a good start: http://mises.org/daily/1760

“…unmanaged open-access resource regimes.”– As I have asked before, please point to a specific instance of this, at/on a specific point/place, on the Globe.

How about any resource, before it was privatized by homesteading? How about resources for which homesteading just doesn’t work, and community or governmental propoerty rights exist but are very difficult to enforce to to information costs? Many natural resourses fit the bill, especially when technological change allows exploitation of a previously unavailable resource or more efficient exploitation of an unmanaged resource. How about the cod fishery in the George’s Bank? Commercial whaling? Most pelagic fisheries today? Natural resource exploitation in the US when native regulatory regimes collapsed? How about use of bodies of water and the atmosphere as dumping grounds?

In the context of interntional resources, the discussions here may be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/delpftoc10n1.htm
http://www.law.duke.edu/news/colloquium5papers.html
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/solutions/colloquia-8th.html#publications
http://www.env.duke.edu/cgc/seminars/marketssaveclimate.html

1. Religious leaders are always respected “wisemen” of their era, so long as the religion is in vogue. GW theory and predictions are not “falsifiable” therefore it is not science, but mere conjecture, just like all the other religious predictions. Floods do happen, is it due to us sinners burning fossil fuel and incurring the wrath of mother nature, or is it due to us sinners fornicating and incurring the wrath of the fatherly god? Since we do both and we are not about to stop doing either, there is really no way of testing which theory is more correct, is there? Not sure why you think the Republicans are saints. They party was founded upon the “2nd awakening” mellinialism of the mid-19th century.

2. Libertarians are human, too; they can make mistakes, and occasionally some of them get bamboozled by wacky psudo-science, too.

3. You are not reading what was explained. If the year-to-year variation in natural CO2 output is orders of magnitude greater than the entire human output, the ability of the CO2 sinks to absorb is certainly much greater what human race have been able to put out. CO2 level increased in the last century and half for the same reason it did long before human race came along, which was long before civilization came along, which in turn was long before industrialization came along: when temperature rise, CO2 solubility in the ocean drops, so more CO2 is in the atmosphere. Are we experiencing the hottest climate in planet hisotry? Not even close. Eric the Red and his band of merry vikings were able to farm in Greenland in the 10th century. Try that in Greenland today . . . you can’t even grow grass or shrub in Greeland, much less farming of grains. Don’t tell me Vikings were running coal burning power plants

4. Atmosphere is an open-access resource in the same way that rain water is an open-access resource, or entropy of the universe is an open-access resource (depending on whether you believe the resource is naturally renewing or ever diminishing). In either case, there is no justification for regulation or taxation being placed upon the use.

Disciples of the CO2 religion is making the same mistake that disciples of historical religions always made: thinking too highly of their own power . . . somehow human action has a measurable effect in the grand scheme of things in this universe far beyond our immediate surroundings. No we don’t. We are just pathetic little creatures scratching a living in this corner of the universe. Self-flagellation has about as much effect as masterbation, only a lot less pleasant.

you posit: “One can dispute whether the costs of government action are ever warranted by the problems, but it is actually a denial of the Austrian understanding of property rights to deny that there are no negative consequences to unmanaged open-access resource regimes.”

of which: “…unmanaged open-access resource regimes.”– As I have asked before, please point to a specific instance of this, at/on a specific point/place, on the Globe.

TT

This actually says a lot if you’re a Britophile. Hereditary peers are supposed to be up to not much nowadays.

The pseudo-market argument about “common resource” in this case is quite absurd. The solar-earth system’s capacity to vary earth’s surface temperature (and consequently CO2 level, due to CO2 soluability as a function of temperature) is on a far greater scale than what feable contribution the humanity can make.

You may as well claim entropy in this universe to be a “common resource” and demand tax on every speech ever made and every action ever taken. Heck, why not tax people for breathing; that’s CO2 production after all, and entropy increasing.

It was not a metaphor, but a recount of historical precedences. The intermix of Aztec’s fear of sun not rising and the Judeo-Christian sacrifice of first-born and handing over of the choicest lamb to the high priests was quite deliberate. It goes to show that, wacky religious sacrifices to ward off imaginary end of the world as “we” knew it have a long historical tradition of being popular.

Rent-seeking: Have you ever noticed that those making the most noise about end of the world have their fundings and careers tied to collecting the imaginary rent?

I will leave the ad hominim attacks alone.

- CO2: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html

- Religion/History: In the absence of any domesticated large mammals, the Aztecs used their religion to justify their cannibalization of other defeated, captured peoples, not their own children. The may be some environmentalists who feel a religious-like need to protect the natural environment, but such simplistic, “black box”-type explanations are clearly insufficient to explain the widely perceived support for action on climate change.

Metaphor: Who is making the “hand me your choicest lamb now” demand? What we have is simply a recognition that in the absence of effective property rights, common resources are frequently over-exploited by market economies, and a discussion of how we “enclose the commons” in a manner that prices GHG dumping at the least cost to economic freedom.

- Rent-seeking: You are surely correct that “not all claims of “common good” are true.” But has it ever occurred to you that those who have most strongly declaimed that climate change is a problem and one in which the use of fossil fuels plays a crucial part might have as there motivation private objectives in protecting either partisan political benefit or the right to use the atmosphere freerly as a dump for GHG emissions?

To us American rabble, it hardly matters whether your peerage is life or hereditary, though one might suppose that a peerage that was awarded for one reason or another might tell us more of your abilities than one that you received simply by being born.

By the way, did you have a chance to review the comments made here on your article:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/chinese_navy_disproves_global.php?

By the way, were your comments reviewed by any “peers”?

We are living at an age when CO2 output from humanity can not compare to what the natural processes such as vulcano, forest fire produce or micromial outgassing. Talks of low CO2 air as some kind of tangible property is just silly. It’s like debating who owns which planet outside the solar system, when we can’t even get regular commute service to the moon.

Recorded human history over the past couple thousand years seem to indicate that higher global mean temperature meant prosperous times, whereas declining temperature co-incided by barbarian invasions and fall of civilizations. Until proven otherwise, all the apocolypse predicted by the GW alarmists is little more than religion, not unlike the Aztec belief in that the sun would fail to rise if they stopped human sacrifices. Unwillingness to hand over one’s own kids to that kind sacrifice is certainly no “free-riding” . . . although I can certainly see that the high priest might proclaim that those not handing over their own kids are benefitting from other children being sacrificed at the alter. Not all claims of “common good” are true. The “hand me your choicest lamb now for judgement is nigh” type is especially suspect.

Monckton of Brenchley.

Thanks for the link to Ron Bailey at Reason. You know what, Ron has my respect – he has the courage to tackle issues honestly and not only to change his mind when he’s wrong but to admit it. Other readers might want to take a look at what Ron has to say, even though I disagree with him on a number of points.

This is the Ron Bailey who in 2002 edited a CEI book titled “Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”, but then in August last year ran an article titled “We’re All Global Warmers Now”, with a first line that read: “Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

This is the same Ron Bailey who also said:

“Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government “solutions” to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That’s because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

Ron’s other writings on climate are here:
http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/150.html
and here: http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=bailey+climate+2006+site%3A.reason.com

Francisco, it should come as no surprise, but it evidently does, that I am completely aware the prisoners’ dilemma problem bedevils the climate change issue. That problem has been more captured by the use of the phrase “tragedy of the commons” for open-access resource exploitation, and it is what I have meant when I referred to “gamesmanship” above. Didn’t I point to the Stern report itself as being a part of the effort to move the gamesmanship in a particular direction?

Ron Bailey touched on this institutional problem in the case of the http://blog.mises.org/archives/005850.asp#comment-106374 Mark, one doesn’t need to be a seer to recognize that open-access resources are over-exploited when information, enforcement and transaction costs are too big to allow the establishment of either purely private property rights or some form of community-managed common property rights. Rothbard, Cordato and Block make the point quite well.