Forty-Five nations joined France in calling for a new environmental body to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators.—AP, Feb. 5, 2007
AP reports that the French effort was “led by French President Jacques Chirac,†after the release of the report on global warming prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The meaning of this “effort†is that Chirac is attempting to make an international crime out of attempts to increase production and raise living standards, to the extent that those attempts entail an increase in the discharge of greenhouse gases.
This, incidentally, is the same Jacques Chirac who recently announced that he did not consider it particularly dangerous for Iran to have a nuclear bomb or two. (New York Times, Feb. 1, 2007). Nuclear bombs in the hands of lunatics are not a problem for M. Chirac. Sane people, pursuing their material self-interest by means of increasing production—that’s a problem for M. Chirac. That’s what he considers dangerous and needing to be stopped.
I am not surprised by this attempt to criminalize productive activity. In fact, I predicted it in Capitalism. I wrote,
[I]t should be realized that the belief in the need for global limits on carbon dioxide and other chemical emissions and thus in the need for international allocation of permissible emissions implies that every country is an international aggressor to the degree that it is economically successful (and thus, of course, that the United States is the world’s leading aggressor). For the consequence of its success is held to be either to push the volume of allegedly dangerous emissions beyond the safe global limit or to impinge upon the ability of other countries to produce, whose populations have more urgent needs. Thus, in casting the production of wealth in the light of a danger to mankind, by virtue of its alleged effects on the environment, and thereby implying the need for global limits on production, the ecology movement attempts to validate the thoroughly vicious proposition, lying at the very core of socialism, that one man’s gain is another’s loss. (p. 101)
In a note referenced at the end of this paragraph, I added,
If the influence of the ecology movement continues to grow, then it is perfectly conceivable that in years to come, the very intention of a country to increase its production could serve as a cause of war, perhaps precipitating the dispatch of a U.N. security force to stop it. Even the mere advocacy of economic freedom within the borders of a country would logically—from the depraved perspective of the ecology movement—be regarded as a threat to mankind. It is, therefore, essential that the United States absolutely refuse to sanction in any way any form of international limitations on “pollutionâ€â€”that is, on production. (p. 118)
I regret having to say that I can’t take very much satisfaction from having had this foresight. It’s like being marched to a concentration camp and saying, “I tried to tell everyone this is where we’d all end up.â€
The momentum of environmentalism is becoming increasingly powerful and it looks like its agenda of limits and rollbacks on greenhouse-gas emissions is going to be imposed, probably after the election of the next president. I think our situation is comparable to that of Germany in 1932. Horrendous changes are coming.
I’ve written an essay of almost 4,000 words in reply to the UN panel’s report and the inferences being drawn from it. It’s a stand against the tide, consisting both of important new material and material drawn from Capitalism. But instead of publishing it as a post on blogs, as I originally planned to do, I’ve employed an agent to try to place two fifteen-hundred-word segments of it in major mainstream publications.
Those segments can’t appear here until they appear in whatever publications accept them, or have been rejected by all of the places to which they’ve been submitted. If one or both of them is accepted, then I’ll have reached an audience of several hundred thousand readers rather than just a few hundred. Unfortunately, the odds of one or both of them actually being accepted are slim. My subjective estimate is that the odds are probably less than my chances of my winning a lottery, and that’s allowing for the fact that I don’t buy lottery tickets.
In any event, here’s the material I took, with some adaptation, from Capitalism. I offer it for the benefit of those who haven’t read it before and as a refresher for those who have.
What Depends on Industrial Civilization and Man-Made Power
As the result of industrial civilization, not only do billions more people survive, but in the advanced countries they do so on a level far exceeding that of kings and emperors in all previous ages—on a level that just a few generations ago would have been regarded as possible only in a world of science fiction. With the turn of a key, the push of a pedal, and the touch of a steering wheel, they drive along highways in wondrous machines at seventy miles an hour. With the flick of a switch, they light a room in the middle of darkness. With the touch of a button, they watch events taking place ten thousand miles away. With the touch of a few other buttons, they talk to other people across town or across the world. They even fly through the air at six hundred miles per hour, forty thousand feet up, watching movies and sipping martinis in air-conditioned comfort as they do so. In the United States, most people can have all this, and spacious homes or apartments, carpeted and fully furnished, with indoor plumbing, central heating, air conditioning, refrigerators, freezers, and gas or electric stoves, and also personal libraries of hundreds of books, compact disks, and DVDs; they can have all this, as well as long life and good health—as the result of working forty hours a week.
The achievement of this marvelous state of affairs has been made possible by the use of ever improved machinery and equipment, which has been the focal point of scientific and technological progress. The use of this ever improved machinery and equipment is what has enabled human beings to accomplish ever greater results with the application of less and less muscular exertion.
Now inseparably connected with the use of ever improved machinery and equipment has been the increasing use of man-made power, which is the distinguishing characteristic of industrial civilization and of the Industrial Revolution, which marked its beginning. To the relatively feeble muscles of draft animals and the still more feeble muscles of human beings, and to the relatively small amounts of useable power available from nature in the form of wind and falling water, industrial civilization has added man-made power. It did so first in the form of steam generated from the combustion of coal, and later in the form of internal combustion based on petroleum, and electric power based on the burning of any fossil fuel or on atomic energy.
This man-made power, and the energy released by its use, is an equally essential basis of all of the economic improvements achieved over the last two hundred years. It is what enables us to use the improved machines and equipment and is indispensable to our ability to produce the improved machines and equipment in the first place. Its application is what enables us human beings to accomplish with our arms and hands, in merely pushing the buttons and pulling the levers of machines, the amazing productive results we do accomplish. To the feeble powers of our arms and hands is added the enormously greater power released by energy in the form of steam, internal combustion, electricity, or radiation. In this way, energy use, the productivity of labor, and the standard of living are inseparably connected, with the two last entirely dependent on the first.
Thus, it is not surprising, for example, that the United States enjoys the world’s highest standard of living. This is a direct result of the fact that the United States has the world’s highest energy consumption per capita. The United States, more than any other country, is the country where intelligent human beings have arranged for motor-driven machinery to accomplish results for them. All further substantial increases in the productivity of labor and standard of living, both here in the United States and across the world, will be equally dependent on man-made power and the growing use of energy it makes possible. Our ability to accomplish more and more with the same limited muscular powers of our limbs will depend entirely on our ability to augment them further and further with the aid of still more such energy. (pp. 77-78.)
A Free-Market Response to Global Warming
Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it—that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the perspective of government central planners.
It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle (as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has so eloquently shown). But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.
Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.
Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry. (pp. 88-89
This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 34 comments }
I’m still looking for evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.
I ask everyone and no-one can come up with anything.
I argue that if you apply the marginalist revolution to this alleged problem then it becomes evident that catastrophic warming is actually impossible with the current Continental arrangements.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/continental-layout-and-ice-ages/
So its a situation where catastrophic cooling is always a problem yet catastrophic warming is unlikely to be a problem in over 100 million years.
The alarmists are just so dishonest in this debate that the only way of dealing with them appears to be to fire a great deal of abuse at them and see what they come up with.
But what they don’t ever come up with is evidence because it just isn’t there.
Over here in Australia we have already linked the Professors article and have been arguing over it.
I cannot seem to even SHAME evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming out of them.
I don’t think I could get the evidence out of them with a blow-torch.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2531
The momentum of environmentalism is becoming increasingly powerful and it looks like its agenda of limits and rollbacks on greenhouse-gas emissions is going to be imposed, probably after the election of the next president.
In the information age, what could one otherwise expect?
If there is a nation on top of the status hierarchy, those outside that nation will try to bring it down. That behavior is wed into genes.
In light of that, the U.S. should agree to CO2 emissions based on the a percentage of CO2 emissions per square mile of territory.
Since the U.S. emits less Co2 per volume, taxes should be collected from population pollution infested places like China, India and Egypt. The taxes should then be handed over to the U.S., Canada, and Austrialia.
I find it funny that these progressives/socialists are trying to fool freemarket types into some superstate controlled world. The problem is that that they can not determine the best solution or combination of solutions.
The problem is one of selection. Which solutions do we use and which do we reject. Chirac, Bush and the like are forcing things like ethanol down our throats. Remember when they wanted to force all electric vehicles down our throats or zero emission vehicles? Is this what consumers want? Only entrepeneurs can figure this problem out.
This of course is known by the government types. My guess is that they are using this to further their centrally planned control of the lives of the worlds citizens.
Very duplicitous of Mr. Chirac, but exactly what you would expect from a statist politician. The carbon gas limits/reductions would have much less of an impact on France since the large majority of its power is produced from nuclear fuel. And while I am certainly not against nuclear energy, it produces waste that is clearly harmful if not fatal to humans if it is not handled correctly.
As I have stated previously regarding this topic, the whole assertion that man is responsible for the very small amount of atmospheric warming that has occurred over the past one or two centuries is nothing but politically- and grant-driven junk science with statist and ultimately totalitarian economic implications. But therein is its beauty, its reason for existence to the politically driven amongst us.
The so-called “research†of the proponents of man-caused global warming gives little if any acknowledgement to the tremendous changes in climate that the earth has undergone in the more than 5 billion years of its existence. Furthermore, man did not even exist for almost this entire period. This “research†also gives little importance to changes in solar output, especially given the tremendous size and energy of the sun relative to the earth. Government funding of “research†in the natural sciences has greatly corrupted its objectivity and integrity.
Taken the man caused global warming argument a step or two further logically, since humans omit carbon gas through their respiration, someday the totalitarian political authorities and their prostitute “scientists†may argue that the human population must be limited or reduced to curb “man-caused global warmingâ€.
Sorry, I need to correct a typo in the last paragraph.
Very duplicitous of Mr. Chirac, but exactly what you would expect from a statist politician. The carbon gas limits/reductions would have much less of an impact on France since the large majority of its power is produced from nuclear fuel. And while I am certainly not against nuclear energy, it produces waste that is clearly harmful if not fatal to humans if it is not handled correctly.
As I have stated previously regarding this topic, the whole assertion that man is responsible for the very small amount of atmospheric warming that has occurred over the past one or two centuries is nothing but politically- and grant-driven junk science with statist and ultimately totalitarian economic implications. But therein is its beauty, its reason for existence to the politically driven amongst us.
The so-called “research†of the proponents of man-caused global warming gives little if any acknowledgement to the tremendous changes in climate that the earth has undergone in the more than 5 billion years of its existence. Furthermore, man did not even exist for almost this entire period. This “research†also gives little importance to changes in solar output, especially given the tremendous size and energy of the sun relative to the earth. Government funding of “research†in the natural sciences has greatly corrupted its objectivity and integrity.
Taking the man caused global warming argument a step or two further logically, since humans omit carbon gas through their respiration, someday the totalitarian political authorities and their prostitute “scientists†may argue that the human population must be limited or reduced to curb “man-caused global warmingâ€.
“In light of that, the U.S. should agree to CO2 emissions based on the a percentage of CO2 emissions per square mile of territory.”
You are suppossed to be a superpower for goodness sakes.
That reminds me of what Little-Bill-Dagget was saying about people of low character:
“…it just makes me sick…to see a man carryin’ two pistols and a Henry rifle and cryin’ like a damned baby…I can’t abide them kind….”
What was your argument for an arbitrary restriction on CO2-release?
It was the argument from wimping out to foreign pressure based on mindlessness.
If you go weak at the knees like that over a bit of brow-beating not only will you not be taken seriously in other areas, you will be selling the rest of us downriver since such an arbitrary restriction represents standing propaganda in favour of the alarmist anti-scientific lunatics.
CO2 is good. The alarmists are malignant liars who don’t care about the data.
And the only way to deal with this thing is to get fire out that message without any compromises since every constituent part of their argument is ridiculous.
Mark,
I suspect that all this recent panic about Global Warming is precisely because a lot of evidence is starting to come to the surface that humanity has suffered worse natural fluctuations, and because of evidence showing that it is not man made. You see, they had this plan. “Blame man for global warming, and impose global government” Now that has been blown to hell they are in panic mode.
In fact, just 2 years ago they didn’t even know that over half of global warming gasses were created by plants. In fact, they didn’t even know that plants gave off methane at all. What! How could they miss that? Also, methane is far more insulating than CO2. What about these infallable computer models of man made destruction? How could they miss something like that and be credible?
Identifying the criminalization of greenhouse gas emissions with the criminalization of productive activity *as such* is pretty disingenuous. It assumes that the production of consumer goods necessarily energy-intensive, that less energy-intensive forms of production are unavailable, and that any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will result in reduced economic output.
Whether CO2 emissions are harmful is debatable. But one could call for sanctions of business practices known to be harmful and tortious (like polluting groundwater and fouling neighbors’ wells), and by Reisman’s rhetorical standards that would be criminalizing business activity as such.
Whether greenhouse gas emissions are harmful, again, is debatable. And if they are, the best way of closing that externality is likewise debatable. But there’s nothing objectionable in principle about the idea that demonstrably harmful business behavior should have consequences. Reisman seems to be infatuated, not with production for the sake of consumption, but with the emission of CO2 in and of itself–in other words, we should maximumize CO2 emission for their own sake, solely out of spite.
Jack Chirac mainly wants to weaken American industry to give his fumbling FrAnch economy an edge. That is easier than addressing France’s systemic, welfare-state economic problems.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
France is the BEST
.
The issue of global warming has already been lost. The world has found the perfect ideology. An ideology where no acceptable possible agreement can be found except agreement on the perfect scapegoat.
Every ecological tragedy and just about every weather anomaly will be blamed on you know who. Which in turn will continue to reinforce the global ideology.
There is a bright side to all this religious hysteria over global warming. Corporations large and small are investing huge sums in the development of alternate energy sources that may yet free us from OPEC. Furthermore, many of these alternate energy sources are, by their nature, locally produced. That is, they eliminate the need for mammoth generating facilities and sprawling distribution grids. The environmental whackos may be shooting themselves in the foot by promoting energy sources operated and controlled by local entities or even individuals. In doing so they weaken central government or corporate controls and empower individuals. Hardly what they have in mind.
Tom Schofield,
Good point. And here’s an indication of just how decentralized energy stands to get:
“We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we’ll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we’ll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I’ve seen about energy and its consequences, such as global warming, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem.” — http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html
Yes, there are many ways of technologically producing energy. But the economic issue with energy, as with the production of every other good or service, is how to produce it at the least cost. In a market economy, production costs are estimated through monetary calculation that is made possible by the price system and the private ownership of the factors of production.
I believe one of the tactics being utilized by some environmentalists (specifically, those who do not place a high priority on objective scientific analysis) is to raise the cost of conventional energy production through the false claim that it causes global warming (1). Then many alternative methods of energy production become cost competitive. And throughout the entire process, these types of environmentalists and the political establishment gain more control of energy production and consumption.
(1) And as others have pointed out, even if man-caused global warming was scientific fact (which it is not), it is extremely unclear what its magnitude would be and whether it would have an overall negative effect on man’s existence.
“…it is extremely unclear what its magnitude would be and whether it would have an overall negative effect on man’s existence.”
I think it is VERY clear. I think it is very clear that its existence can only be positive.
We know this from history. And we know this because we are in the most severe ice age for 300 million years.
I wanted to say 500 million years but I will err on the side of conservatism.
I used present climatic conditions as a reference point. Obviously, humans are tremendously better off under the climatic conditions that have existed for the past several thousand years than they were in the last major ice age. However, I could only guess as to how hospitable the earth would be for humans if its climate again warmed to the level that existed in the distant geologic past.
Gentlemen
As a person who made a living commercialising new technology there are a few comments I’d like to make. Speaking from experience, there is a long way from an idea to commercial reality. Many are the times I sat through meetings with academics and researchers gushing their latest ideas. These guys had ideas that ran the whole range of technology from new clean prime mover, through battery or storage medium, to communications and so on. They all needed vast amounts of cash invested immediately. They always promised fantastic results. None of them had a clue about what was really required to get to commercial reality. None of them had the slightest inkling about what people actiually want and will find a use for. In other words they did not understand what was necessary for an idea to become a real, commercially useful product that people could actually employ. Govt employees are even worse when it comes to this, for they don’t even understand the basic sciences their ideas rely on, let alone the magnitude of the resources (always other people’s resources) required. They don’t evaluate or even risk anything- they just emote and demand.
On the wall in my office there used to be a cooking recipe. It was given to me by an Emiritus Professor of mechanical engineering and materials science. The recipe was entitled “King George V fillet steak.” A note states that this is the very delicacy, the best steak meal in the World, prepared and presented at the KG-V restaurant in Paris. The ingrediants are listed. The quantities are listed. The instructions begin by explaining how to weigh the meat and cut it to the correct size. Similarly it is explained how the vegetables are to be cleaned and weighed. Then it goes on to exlain that a couldron of water must be bought to the boil and the oven must be heated. Next, all the ingredients are to be laid out ready to use. Rather abruptly the recipe finishes by saying. “and then we cook the meal and serve with a good wine.” Nothing more is stated.
And this is exactly analogous with all those wonderful new ideas about nanotechnology, fuel cells, safe nuclear power, “clean coal” with “sequestration”, photovoltaic electricity generation, tidal and wave power generation, wind power and so on. Great ideas in theory. Excellent results are certainly possible but getting from the idea to reality is far more than wishing it so.
“..And now we cook the meal…”. How? At what temperature? What goes in the oven? What goes in the coudron? For how long? What is mixed with what? When? How is the meal presented? What is the best wine to serve? It is a long way from the ingrediants to the meal, especially when you don’t know how to do the cooking.
Dreams of the future are all very well BUT presently they are all dreams. The real situation is that people consume energy now. They need it immediately or they will be impoverished and some may even die without it.
For every aspect of our lives we consume energy or products that rely on the availability of energy or services that rely on the availability of energy. And that energy HAS to be cheap as well as plentiful. It also needs to be high grade (understand that the majority of the energy consumed in an industrial economy is simply utilised to refine, concentrate and make higher grades of energy than what was started out with).
The vast majority of energy used presently comes from hydrocarbon fuels. These will not be replaced any time soon (certainly not in my lifetime) despite what dreams we may or may not share. The technologies to replace hydrocarbon fuels are far from commercial reality. The research and development to make such energy sources suitable to market has been underestimated by almost every commentator on the subject. Whether alternatives are really worth the effort of promoting or accelerating has not been considered. For the vast majority of people this is all about vapourware. That is, it’s all talk- all BS in the pub. How many have actually invested in new technology R&D with their own money? How many have actually diligenced the subject prior to making such an investment? How many really have a good idea about how much resource R&D really consumed and how much time is necessary?
And we haven’t even considered product development, logistics, marketing, sales, training, maintenance, litigation, warranty (implied or otherwise), customer relations etc. etc. etc. yet.
Futuristic technology is always just around the corner, except it isn’t. Relying on it as some sort of a panacea is foolish. Perhaps it may eventually happen but that’s decades away (fusion has been twenty years away from commercial employment for over 40 years now). And there is always the possibility of, perhaps it won’t happen.
Hydrocarbon energy technology is all that is available in mass quantity and suitable high availability quality presently and that’s how things will stay for some time to come. Right now Chirac and his merry band of thudgs are able to bring a regime of anti-production into effect almost immediately (less than half a decade) and for almost no significant effort. That is a serious issue which will impoverish people in general. The Professor’s argument that this is dangerous is correct.
Sione
PS By the way, rearch and development consumes lots of energy. If the availability of energy is restricted R&D is one of the first areas to suffer. Progress is slowed or stopped altogether.
Sione,
The premise behind nanosolar — and the technological Singularity as a whole — is simply that Moore’s Law will continue to hold. If so — and there’s no indication otherwise — then Kurzweil’s above prediction will prove true, in which case we are in fact a mere 20 years away from completely phasing out fossil fuels.
“I could only guess as to how hospitable the earth would be for humans if its climate again warmed to the level that existed in the distant geologic past.”
Well as Sean Hannity says “Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled”
Because that cannot happen for many tens of millions of years.
Its been 55 million years since we’ve had a catastrophic warming event.
That event was preceded by perhaps 200 plus million years with barely any ice on earth at all for most of that time. So we had a lead-up where the oceans, the poles, and the deep oceans were already warm.
There was still great ease of circulation in the ocean waters at that time and this has an impact on the planets warmth via the Stefan-Boltzmanns law.
But because these climate-scientists aren’t thinking marginally like Bohm-Bawerk in the 1870′s they haven’t all grasped that yet.
Now since then and particularly in the last three and a half million years (when North and South America fused) there has been no catastrophic warming events.
Yet there have been many catastrophic cooling events.
We are stuck on a planet with a one-way bias.
And if industrial-CO2 can give us a little bit of warming here and there we ought to appreciate our dumb luck and bless capitalism and human freedom each day.
And the terrific thinkers who have enabled us to fight for it.
David — although I consider myself a transhumanist, I have to point out that the raw increase in speed of computations is not sufficient to achieve the promise of GNR revolution.
We’re pretty much stuck creating our software from trivial instructions. I’ve seen no interesting new ideas coming from Computer Science community for more than a decade now.
The premise behind nanosolar — and the technological Singularity as a whole — is simply that Moore’s Law will continue to hold.
David, as I pointed out to you the last time you brought this up, that’s not the case at all: Moore’s law alone is not sufficient to bring about Vinge’s singularity – it requires a breakthrough in (“artificial”) intelligence, and breakthroughs are never something you can count on happening in any given time period (or ever, for that matter – it’s even possible that greater-than-human-scale intelligence isn’t possible for some as-yet-unknown reason)
I was not implying that there will be catastrophic warming in the future or that the warmer periods of the past would have precluded human development. My point was that humans have not lived in periods that were considerably warmer than today; humans had not yet evolved.
Also, I believe that I have stated in no uncertain terms that I view the assertion that man is responsible for “global warming” and the predictions of catastrophic consequences as unscientific political- and grant-driven propaganda.
averros,
“I’ve seen no interesting new ideas coming from Computer Science community for more than a decade now.”
My, what high standards we have. Meanwhile, the march continues apace.
Peter,
Breakthroughs happen and will become all the likelier the more computing power increases.
To quote our Dear Leader, “Bring it on!”
Energy is a political problem rather than a scientific one. There is no scientific reason why the existing (40 year old) nuclear technology should not replace the obsolete coal plants in the US. These types of reactors are still operating in France and Japan. The opposition to nuclear power is not rational. Furthermore, there is no reason why the inherent problems with the old technology could not be solved by better design. (“Pebble Bed Technology”, while still,being experimental, solves the problems associated with meltdown, radioactive venting due to corrosion and disposal of radioactive waste.)
There were several interesting articles on the Drudgereport.
The President of the Czech Republic call Global Warming a “myth”. (He no doubt remembers the policy of the European communists, after the failure of socialism in eastern Europe, of using the gullibility and stupidity of the environmental movement to sabotage capitalism.)
Svensmark’s research is now being published (after 10 years). He claims to have a model that shows that cosmic rays and their modulation by sunspot activity affect cloud cover. His work covers temperature changes for the last 10,000 years. It, apparently explains why the eastern antarctic ice sheet is growing! Prominent scientists, formally “human activity” supporters, are already jumping on the band wagon.
“Svensmark’s research is now being published (after 10 years). He claims to have a model that shows that cosmic rays and their modulation by sunspot activity affect cloud cover. His work covers temperature changes for the last 10,000 years. ”
This stuff works in very well with the historical record.
For while the colder periods are in general drier periods when we get the onset of these cold periods the record shows months of heavy rains.
For example in the Wolf minimum which brought on the little ice age.
In the middle of it there was months of heavy rains starting in 1315. And this led to famines and such. And yet this goes against the idea that generally these extended cold times have lower average rainfall.
But the thing is that this can only exacerbate whats going on with the sun anyway. Since its when the sun is weaker, thats when the cosmic rays can make it through.
Of course over at the alarmists sites they play this stuff down.
They just aren’t interested it seems.
David
Ah yes, all will be mighty fine when the hydrocarbon fuels are phased out in twenty years. Sure. Sure. I’ve heard all this before and I’m a sceptic. Twenty years is just long enough to keep the natives hoping and just long enough that it’s safely in dreamland. Perhaps fusion will be a commerical means of generating electricity by then as well. Perhaps. Until then it’s all vapourware.
Let’s assume you’re correct with your timetable. The point remains that Chirac and his thugs will have implemented their scheme well before then. The damage to wealth and freedom will already have become real. AND the rate of R&D investment will be slowed. AND the rate of new technology product introduction will also be retarded. Technological development in a particular field is not necessarily inevitable over a given time frame, despite what Moore or Kurzweil or anyone else may like to assert. It can be slowed or stopped completely.
Finally, a change of energy source is not going to stop these thugs from altering their regulations to seize and retain control over the new sources. It’s simple enough to pass new regulations. It’s very difficult to develop new technologies and new energy sources. As you have conceded, decades are required.
Sione
Sione,
The damage to wealth and freedom is already real and has been througout history. Indeed, it IS history insofar as it consists of the biographies of the few in the form of the state and its henchmen. Yet we have nonetheless managed to get to the “knee” of the technology curve — 1:1 in terms of the horizontal giving way to the vertical, and while you may well be right in your skepticism, you may well be wrong.
Obviously, only time will tell, and I only have to look back 20 years to know that 20 years not a very long time.
Peter & David,
It is likely that a breakthrough in temporal technology (i.e., events prediction, etc.) will precede the breakthrough in A.I. necessary for the Singularity. If this is the case, then temporal technology will likely result in a breakthrough in AI. However powerful this AI will be, it would take quite a goof to wipe out humanity when one can accurately predict the future.
Sione,
Expect deployment of this technology in about 20 years.
Peter & David,
Expect the A.I. breakthrough in about 20.083 years.
20.083 years! So I’ll be off by a month! Sorry!
But seriously, to the galloping advance of technology is so obvious that it can only be wilfully ignored, and to believe that it will come to a grinding halt at the very moment that cultural evolution is leaving Darwinian evolution in the dust — http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/14236 — well. you’ve either got your head in the sand or you’re waiting for the Rapture.
But I repeat myself.
“[T]here’s nothing objectionable in principle about the idea that demonstrably harmful business behavior should have consequences.”
Thanks, Kevin.
Dr. Reisman seems to think that simply because the negative consequences (which he does not argue) of one`s behavior are diffuse and do not lend themselves to private enforcement, that any state action is ipso facto an “attempt to criminalize productive activity”. Dr. Reisman may be correct to identify a “thoroughly vicious proposition, lying at the very core of socialism, that one man’s gain is another’s loss”, but he forgets that in the case of common, open-access resources that are not regulated through a recognized property rights system there can be no private, wealth-creating transactions.
It is in finally adopting mechanisms to manage common resources that wealth-creating exchanges relating to such resources occur, as Yandle has noted.
I had to resurrect this article in order to direct readers to a great article on the fact that cows produce far greater amounts of greenhouse gasses than do cars: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=256953136116763. Here’s a sample:
“In the same story we’re informed that “the average American diet — including all food-processing steps — results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet.”
How’s that for a heaping helping of guilt? But we should have seen it coming when reports began to circulate that livestock emit more greenhouse gases than human transportation.”
Ozzie AKA Graeme Bird`s latest sock puppet:
It`s tough to converse with you past bile that your Tourette`s makes you spew. I`m not sure it`s even worth a try, considering how I “must be one of the most dishonest people on the net today”. Really, Graeme, you flatter too much!
1. I made a few simple points above, that you do not address (except for calling it a “rabbit punch”):
“[Dr. Reisman] forgets that in the case of common, open-access resources that are not regulated through a recognized property rights system there can be no private, wealth-creating transactions.
It is in finally adopting mechanisms to manage common resources that wealth-creating exchanges relating to such resources occur, as Yandle has noted.”
These are similar to the pointsthat Kevin Carson makes above me. Do you disagree and, if so, why?
2. My post does not directly address climate change, so I afraid I don`t understand how I have made any “false accusations in your repetitive, dishonest and filthy way”. Tourette`s again, I suppose?
On climate change, you pose a few questions. Let me respond with the following observations. You have here and elsewhere acknowledged that you accept the AGW theory and that CO2 releases from industrial activity is playing a role in warming the climate. http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/2006/10/24/global-warming-policy/#comment-141
Does this make you a socialist? How about libertarian guys like Ron Bailey at Reason, Michael Schermer of Skeptic and Prof. Jon Adler at Volock Conspiracy?
3. You seem to assume that we should be interested in AGW only if AGW produces “catasprophic” climate change. Where in your book of libertarian doctrine did you come up with that? Do you deny that climate change will impose no economic costs whatsoever?
4. Have you read Yandle, who I have previously linked to? http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.
He concludes: “at very low levels of income, what might be called stage one, human beings cannot afford to do much about property-rights enforcement and the commons. They live in a world where custom and tradition sustain them. As incomes rise and losses from the commons expand, stage two is entered. Fences go up, and rules are set for protecting the commons. Finally, in stage three, markets evolve along with rules of law that define spheres of private and public action. Private rights replace public control, and the triumph replaces the tragedy of the commons.
Life for mankind began on a commons where tragedies were commonplace and the incentive to improve was powerful. Out of the struggle to survive and accumulate wealth evolved markets, property rights, and the rule of law-a triumph on the commons. But just as bees compete with hummingbirds in the struggle to control access to nectar, institution builders who seek to support markets and property rights compete with others who seek to redistribute wealth. Actions to redistribute wealth blunt the incentive to protect property rights and create wealth. This converts triumph to tragedy.
Human beings can and do avoid the tragedy of the commons. But doing so requires property rights and markets, which must be defended if the triumph is to continue.”
How would you relate Yandle`s observations to the discussions over how we should best regulate our remaining open-access commons? Or is that a “hateful” question to ask?
Cheers,
Your favorite evil person,
TT
PS: The use of a nom de plume is a vernable tradition, and detracts not a whit from my arguments. You, however, resort to them because you find yourself being banned on whatever boards you visit. That`s a shame, because you have some interesting points about the configuration of our continents. By the way, surely you know we have the killer ice to thank for the successive genetic bottlenecks that produced mankind? But we are responsible for the ones we are now imposing on our coinhabitants of this planet.
Stop stalling and come up with some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming Tom you total idiot.
You are the stupidest, most persistently dishonest jerk on the internet.
No question about that at all.
Do I really have to freeze in my apartment so Green hippies like Gore who use (waste) literally 1,000 times more energy (200,000kwh versus 173kwh per month) can feel smug with themselves?
I am suppose to have faith in government funded scientists and politicians that if I don’t live like I am back in the stone ages then the planet will incinerate? We are not even talking about toxic or radioactive waste. Carbon Dioxide is used by plants to make food and oxygen, hardly a poisonous gas. I rather burn in hell (environmentalist version) than live like a popper. Perhaps I should consider purchasing a firearm to protect my self…
banker, note: compared to today’s wealth, Karl Popper lived like a pauper.
Since then, the carbon/energy intensity of our economy has continued to fall (and will continue to doe so as long as energy is priced). Need we live like Poppers? I say no!
Comments on this entry are closed.