In the last 500 million years, there have been two ice ages at the same time that vastly higher carbon dioxide levels prevailed in the earth’s atmosphere—up to 16 times the present level.
This remarkable finding, along with others, was reported in yesterday’s (November 7, 2006) New York Times. For details, see the article by William Broad, “In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming.â€
The article contains references to the work of a number of important scientists who aren’t supposed even to exist, according to the environmentalist propaganda machine, which brooks no opposition. The article deserves to be required reading for everyone who is seriously interested in the subject of global warming.
Categories: Uncategorized
Home
RSS Feed
E-Mail
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
37 Responses
Dr. Reisman, I see you are still taking in information, although you seem to be aware only of the parts that fit your preconceptions.
Those interested in paleoclimate can easily find lots of discussion, including of Van Veizer’s views on what the climate and carbon dioxide levels might have looked like 150 million and 440 million years ago. http://www.realclimate.com is a good place to start, and you can even ask questions and engage in the discussion yourself if you wish! You realize, of course, that all of the information about periods that long ago is being carefully teased out of proxy data and climate models? If you find such models and proxy data unreliable for purposes of discussing the near term future and the past two thousand years, how can you find them even worthy of consideration for a few hundred million years ago?
I certain would also encourage those interested in reading the NY Times piece, even though I am puzzled that you find that leftist rag to have any credibility. As to the article itself, perhaps the conclusion itself may be sufficient for some:
“Dr. Berner recently refined his model to repair an old inconsistency. The revision, described in the May issue of The American Journal of Science, brings the model into closer agreement with the fact of wide glaciation 440 million years ago, yielding what he sees as stronger evidence of the dominant role of carbon dioxide then.
“Dr. Yapp, once a carbon dioxide skeptic, concurred, saying, “The data complied in the last decade suggests that long-term climate change correlates pretty well with CO2 changes.â€
“Some climatologists view the Phanerozoic debate as irrelevant. They say the evidence of a tie between carbon dioxide and planetary warming over the last few centuries is so compelling that any long-term evidence to the contrary must somehow be tainted. They also say greenhouse gases are increasing faster than at any other time in Earth history, making the past immaterial.
“Carbon dioxide skeptics and others see the reconstructions of the last 15 years as increasingly reliable, posing fundamental questions about the claimed powers of carbon dioxide. Climatologists and policy makers, they say, need to ponder such complexities rather than trying to ignore or dismiss the unexpected findings.
“Some of the work has been quite meticulous,†Thure E. Cerling, an expert at the University of Utah on Phanerozoic climates, said. “We are likely to learn something.â€
One of the things that deeper readers may learn is that CO2 is largely considered not to have been an initiator of climate change, but a reinforcer of it once a warming has been initiated. They have an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the various other long-term factors at work, such as orbital eccentricities, solar changes and extra-solar influences. Scientists are worried because there no short-term factors have been identified that is forcing the temperature and because, geologically speaking, the human-caused ramp-up of CO2 levels has been remarkable quick and large.
Dr. Reisman, you posit an “environmentalist propaganda machine, which brooks no opposition”; I wonder if you care to be more precise. Do you mean to include in this monolithic “propaganda machine”:
(1) the various scientists cited by the Times (and others who have approved institutional positions on climate change)?
(2) the Times itself?
(3) the wide range of businesses publicly concerned about taking direct actions relating to climate change (ranging from the Pew coalition to the API to Ceres and to insurers)?
(4) prominent Republicans, including Treasury Secretary Paulson?
(5) prominent economists? and
(6) leaders of all the nations around the world that have ratified the UNCCC and the Kyoto protocol?
Who exactly is behind this propaganda machine, and how did they manage to enlist so many people from so many apparently diverse backgrounds and interests? (And why were they so puzzlingly ineffective over the last six years, when the Bush administration was pursuing unilateral, confrontational policies that have burdened taxpayers with a bill for $500 million that has flowed to the pockets of cronies?)
Could it be that all of these people are not part of any environmentalist propaganda machine, but simply think there’s a problem? It seems that even libertarians can make that step, as Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine did recently:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html
I remain hopeful that someday you will give those who disagree with you a modicum of credit for their views, however ill-informed and mistaken you may consider those views to be. More importantly (if this is a matter that concerns you), given the changes in political winds it might behoove you to address climate change not from your points of weakness (the science), but from Misean point of view that addresses both the problem of how to solve disputes over open-access resources and the problems pertaining to government action.
Sincerely,
TokyoTom
If people believed global warming was truly serious, they would seek compromise. They would offer market solutions, or if it is true that man can control the climate, that we invest in climate cooling technology. Instead, the solution is always more state control and de-industrialization. It is not an environmental issue, it is a political one.
Hey, did anyone else notice that the day the election ended is the day the global warming debate stopped on all the media and all the online blogs. Well well well, isn’t that special.
Dr. Reisman, I see you are still taking in information, although you seem to be aware only of the parts that fit your preconceptions.
Actually, he is pointing out that there is more to this issue than the overly simplistic “We are doing ourselves in!!!” leitmotiv touted by politicians, enviromentalists and primitivists.
Who exactly is behind this propaganda machine, and how did they manage to enlist so many people from so many apparently diverse backgrounds and interests?
It is hysteria, nothing more. I do not think there is a great conspiracy, just the same kind of hype that happens when a small issue becomes overblown. Same effect as with the ‘Great Manure Crisis’ during the end of the XIX century:
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/547_32.pdf
Francisco:
Thanks for your note.
First, I think it is quite clear that Dr. Reisman is engaged in cherry-picking, probably subsconsciously. If he is willing to throw out proxy records and modelling studies for the past two thousand years, why else would he take the logically inconsistent approach of seizing on proxy records and modelling studies for two hundred million years ago? A rational approach would be to discount distant and difficult to verify information and to look at the more certain information for more recent periods, that consistently show a close tracking between CO2 and temperatures.
Dr. Reisman is NOT “pointing out that there is more to this issue than the overly simplistic approach” touted by others – he is in the vanguard of trying to simplify the issue himself, on the side of denial. It has been exceptionally easy over the past year to point out the errors that Dr. Reisman has made in over-simplifying the matter.
You make the same mistake, and for the same reasons. On this, you find it easier to view the world in black and white terms, and to discount/dismiss all contrary information, rather than making the effort of weighing it in all of its complexity. Guys like Ron Bailey are doing a much more honest job – even though he has not yet concluded that government action on either mitigation (trying to lower atmospheric GHG levels) or adaptation (dealing with the consequences of AGW) is worht the costs.
You seem to acknowledge that Dr. Reisman is wrong in pointing to a monolithic enviro propaganda machine that is running the pro-mitigation charge, but offer instead over-blown “hysteria” with respect to a small problem. I would suggest that it was hardly hysteria that motivated Pappy Bush to negotiate and sign the UN Climate Change Convention decades ago, or is hardly the basis of the positions on climate change taken by the NAS, AGU, joint academies of science, the Arctic impact group or the IPCC.
You point to the “Great Manure Crisis”, but I wonder if you have even bothered to read or think through the commentary that you kindly linked to. Perhaps you care to consider and discuss how these observations by Stephen Davies apply in the the case of GHG emissions and climate change?
Francisco, what pricing mechanism is there at work that provides strong incentives for engineers and entrepreneurs to find alternatives?
The science presents an issue, but does not dictate policy responses. It is clear that policy approaches differ, and that the Republican party has generally seen partisan advantage in denying climate change. While other issues have been at work, the contempt with which the Republican party has held voters (obviously on other issues as well) has finally received its justly-deserved reward.
Unless Miseans want to leave the field to the Dems, they should focus on pragmatic policy analysis that directly addresses the institutional failures that are driving the problem.
But Tom.
The science DOES NOT present a problem. CO2 is good. Whereas the planet is hard-wired for catastrophic cooling…. Catastrophic warming is implausible while their remains great deserts and while Antarctica lies over the South Pole.
This becomes pretty clear if you take a Menger-like marginal approach to the issue.
GMB
Tom
The arguments against proxy CO2 levels are usually put forth by Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe verbatim in the Bible. Thus, they believe in a young earth created by God on 24th October, 4004 BC at 9:00am GMT (some believe in a 10000 years old figure). Also, all the evidence we see now dates from the great flood and Noah’s ark. ~3000 BC.
If you go to the Web Site http://www.talkorigins.org you will find references to arguments that dispute all scientific evidence that would contradict their young earth belief. Science education being what it is in the US, polls show that about 40% of the US population believe in a young earth, and also dispute the theory of evolution. Since the Global Warming movement need the political support of these people, they are very careful not to talk about anything that would contradict their beliefs, such as Jurassic, Triassic and Permean plants and climate. ((The old Soviet Union were also very diligent about going through biology journals an razoring out any article that referred to evolution, before they wer placed on the shelves in the libraries.)
The technology to solve the pollution problem already exists – nuclear power plants. If you don’t like the post-war reactors that have provided energy for France and Japan, and to a lesser extent the US (with incidentally a very good safety record – the taunt by crackpot Lyndon LaRouche – latest score Harrisburg 0 Chappaquiddick 1 , is still true) there is the newer Pebble Bed Reactor design that attempts to address all of the safety problems with fail-safe technology. Apparently, these plants are already under construction in China. Like any new technology, there are always bugs to be worked out. However, by 2012, they expect to have plants online. Who knows, if the foreign trade deficit continues its current trend, China may have enough money to buy out the US (or at least the Congress). So the problem is a political and (as N Joseph pointed out), an economic one.
Here’s a quote you might like
Noah did not start building the Ark when he noticed that it had started to rain!
Walt.
What pollution problem. There is no pollution problem. Show me the science. CO2 is good. We are in an ice age. There is much chance of catastrophic cooling and zero chance of catastrophic warming.
You guys don’t even have the beginnings of a case. But if I’m wrong….. Show me.
GMB
Ozzie
What pollution problem. There is no pollution problem. Show me the science.
All I have to do is look out the window! If I can’t see downtown LA or the San Gabriel mountains, for me, that’s a pollution problem. I was very careful to say pollution and not CO2. My point was that even if we change all the coal plants to natural gas, they still put out CO2. And
if you wanted to reduce CO2, nuclear would be the best way to go. Otherwise, I agree with everything you posted – read my other posts. If we were pumping HCN into the air at the rate we are pumping CO2, you would not even be able to smell it!
BTW if I had to bet, I would bet on global cooling to Ice Age before global warming – has anyone noticed that the Earth’s magnetic field has been getting weaker? What if it flips? (When this happens we get huge local climate changes due to changes in cloud cover patterns).
“Francisco, what pricing mechanism is there at work that provides strong incentives for engineers and entrepreneurs to find alternatives?”
Interestingly enough, you accuse me of not reading the links I provide. I didn’t just stumble upon that fine article by happenstance, by the way… The author clearly states that people, left by their own devices, will find solutions to everyday problems more readily than whatever a SINGLE bureaucrat can imagine. You seem not to trust this by the question you posited.
I do not know any price system that can measure the CO2 problem because what it affects is not 1)uniform, nor 2)simple. The atmosphere and its cycles follow a chaos-type behaviour which is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate in a computer, even if some wish to delude themselves that it can be.
Again, I have no doubt that CO2 emissions can alter the climate – the same way as water vapor, methane, our farts and the proverbial flutter of a butterfly´s wings. So what? “Nice” weather is NOT a good, least of all a scarce good. Not being scarce, there can not be a pricing system. And the issue here is not so much CO2 emissions (which are still only a tiny fraction of the total gas composition of the atmosphere, it being 78% N and 21% O2, but potentially higher temperatures, IF the computer models were right (which I seriously doubt they are).
The point about the article was not that “manure” credits would have to be issued (the top-down, enviromentally-wacky, bureaucratic solution), but that people were willing to pay for cleaner and CHEAPER alternatives – because a car is cleaner than a horse, pound by pound. It is also cheaper to maintain. The profit WAS the pricing system.
“I would suggest that it was hardly hysteria that motivated Pappy Bush to negotiate and sign the UN Climate Change Convention decades ago, or is hardly the basis of the positions on climate change taken by the NAS, AGU, joint academies of science, the Arctic impact group or the IPCC.”
Uh, right. I would suggest you are being naive or disingenuous. This hysteria represents an excellent opportunity for MORE government meddling, and thus more resources into the coffers – this is why politicians are quick to jump into the bandwagon. If there were an even bigger UFO scare, you can bet dignataries would be signing Earth Protection aggreements, the UE would ask for the USA’s reduction of nightly light emissions (to hide us from the aliens) as proof of “leadership”, and tax people with “UFO Protection” credits. This would not be the first time a great hoax has created new budgets and new bureaucracies.
“The arguments against proxy CO2 levels are usually put forth by Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe verbatim in the Bible.”
I would not say this is true – seems like a sweeping generalization. I am seriously skeptical of the doomsday scenarios put forth by wacky environmentalists/scientists/politicians, and yet I am no Bible thumper. I do not believe in god or gods. I trust science – which is why I remain skeptical of a conclusion that we are on our way to be roasted alive, with correlations taken as causation, screwy computer models, and a guy handling a piece of ice saying “Ah-ha!”.
Francisco:
1. I see at least you are no longer defending Dr. Reisman’s cherrypicking of proxy and modelling data for periods of 200+ million years ago.
2. On pricing, it seems that a shorthard summary of your winding response to my question would be that NO pricing mechanism is at work relating the atmosphere in general or the use of the atmosphere as a GHG dump.
The piece that you cite states that the “critical, false assumption that things will go on as they are … comes from overlooking one of the basic insights of economics: that people respond to incentives. In a system of free exchange, people receive all kinds of signals that lead them to solve problems.”
What incentives are people getting to change the behavior that leads to climate change, other than to prepare to deal with climate changes that are upon us and/or anticipated?
The problem in the case of open-access resources where there are no clear or enforceable property rights is that there is no pricing system at work creating the incentives to solve the perceived problem. This is indisputable.
It is a separate issue of whether the size of the problem merits the investment of effort in finding ways to manage the use of the atmosphere. This is not conceptually different from how cattlemen first grazed their cows freely over the bison-emptied Great Plains, then started to close off and manage the range collectively and finally, fought wars with shepherders and, as the invention of barbed wire made private ranching possible, to fully privatize the range.
I think that given the nature and scale of the problem, it admits of no solution not involving government. I believe that a government role is at least conceptually permissible, as in cases such as prohibiting littering and in establishing bottle deposit laws that create incentives both not to discard and to clean up bottle waste.
3. Like I said, your desire to avoid the problem interferes with your effort to think about it clearly. Like Ron Bailey, I think that climate change is a problem. I do not believe that all others who feel that way are part of a mass propagnda movement, have been hoodwinked or duped, or are interested in it for purely venal reasons – though no doubt those are factors for some.
I share your distrust of government generally, which is why I both to post here, and to ask Miseans how they think this problem out to be addressed. But your response shows that you continue to misunderstand the reasons why – in spite of what you and Reisman see as a climate change political/ideological/bureaucratic juggernaut (or however you wish to mock and dismiss it) – so little has actually been done.
Those reasons specifically related to the incentives that everyone faces with respect to the nature of the atmosphere as an open-access resource from which none can be excluded and for which there is no pricing and, for GHGs, no private liaiblity mechanisms.
Chapter 2 of the Stern Report correctly summarized these incentives:
“This is a global problem and mitigation is a global public good. This means that it is, from some perspectives, ‘an international game’ and the theory of games does indeed provide powerful insights. The challenge is to promote and sustain international collective action in a context where ‘free-riding’ is a serious problem. Adaptation, like mitigation, raises strong and difficult international issues of responsibility and equity, and also has some elements of the problem of providing public goods.”
“Compared with efforts to reduce emissions, adaptation provides immediate, local benefits for which there is some degree of private return. Nevertheless, efficient adaptation to climate change is also hindered by market failures, notably inadequate information on future climate change and positive externalities in the provision of adaptation (where the social return remains higher than the return that will be captured by private investors). These market failures may limit the amount of adaptation undertaken – even where it would be cost-effective.”
“The poorest in society are likely to have the least capacity to adapt, partly because of resource constraints on upfront investment in adaptive capacity. Given that the greatest need for adaptation will be in low-income countries, overcoming financial constraints is also a key objective.”
“Climate change shares some characteristics with other environmental challenges linked to the management of common international resources, including the protection of the ozone layer and the depletion of fisheries. Crucially, there is no global single authority with the legal, moral, practical or other capacity to manage the climate resource.”
“This is particularly challenging, because … no one country, region or sector alone can achieve the reductions in GHG emissions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at the necessary level. In addition, there are significant gains to co-operating across borders, for example in undertaking emission reductions in the most cost-effective way. The economics and science point to the need for emitters to face a common price of emissions at the margin. And, although adaptation to climate change will often deliver some local reduction in its impact, those countries most vulnerable to climate change are particularly short of the resources to invest in adaptation. Hence international collective action on both mitigation and adaptation is required.”
“Economic tools such as game theory, as well as insights from international relations, can aid the understanding of how different countries, with differing incentives, preferences and cost structures, can reach agreement. The problem of free-riding on the actions of others is severe. International collective action on any issue rests on the voluntary co-operation of sovereign states. Economic analysis suggests that multilateral regimes succeed when they are able to define the gain to co-operation, share it equitably and can sustain co-operation in ways that overcome incentives for free-riding.”
What parts of this economic analysis do you disagree with, and why?
All of that JIVE is irrelevant Tom.
What you’ve got to do is SHOW ME THE SCIENCE that says Catastrophic warming is likely or even possible.
You are really just mucking about if you cannot do that.
What incentives are people getting to change the behavior that leads to climate change, other than to prepare to deal with climate changes that are upon us and/or anticipated?
Your question is loaded. There is no evidence that links people’s behaviour as the SOLE effect upon climate change. Climate is, and will remain, a highly chaotic system that is affected by everything from farts to massive gas releases by volcanoes…
The other part that loads your question is the assumption that we CAN anticipate climate change with enough degree of certainty. We cannot, it is impossible with the current technology. We can only GUESS, and few would be willing to accept some ill-conceived coercitive scheme as “incentive” to change their ways based on somebody’s guess.
Like Ron Bailey, I think that climate change is a problem.
Unlike you or Mr. Bailey, I cannot simply jump to the conclusion that climate change is a problem given the lack of definition. By looking at the predictions, I can only say some scientists are conceited if they think their models can predict how the climate will look in a few years. Ask a biologist if he can predict how evolution (another chaotic system) will shape species in 100 years – he will surely laugh at you. However, when it comes to limiting people’s freedom, just too many are inclined NOT to laugh but to impose a policy.
What parts of this economic analysis do you disagree with, and why?
This is the part which lets me immediately dismiss the Stern report.
“International collective action on any issue rests on the voluntary co-operation of sovereign states.”
“Sovereign state” is a collectivist and meaningless term. Economics is about individuals and their action, not about “states”. When the Stern report talks about cooperation between states, it is actually refering to policy imposed by bureaucratic fiat. Any such imposition, I-N-V-A-R-I-A-B-L-Y, creates perverse incentives that generate the exact OPPOSITE effects of what was intended – the Law of Unintended Consequences. You cannot predict just how people (the teeming billions) will react to these “incentives’, since we are talking about a system as chaotic (if not more) as climate.
In other ways, the Stern report seems to optimistically think that governments can manage CO2 emissions if it just all bureaucracies cooperated with each other. Maybe Mr. Stern has not heard of the Calculation Problem. Governments have been lousy about managering almost anything, what in the world makes YOU or Mr. Stern that they can manage how much CO2 we spew out? That is silliness to the (n) power.
I’ve browsed a few GW comments threads, and it seems that some important topics are being neglected. For a moment, let’s put aside the questions of whether or not global warming exists and whether or not it is primarily (or even strongly) anthropogenic. *If* this is the case, what is the consistently Austrian response?
Austrians typically say that environmental problems result from two issues: 1) Lack of sufficient property rights, and 2) Lack of enforcement of existing property rights. For example, overfishing problems could be eliminated (or ameliorated, at least) if there were a way to assign property rights to fish and fishing waters. Toxic waste in streams could be diminished by enforcing the property rights of downstream users who have been affected. And let me say that I agree with these principles wholeheartedly.
The GHG problem (which we are assuming is real, for the time being) doesn’t lend itself well to these classical Austrian solutions. Why? Because both the perpetrators and victims of GHG and GW are diffuse. No one actor is responsible for GW, and it probably to quantify exactly how much any person individually had been harmed by it, if the disastrous consequences some predict actually come to pass.
If there are not well-defined answers to either who caused GW (no one, specifically—but everyone, collectively, to varying degrees) and who is harmed by GW and to what extent, how can Austrian principles be applied? I’m modestly hopeful that they can be, somehow, but I’ve never seen it.
Again, I think this question is worth exploring regardless of whether GW is real and anthropogenic. An economic philosophy needs to be able to account for situations like this.
Walt:”The arguments against proxy CO2 levels are usually put forth by Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe verbatim in the Bible.”
Then how do you explain that a large group of these Bible thumpers came out recently in favor of radical legislation to stop GW by reducing GHG’s? See this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4695320.stm.
From the NYT article:
Some mainstream scientists familiar with the Phanerozoic evidence call it too sketchy for public consumption and government policy, if not expert deliberations.
Meaning: a) We still want big government, we just don’t want to sabotage that dream just yet by openly discussing something that may be important for everybody to know…
Or: b) People are just too stupid to draw inferences from these facts. Oh, and we still want those big government grants, thank you very much.
Francisco, care to respond to zwei?
Your responses simple don`t address the institutional underpinnings, which both I and zwei are asking about.
Yeah, the problem is complex, but we are providing a consistent leverage on the climate in one direction, and given the absence of property rights to and market pricing in the air, there is simply no pricing signal that tells individual economic actors to take their foot off the gas, or to otherwise call forth investment to accelerate decarbonization.
Rather than really responding, you are basically just dodging the answer by minimizing the problem. Given the institutinal failures, the problem`s not going away. At what point will it be big enough that you think it worth dealing with, and what policy prescriptions will you have to offer then, other than procrastination?
Tom?
You got that evidence for catastrophic global warming yet? No I didn’t think so. I don’t want to get in any more round the clock scraps to drag such evidence out of you. But I’ll check in maybe once a day to see if you’ve brought any such evidence forward.
Zwei sez:
“I’ve browsed a few GW comments threads, and it seems that some important topics are being neglected. For a moment, let’s put aside the questions of whether or not global warming exists and whether or not it is primarily (or even strongly) anthropogenic.”
See this is where you are being dishonest for starters. Most non-alarmist, non-denialists pro-science types expect A PRIORI that there will be at least some extra joules in the atmospheric system due to the extra carbon dioxide.
Where there is some mystery is whether these extra Joules will be.
1. barely noticeable
2. Insignificant.
3. Significant but a good thing and a blessing and the best lucky break the human race ever got.
4. A bit of a nuisance in decadal terms but most likely a good development in the wider scheme of things.
So these montrous threads where people argue back and forth whether this percentage of warming is man made or not are besides the point.
Since if the human species is not hateful in ones eyes one wants only to know the facts, the forecast, and whether the extra CO2 is good or bad.
Turns out its good.
These are my own views and not to be attributed to Mises.org who are blameless as to anything I say.
GMB
Ozzie, I think you’re quite in the wrong for accusing me of being dishonest. That aside, I would simply like to reiterate that I would like to see a basic issue addressed apart from the specific question of global warming.
The question is this: how does Austrian theory work itself out when both the perpetrators and the victims of a problem are diffuse, and where strict causality is difficult to establish?
Here’s another example. Say you live in a small town, a peaceful, quiet place. One day, extraordinary mineral wealth is discovered, and several mining companies are started and 1 million people move to the area. Both the plants and the new residents’ vehicles emit pollution (in varying and hard to measure amounts), and your town is now covered by a haze of smog. You and your family develop asthma and lung disease, and it is known that smog increases the chances of both. Is anyone liable? Who? To what degree? What if it is known that 25% of the population ordinarily develops asthma, and after the population boom 75% of the town’s old residents develop asthma? It is impossible to establish that, for an individual, the smog was to blame; but, it is clear that the smog had some impact to the townsfolk as a whole. Who is liable? To what degree?
Well thats a property rights issue. If you are doing damage that goes outside the confines of your own property thats not really a good thing.
But it doesn’t apply here. Since CO2 is a good thing. We ought not be worried that CO2 might add a few Joules here and there to the climate system. We ought to be worried that it MIGHT NOT.
Because with the Continents layed out the way they are now, particularly with the Antarctic where it is, then we are hard-wired for catastrophic cooling and not catastrophic warming.
I try and look at all the data and claims and counter-claims. And I actually think the CO2 might be adding some energy to things. I hope this is not just wishful thinking on my part.
But its just very odd to see people begrudging that this is, or might be, the case.
You’d think they would be a little bit grateful for the possibility. You’d think they’d be in wonderment and amazement at the good fortune of the human race.
The thing is that with all the abuse of scientists who break ranks on the alarmists, with all the games of GOTCHA and fault-finding and generalised slander…. the alarmists don’t make a positive case.
A computer simulation isn’t evidence. A computer simulation that doesn’t backtest, doesn’t WORK, and cannot be evidence.
The alarmists don’t have a POSITIVE case. They don’t have a postive case for catastrophic warming. Not much of a case at least. They just spend their whole time distracting people and abusing the heretics.
GMB
Well thats a property rights issue. If you are doing damage that goes outside the confines of your own property thats not really a good thing.
But it doesn’t apply here. Since CO2 is a good thing. We ought not be worried that CO2 might add a few Joules here and there to the climate system. We ought to be worried that it MIGHT NOT.
Because with the Continents layed out the way they are now, particularly with the Antarctic where it is, then we are hard-wired for catastrophic cooling and not catastrophic warming.
I try and look at all the data and claims and counter-claims. And I actually think the CO2 might be adding some energy to things. I hope this is not just wishful thinking on my part.
But its just very odd to see people begrudging that this is, or might be, the case.
You’d think they would be a little bit grateful for the possibility. You’d think they’d be in wonderment and amazement at the good fortune of the human race.
The thing is that with all the abuse of scientists who break ranks on the alarmists, with all the games of GOTCHA and fault-finding and generalised slander…. the alarmists don’t make a positive case.
A computer simulation isn’t evidence. A computer simulation that doesn’t backtest, doesn’t WORK, and cannot be evidence.
The alarmists don’t have a POSITIVE case. They don’t have a postive case for catastrophic warming. Not much of a case at least. They just spend their whole time distracting people and abusing the heretics.
GMB
Well thats a property rights issue. If you are doing damage that goes outside the confines of your own property thats not really a good thing.
But it doesn’t apply here. Since CO2 is a good thing. We ought not be worried that CO2 might add a few Joules here and there to the climate system. We ought to be worried that it MIGHT NOT.
Because with the Continents layed out the way they are now, particularly with the Antarctic where it is, then we are hard-wired for catastrophic cooling and not catastrophic warming.
I try and look at all the data and claims and counter-claims. And I actually think the CO2 might be adding some energy to things. I hope this is not just wishful thinking on my part.
But its just very odd to see people begrudging that this is, or might be, the case.
You’d think they would be a little bit grateful for the possibility. You’d think they’d be in wonderment and amazement at the good fortune of the human race.
The thing is that with all the abuse of scientists who break ranks on the alarmists, with all the games of GOTCHA and fault-finding and generalised slander…. the alarmists don’t make a positive case.
A computer simulation isn’t evidence. A computer simulation that doesn’t backtest, doesn’t WORK, and cannot be evidence.
The alarmists don’t have a POSITIVE case. They don’t have a postive case for catastrophic warming. Not much of a case at least. They just spend their whole time distracting people and abusing the heretics.
GMB
Ozzie/GMB:
Hmm, whose can this “new” strident and familar voice be, who (i) rejects any “JIVE” discussion of the difficulties posaed when resources are not effectively owned, (ii) insists that all discussion is trumped because increasing CO2 levels are a boon to mankind, to save us from the next ice age, (iii) promptly accuses posters responding to him of dishonesty and (iv) demands evidence of AGW?
Can it be any other than Graeme Bird?
Graeme, I am not a scientist, so take your scientific questions to those liars at RealClimate.com. If you care to review any of the many posts I have made here on the science, you can find them easily enough by Googling. It is not my job to make this case to you, nor does it seem to be in my capacity to convince you.
Perhaps it is news to you, but the Dems have recently gained control over both houses of the US Congress, so we are likely to see changes in US policy relating to GHGs and AGW. One point of resistance to changes in policy will no doubt be strictly from a scientific point of view, but that is a matter on which Miseans are not in a position to contribute. My focus here is on clarifying the Misean analysis that is most pertinent to policy relating to open-access common resources. If you wish to discuss economic analysis, then perhaps we can have conversation.
Dr. Reisman/others:
As you have indicated an interest in paleoclimate research and the possible lesson we can learn from it, I suspect you may wish to further enhance your understanding by reviewing the commentary on the NYT article at RealClimate.org: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/#more-370.
Sincerely,
TT
Yeah, the problem is complex, but we are providing a consistent leverage on the climate in one direction, and given the absence of property rights to and market pricing in the air, there is simply no pricing signal that tells individual economic actors to take their foot off the gas, or to otherwise call forth investment to accelerate decarbonization.
There cannot be a pricing system because C-L-I-M-A-T-E is not a good. Only scarce goods can have a price, and only by way of market exchanges. You have not addressed the Calculation Problem yourself.
Rather than really responding, you are basically just dodging the answer by minimizing the problem.
That is because there is NO problem. Just saying “We’re doomed!” is not defining A problem. Raising levels of CO2 in itself constitutes not a problem, unless you can show with a good degree of certainty that the result can be catastrophic. Not one can say that now, albeit it does not stop doomsayers from calling for more government intervention.
Interestingly enough, governments tend to be the biggest polluters, and yet freedom-haters are quick to assign the responsability for controling climate to a government.
At what point will it be big enough that you think it worth dealing with, and what policy prescriptions will you have to offer then, other than procrastination?
I will probably sit down to wait for such a problem to unfold. I would suggest you sit down to wait for it, too . . . your ramblings about Doom and Gloom notwithstanding.
“Graeme, I am not a scientist, so take your scientific questions to those liars at RealClimate.com. If you care to review any of the many posts I have made here on the science, you can find them easily enough by Googling. ”
Well….
1. Real-Climate are a bunch of agenda-driven tax-eating bums.
2. I don’t need to google you man. I know what you’ve been up to and that is:
3. Hassling our greatest living economist and:
4. Not ever once coming up witht a skerritt of evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming.
5. I want to repeat my apology for accidently messing up this thread with my repeat posts.
GMB.
Francisco:
Thanks for the response.
There cannot be a pricing system because C-L-I-M-A-T-E is not a good. Only scarce goods can have a price, and only by way of market exchanges. You have not addressed the Calculation Problem yourself.
Hmm. Nonsense. Many parts of my environment are things that I, my firm or my community value and are willing to pay for, from the number of windows in my house or office, the degree of light that comes in, room temperature, air humidity and degree of particulates/pollutants, how clean they and the streets are, garbage disposal, etc. Very many attributes of the environment have a value to us and that are reflected in market transactions, even though they are not tangible goods. These matters are frequently coordinated decisions, as in office buildings, shopping malls etc.
The only difference between them and the larger environment is that no express market exists in the latter, but the market still reflects our choices (pricing of where we live, for example). The problems are simply one of increasing complexity. There are no clear property rights to the atmosphere, but our impact on it is managed in various ways – through litigation over nuisances, pricing of real estate and regulation, including creation of marketable permits.
That is because there is NO problem. Raising levels of CO2 in itself constitutes not a problem, unless you can show with a good degree of certainty that the result can be catastrophic.
Sloppy arguing. Arguing about whether climate change is catastrophic is simply a different way of asking the question of when does a problem becomes sufficiently prominent that it makes some type of action worthwile. I think there is sufficent evidence that the climate is changing, in ways that are costly to us (as well as presenting some opportuunities/benefits) and believe action is already warranted. You apparently disagree. I think the Congress, Administration and industry support are swinging my way. If you want to sit out the discussion, that’s fine with me.
ramblings about Doom and Gloom notwithstanding
Who’s rambling about doom and gloom? I see a problem that we will all be better off if we pay attention to, and that we can fix without burning $250 million a day, like we are in Iraq. But it is a problem that will not fix itself and will continue to worsen while we sit around. I think it’s worth talking about solutions now, even if we may not be ready to implement them for some time.
By the way, I hope you noted that even Dr. Reisman acknowledged that collective action may in principle be acceptable, so the only realy question is one of timing.
I had thought that Miseans might like to think through what policies might be best suited for dealing with climate change – other than simply saying “no solution today, tomorrow or ever” – but I guess I was wrong.
Regards,
Tom
Graeme:
1. I hope you will continue to argue the science with the scientists, but I think I can safely say that my position is much closer to them than yours.
2. I don’t have to wait for a “catastrophic” fire in my house before planning for one, or for weather to change seasonally before I plan for heating, air conditioning or my wardrobe. Why do we need to wait for catastrophic warming before we doing anything about the possibility? Isn’t the question of when and how we act simply a cost-benefit analysis, writ large?
3. I am not “hassling” Dr. Reisman. I am merely asking him questions about how Miseans approach problems realting to open-access resources and sharing my view of reality with him.
I certainly am not responsible for the events out there that prompt him to post on this topic; I am merely another person who shares a concern about climate change and our policy about it. I am sympathetic to Austrian views and do not wish to see counterproductive policies, which is why I do not consider it a waste fo time to post here.
No one makes Dr. Reisman, you or others read my posts or respond to them with emails or further posts, and my comments have always been even-tempered and substantive, unlike some of the more excitable folks.
4. As what is to catastrophic, besides direct impacts on human economic activity, can you tell me whether you have any concerns about the effects of climate change on biodiversity and our ecosystems?
TT
“I don’t have to wait for a “catastrophic” fire in my house before planning for one, or for weather to change seasonally before I plan for heating, air conditioning or my wardrobe. Why do we need to wait for catastrophic warming before we doing anything about the possibility? ”
Well thats so bizzare I don’t know how to answer that.
So let me repeat it and then repeat it again and substitute a single word so that you get the point.
1. “Why do we need to wait for catastrophic WARMING before we doing anything about the possibility? ”
2.Why do we need to wait for catastrophic COOLING before we doing anything about the possibility? ”
3. Why do we need to wait for catastrophic warming before we DOING ANYTHING about the possibility? ”
Warming or cooling Tom?
Warming or cooling?
And whats this “DOING ANYTHING” Tom?
You are not talking about DOING ANYTHING you are talking about DOING SOMETHING……
And that something you are talking about is STEALING.
Now have you got any evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming?
Wait a minute. I’ll ask you an easier question.
Have you got any evidence for CATASTROPHIC cooling?
Answer that one first because its easier.
Graeme:
The difference between you and me is that I believe collective action to collective threats may be warranted. I suppose we share an Austrian concern that the use of government may be manipulated for private gain or spin out of control through bureacratization.
My view is that our economic behavior is causing the planet to warm, and is likely to continue to do so in a manner that imposes net costs on us (and the ecosystems upon which we rely). We have an ability to alter our behavior and to both moderate the degree to which we change the climate and to get ready for the warming that we can expect will occur. If we were concerned about global cooling, we would be presented with a similar decision about whether we act collectively (although in that case, the solutions would be much easier) to mitigate the possibility. In both cases, we also have choices as to whether we cooperate with other nations to minimize our net costs and whether we will provide any assistance to developing nations in improving their infrastructure in ways that enhances their wealth and makes them more resilient to the expected changes.
Your non-response on my items 3 and 4 is noted.
Regards,
TT
Many parts of my environment are things that I, my firm or my community value and are willing to pay for, from the number of windows in my house or office, the degree of light that comes in, room temperature, air humidity and degree of particulates/pollutants, how clean they and the streets are, garbage disposal, etc.
We are talking about climate, TT, not your local environment. Please do not confuse the terms, otherwise I will stop taking you serioulsy. The difference being that the local environment CAN be changed (termites know this). However, neither termines NOR us can do much about the world’s climate. The climate is a highly chaotic system, meaning it is a multivariable system, CO2 content being only ONE variable.
Arguing about whether climate change is catastrophic is simply a different way of asking the question of when does a problem becomes sufficiently prominent that it makes some type of action worthwile.
Really? Asking “Please define the problem” is really like asking “What do we do when the crap hits the fan”? That is insane. If you cannot define the problem (exactly indicate what WILL happen, not just your opinion), then there is no point in arguing about a solution. Rising levels of CO2 is NOT in itself a problem.
I see a problem that we will all be better off if we pay attention to, and that we can fix without burning $250 million a day, like we are in Iraq.
Well, I do not like to burn money away, that is for sure. But I detect the slight hint of disingenuity here, TT, since what you have advocated so far (and correct me if I am wrong) is to make people PAY for even daring to LIVE a normal life – by way of your ad hoc “pricing” credits.
I think there is sufficent evidence that the climate is changing, in ways that are costly to us (as well as presenting some opportunities/benefits) and believe action is already warranted.
I do NOT think the weather has changed that whole lot, considering there is no meaningful benchmark. One day it is good, another day it is bad, another day is so-so . . . Again, you seem to confuse good weather with the “should” – this is preposterous, of course. In a multivariable system, it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish a benchmark – only conceited people think they can.
I think the Congress, [the] Administration and industry support are swinging my way.
Oh, boy. An Ad populum argument?
Congress and the administration, those two great depositories of good sense and intelligence. And industry? Which industry, the one trying to look like they care, or the one that sees an opportunity to screw their competitors by advocating even MORE regulation?
The question is this: how does Austrian theory work itself out when both the perpetrators and the victims of a problem are diffuse, and where strict causality is difficult to establish?
If strict causality is difficult or impossible to establish, it means that there is NOT a property rights issue.
Say you live in a small town, a peaceful, quiet place. One day, extraordinary mineral wealth is discovered, and several mining companies are started and 1 million people move to the area. Both the plants and the new residents’ vehicles emit pollution (in varying and hard to measure amounts), and your town is now covered by a haze of smog. You and your family develop asthma and lung disease, and it is known that smog increases the chances of both. Is anyone liable? Who? To what degree? What if it is known that 25% of the population ordinarily develops asthma, and after the population boom 75% of the town’s old residents develop asthma? It is impossible to establish that, for an individual, the smog was to blame; but, it is clear that the smog had some impact to the townsfolk as a whole. Who is liable? To what degree?
Not one is liable. If the population rises, it is because the people living there have considered the opportunity costs of having no smog (i.e., no economic activity) against having jobs, income, being wealthier.
Besides, we are arguing different things. The issue is not pollution, since “pollution” means placing a different subtance on the environment that can prove harmful. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, since it is NOT harmful – plants use it for photosynthesis, and the atmosphere needs it to keep SOME of the sun’s energy within it. By the way, few doomsayers talk about the accumulation of methane in the atmosphere, an even MORE powerful greehouse gas. The reason for that is political: methane is generated by agricultural activities (growing food and cattle). CO2 is generated whenever we need to generate energy (mechanical, electrical). Methane is also found in bogs and bayous. So, misanthropists (environtalists) see a more political course in convincing people that we have to be colder in winter, hotter in summer, use candlelight at night and drive bicycles in order to lower the CO2 emissions, rather than convincing everybody that we need to starve!
I call that “hypocrisy” . . .
From Reason’s Ron Bailey:
>> Interestingly, the British business magazine The Business reports that a leaked draft of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change upcoming Fourth Assessment Report calculates that achieving the goal of limiting greenhouse gases to 550 ppm could cost as much as 5 percent of global GDP [emphasis mine]. If the IPCC’s calculations are correct, the article notes,”they open up the possibility that the British proposals would cost as much as they save, making them redundant.” [Again, emphasis mine] Of course, trying to predict global GDP a century from now is probably even harder than trying to predict global average temperatures in 2106. < <
Link here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/116681.html
Problem is, how can you make predictions on how a highly complex (or chaotic) system will behave in 100 years? The sheer idiocy of such reports like the Stern is evident when the analysts try to figure out what the economic world will look like in the future. Heck, Jules Verne they ain’t!
Francisco, thanks for your response. Allow me also to add a few comments on your post to Zwei.
1. We are talking about climate, TT, not your local environment. Please do not confuse the terms, otherwise I will stop taking you serioulsy. The difference being that the local environment CAN be changed (termites know this). However, neither termines NOR us can do much about the world’s climate.
Francisco, we seem to be talking past each other. I initially noted that we are providing a consistent leverage on the climate in one direction, and given the absence of property rights to and market pricing in the air, there is simply no pricing signal that tells individual economic actors to take their foot off the gas, or to otherwise call forth investment to accelerate decarbonization. You responded that “There cannot be a pricing system because C-L-I-M-A-T-E is not a good. Only scarce goods can have a price, and only by way of market exchanges.â€
So we agree that there is no pricing signal. Why not? Not because climate is something we don’t care about – it is very much like other aspects of our local environment that we care about that are not classic “goods†in the sense that they are human-owned or manufactured – but simply because the scale of the climate is so much larger that it has been too difficult to establish any ownership rights and hence any markets relating to climate.
Although our ability to manipulate climate is extremely limited, I think it is demonstrable that the emission of GHGs is pushing the climate in one direction and, at least conceptually, it is possible for us to ease up on this forcing – by a combination of using fewer fossil fuels (greater efficiency and shifting to others) and through carbon capture and sequestration.
2. Asking “Please define the problem” is really like asking “What do we do when the crap hits the fan”? That is insane. If you cannot define the problem (exactly indicate what WILL happen, not just your opinion), then there is no point in arguing about a solution. Rising levels of CO2 is NOT in itself a problem.
Francisco, where did you ask, “Please define the problemâ€? I thought you had denied that there is any problem associated with rising levels of GHGs unless it can be demonstrated that the result can be catastrophic. I think we are on common ground in saying that there is a cost-benefit analysis that must be conducted in determining when and how to act to mitigate climate change; we probably have different views as to when that threshold is reached..
As action will not have immediate effects on climate, we will also have to adapt to changes in climate that will occur over time due to the warming that we have so far initiated and due to the warming that will result from the accelerating increases in GHGs globally. To borrow from your gracious phrasing, some the shit has already hit the fan, and this will continue for the foreseeable future – we can affect the degree of shit only in the future. Similar decisions must be made about investments in private and public infrastructure, as well as in whether assistance is provided to help others to adapt.
I would be happy to help walk you through what scientists and economists are saying that the problem is, if that was really what you wanted me to focus on..
3. Well, I do not like to burn money away, that is for sure. But I detect the slight hint of disingenuity here, TT, since what you have advocated so far (and correct me if I am wrong) is to make people PAY for even daring to LIVE a normal life – by way of your ad hoc “pricing” credits.
Happy to hear this first part, Francisco. As for the second, you exaggerate. The current system simply fails to price the costs associated with using the atmosphere as a carbon dump; finding a way to establish a price will eliminate costly externalities and create incentives to improve economic efficiency – and is far better than the alternatives of tons of government spending on “alternative energy†pork and paying for sequestration would be incentivized if there were a pricing signal. Why does a “normal life†have to mean the continued free use of the environment as a dump?
4. I do NOT think the weather has changed that whole lot, considering there is no meaningful benchmark. One day it is good, another day it is bad, another day is so-so . . . Again, you seem to confuse good weather with the “should” – this is preposterous, of course. In a multivariable system, it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish a benchmark – only conceited people think they can.
Francisco, please clarify your position. Is it simply that you do not think there is sufficient evidence NOW that we should do anything about changing the institutions that affect our behavior – and leave open the possibility that collective action might be justified in the future if you see more evidence? Or are you saying that mankind should NEVER try to take any action for the purpose of moderating our impact on the climate? Please clarify.
5. If strict causality is difficult or impossible to establish, it means that there is NOT a property rights issue.
Perhaps a more refined statement is that Austrians don’t believe in involving the government in resolving disputes over resource matters, so if causality cannot be sufficiently established through litigation, then the injured parties simply have no right to redress from the polluters.
6. By the way, few doomsayers talk about the accumulation of methane in the atmosphere, an even MORE powerful greehouse gas. The reason for that is political: methane is generated by agricultural activities (growing food and cattle).
Wrong again, Francisco. The whole Clean Development Mechanism is focussed on funding methane capture projects in developing countries. Projects of this type are already proceeding in the US because they are profitable (agricultural activities are more concentrated and methane is valuable).
7. So, misanthropists (environtalists) see a more political course in convincing people that we have to be colder in winter, hotter in summer, use candlelight at night and drive bicycles in order to lower the CO2 emissions, rather than convincing everybody that we need to starve! I call that “hypocrisy”
I call that absurd hyperbole and blind denial, Francisco. You could honestly argue that you fail to see that the scale of the problem justifies any governmental action, but it is clear that on climate, as well as a host of other open-access resource problems, we have growing problems with negative consequences from over-exploitation (see global fisheries for a more concrete example). Miseans can see that these problems stem from an absence of clear or enforceable property rights.
Are not the real hypocrites and anti-rationalists those who understand the property rights issues relating to open-access resources, but rather than explaining this analysis choose instead to attack the motivations of those who point out the problems?
8. The British magazine The Business .overstates differences between the IPCC and Stern reports, which are roughly in accord. Stern’s executive summary states: “An upper bound for the expected annual cost of emissions consistent with a trajectory leading to stabilisation at 550ppm is likely to be 1% of GDP by 2050.â€
But the draft copy of the IPCC’s Fourth Annual Review, due for publication next year, finds the cost of achieving the same goal to be between “1% and 5% loss of global GDPâ€. You might be aware that one criticism of Stern has been that it actually inflates the relative cost of mitigation measures, by grossly underestimating likely DGP growth.
9. Problem is, how can you make predictions on how a highly complex (or chaotic) system will behave in 100 years?
Physics, Francisco, combined with measurements and data. Perhaps you have noticed that the chief critics no longer argue that AGW is occurring and will worsen, but instead focus on what, if anything we should do about it (mitigation and/or adaptation)?
Tom
Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
Greg, the Monckton article was already posted on Dr. Reisman’s previous thread.
To save you the trouble of looking over there, here are my comments:
“I have looked at the link first posted above. Is “Lord Monckton” uniquely qualified to judge climate science? Why is he publishing his remarks in a newspaper, rather than in a scientific journal [afraid of "peer" review]? Does that tell us anything about the reliability of his remarks or about his motivations? I am not qualified to judge myself, but note that someone has taken a quick stab at his piece here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/chinese_navy_disproves_global.php“