For years, the environmentalists have been trying to have it both ways, claiming that in the midst of the global warming that they allege, Europe might suffer an ice age. According to this scenario, ships would sail through an ice-free Arctic Ocean but be unable to unload their cargos in the ice-bound ports of Northern Europe.
What was alleged to produce a European ice age at the very time that the world as a whole was warming was the destruction of the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water from the Equator to the coast of Northern Europe. Melting ice from the Arctic would allegedly overwhelm the Gulf Stream and leave Europe defenseless against the onslaught of frigid air streaming down from the Arctic, the same frigid air that explains the much colder climate of Eastern Canada. Eastern Canada lies at the same latitude as Northern Europe but does not have the benefit of the Gulf Stream.
None of the environmentalist “scientists†seemed to notice the absurdity of maintaining the continued existence of frigid air coming down from an Arctic that they never tired of claiming was itself rapidly warming.
Warmth from the Gulf Stream is necessary to keep Europe temperate in the face of cold from the Arctic. It is not necessary when the frigidity of the Arctic disappears. The environmentalists chose not to recognize the distinction. They took a position equivalent to that of a deranged person, who possibly might confuse the consequences of his not wearing his overcoat in July with the consequences of his not wearing it in February. It is one thing if the Gulf Stream were to disappear in the climate conditions the world has become accustomed to. It is something very different if it were to disappear in the conditions of an Arctic so warm that most of its ice melted.
The environmentalists and their stooges in the media were not, and are not, concerned with logical consistency. That requires holding the context and making distinctions between different contexts. What they are concerned with is whatever can be used to strike fear in people: warming, freezing; flood, drought; it’s all the same. If it provokes fear, their tactic is to use it and play on it.
Well, this particular bugaboo may no longer serve. A story in The New York Times of May 15, 2007, titled “Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World†explains why. (The story appears on p. F3 of The Times’ Metropolitan Edition of the same date.)
The “backing off†is not based on any recognition of the inherent contradictions in the argument, but on evidence that the Gulf Stream is not easily destroyed and also is not the only source of warming for Europe; prevailing winds and other factors are now recognized as being more important than the Gulf Stream.
Don’t expect this “backing off†to mean an actual abandonment of claims of a European ice age. So long as the world is full of people credulous enough to be frightened by this story, environmentalists will continue telling it.
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.
{ 16 comments }
Sounds like a cunning political ploy. Europe could get hot, cold, or neutral weather – yet no matter what happens it is absolute proof that man made global warming will ruin the world as their models say. I can hear it now: …. “we warned them this would happen”, ….”we told you so”, …..”you didn’t listen to us then, but we were right so we must force you to listen to us now immediately to save the globe from catastrophe”
“The environmentalists and their stooges in the media were not, and are not, concerned with logical consistency. That requires holding the context and making distinctions between different contexts. What they are concerned with is whatever can be used to strike fear in people: warming, freezing; flood, drought; it’s all the same. If it provokes fear, their tactic is to use it and play on it.”
Many of them are also not concerned with honesty. Given the rhetoric from many of the scientists/activists, it’s a safe bet many of them think privately what the prominent Stephen Schneider was foolish enough to say openly:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996; this quote is from Wikipeadia s.v. Stephen Schneider — Emphasis added, FvD).
If it requires making up scary scenarios, making simplified dramatic statements, and ignoring or suppressing doubts in order to drum up broadbased public support, then it probably isn’t that big a deal in the first place and therefore isn’t worth it. In other words, if you have to lie about it to get people motivated, then it probably isn’t worth lying about. For something as bad as global warming is supposed to be, the truth should suffice; but it doesn’t, because it isn’t.
What, the evil New York Times/Pravda is reporting that the scientific consensus is actually changing, as scientists continue to research and debate?
What is wrong with the New York Times and all of those government scientists? Have they forgotten that “truth” is based on our view of what side of the bread their butter is on?
Boy, it sure seems that strawmen are falling all around us!
That (rabid, shameless, debate-oppressing and misanthropic) environmentalist who promotes Austrianism while hiding behind the name of -
TokyoTom
PS: Besides, if we decide that man`s activities ARE playing a role in climate change that we decide is adverse, it`s nothing that we can`t solve with a few atom bombs, right?
Huh?
At any rate, I think it is additional evidence that the catastrophy hype is overblown (irrespective of the cause of global warming). The latest IPCC report downgraded estimates of the predicted effects of global warming (such as on sea level rise), but arguably not enough. This article that Dr. Reisman links to also retracts another scare story. Even if AGW proves solid, it seems support for doom and gloom is crumbling or proving nonexistent to begin with.
If it turns out that we are the dominant cause of recent global warming…well then, TT, you know how Austrians will answer: free market environmentalism.
And if it turns out that we aren’t? Are you willing and prepared to accept that right now as a possibility? Or are you so thoroughly convinced by the theory and evidence of AGW that you can’t possibly entertain the idea?
I, at least, am open to both and haven’t closed my mind to the possibility of one or the other ultimately being correct.
Of course, establishing AGW as a fact is a far cry from proving that it will be disastrous.
As far as I can tell there are still uncertainties regarding whether recent global warming is anthropogenic and, more importantly, if so then how much of it is anthropogenic (or CO2 vs. some other anthropogenic source). There are still very many unknowns when it comes to the earth’s climate.
It is comments like the one above, TT, that worry me. There’s no need for such hysteria. And the P.S. statment at the end was particularly uncharitable.
Ships do not sale. You may sell them, and you may sail them, or they may sail themselves. But ships NEVER sale.
The entire article thusly has no credibility. Never mind the fact that I will tell you, as a resident of “Eastern Canada”, that the Jet Stream does much more than you think it does for Newfoundland, Mr. Reisman.
Additionally, Mr. Reisman must do his research. Try the Third Annual Report released by the IPCC, namely the sea level rise (SLR) rates. The way we are messing with our current sea levels means anything can happen, even an “ice age” that he’s so fond of making fun of. I am not saying such a thing could happen, but as a coastal planner I am saying to be wary, Mr. Reisman. Stick to your economics and ship *sales*, and let those of us with the appropriate credentials worry about the ships and the *sailing*.
Yeah Dr. Reisman, leave the planning to the planners like Julia and quit being such a rabble rouser. In fact I say we choose one person, who is a really good planner, to make a plan that we all follow. There’s no way that can fail…
“When someone attacks your typing they have lost the argument”.
A self interested point comming from me (I am terrible typist), but still true.
“Additionally, Mr. Reisman must do his research. Try the Third Annual Report released by the IPCC, namely the sea level rise (SLR) rates. ”
Lets see your evidence for what you think the sea level rises will be. Lets see your reasoning every step of the way.
Putting up the IPCC to hide behind is not the same as quoting good research. They make all their stuff up and decide on it through committee. You’ll see scant evidence in any of their reports except evidence that much money has been wasted.
We have a background level of sea level rising of about 2mm per year. Where is the evidence that it will rise much faster then this?
Are you claiming it will rise faster than this 2mm per year…. Perhaps 3mm per year… Under any circumstances at all?
Or just under the implausible advent of continued warming?
The IPCC predictions are worthless, implausible, and they offer no evidence for any of their soothsaying.
Geoff:
You say “It is comments like the one above, TT, that worry me. There’s no need for such hysteria. And the P.S. statment at the end was particularly uncharitable.”
I am afraid I don’t follow – what “hysteria” are you making reference to?
And I also am afraid I do not understand what you think is “uncharitable” about saying that we might be able to cure global warming with a few atom bombs. Rather, it seems to me that you show a surprising lack of gratitude for my practice of actually reading what Dr. Reisman writes and for making reference to it where appropriate for the benefit of other readers of the Mises blog.
Surely you are aware that Dr. Reisman specifically floated the idea of the use of atom bombs to tackle climate change, if we waited until he was satisifed that it is a serious problem?
See http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp, where Dr. Reisman said “there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. … This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.”
Forgive me for saying that, in comparison with statist recommendations like these, one might be forgiven for finding the recommendations of Mankiw’s “Pigou Tax Club” somewhat easier to stomach. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
Regards,
TT
Sorry, TT, I was not aware Dr. Reisman had written that.
However, after following your link, I note that you neglected to quote this line that appears further down: “(I would not be ready to endorse any such costly proposals, but they would be a vast improvement over the left’s only current proposal, which is simply the crippling of industrial civilization.)”
In other words, as much as I disagree with Dr. Reisman’s chosen strategy for dealing with environmental alarmists, I must point out that you appear to be taking his words out of context. 1) He was making fun of leftist inconsistency and hypocrisy. 2) He explicitly said he would not himself endorse such measures.
You are not going to persuade Dr. Reisman, particularly with comments like the one above. And you probably won’t persuade many others who are on the fence with such comments either. Enough of us know by now what you think of Dr. Reisman. Perhaps the more effective course from your point of view would be to ignore him. It would probably be less polarizing. If you absolutely must object to his every blogpost, at least lose the emotional rhetoric and offer instead a calm, balanced and uninsulting explanation of the latest scientific literature (complete with citations, preferrably to free access online material). I’m afraid nothing less will do if you really want to convince anyone here. Oh…and please show some evidence of having seriously examined the latest scientific literature that doesn’t fall into the consensus-approved canon. Don’t expect instant acceptance, however. From what I have seen of the climate science literature, there is much in its methods with which one can take issue (as with any empirical science dealing with a vastly complex system for which true controlled experiments are impossible).
The more I look into climate science, the more uncertainties I see that are ignored or suppressed by the activists. It may turn out that they are right anyway, but invoking the “consensus” and ridiculing or dismissing or intimidating those who aren’t swayed by its invocation – as so many environmentalists do – is the very opposite of scientific inquiry. Even the apparently well-intended and helpful suggestion that one’s credibility will suffer if one continues to hold a skeptical view can all too easily descend into argument from intimidation.
This is a large part of my problem with many environmentalists. They don’t stick to the science but instead, evincing a distinct air of desperation, descend into personal attacks, logical fallacy, and emotionalism. Even when they draw on the science, they tend to act as if there is absolute certainty on the part of the consensus and as if anyone who disagrees with them must be an ignorant layman, a partisan hack, or an enemy of science – or some combination of the three. It is quite understandable that those who are not yet true believers and are suspicious of the strong leftist-primitivist current driving much of the environmentalist movenment – it is quite understandable that they remain unconvinced.
Science by consensus is not really science.
It seems to me the far more sensible strategy of dealing with libertarians who are skeptical of global warming is not to act like a hysterical leftist confronting heresy but rather to focus first on what we can agree on: free markets. Whether or not the libertarians you are dealing with believe in global warming at all, you can agree with them that free markets will be better for humans and better for the environment. If they accept that global warming is happening but don’t accept that its cause is anthropogenic, you at least agree with them that free markets are the best solution available for adapting to it. If you are more concerned than they are about the dangers of global warming, by all means try to persuade them. But do it respectfully. And don’t expect unanimous agreement. I doubt global warming will be so bad that it could only be dealt with by unanimous and unitary collective action now based on unquestioning acceptance, garnered by Schneider’s methods, of wisdom of the technocratic elite. It seems to me that your energies would be better expended convincing statist environmentalists that free markets are the best solution to AGW. You don’t need to convince all libertarians on your particular view of global warming. Their advocacy of free markets will be helpful to your cause even if they don’t believe in AGW.
Geoff, thanks for your response.
1. I think I’ve correctly cited Dr. Reisman’s proposal that we seriously consider using atom bombs and get started testing them in the atmosphere to check out their possible usefulness.
The language that you cite comes at the end of a different paragraph, in which he puts statist proposals in the mouth of a more muscular left to which he wistfully refers: “If there is any remnant of the left of an earlier era, which still respected science and technology, and championed industrial civilization, it might be expected to offer additional possible solutions for excessive global warming, probably solutions of a kind requiring grandiose construction projects.”
2. Thanks for the laundry list of suggestions for dealing with Dr. Reisman and others here.
You may disagree, but I believe that my indirect exchanges with him and direct exchanges with others have been productive – in both directions. I am here to learn as well as to express my own views, and I have certainly done the first, even if I may not have been particularly persuasive with the latter.
It seems that you, as a relative newcomer to the climate change discussions here, may misunderstand what you refer to as my “emotional rhetoric”. I occasionally try to preempt emotional rhetoric from others by referring ironically to rhetoric that others have flung. I do find irony to be helpful in getting others to acknowledge some of their more reflexive positions. My aim and desire is certainly for a level-headed discussion.
As to your request that I “please show some evidence of having seriously examined the latest scientific literature that doesn’t fall into the consensus-approved canon”, I would remark that this again reflects a lack of knowledge on your part with my very extensive efforts over the past year + to discuss the science with others here. But it seems that with every new poster, such as yourself, I am expected to start over again.
I would also note that, at least among the scientists, there is no “consensus-approved canon”, as Dr. Reisman’s post itself demonstrates (hence my initial reference to a strawman falling). Rather, this is one of those phrases trotted out by those who would rather dismiss the whole issue by focussing not on an analysis of the issues but on all of those “alarmists” scattered from hell to breakfast – from “enviros” out to destroy industrial civilization, to Bush, to the defense and intelligence establishments, to lists of investors, insurers and industrial corporations (even Exxon!), to our allies and competitors worldwide and to the scientific establishment (and a smattering of vocal scientists).
3. I agree completely with you that “invoking the ‘consensus’ and ridiculing or dismissing or intimidating those who aren’t swayed by its invocation – as so many environmentalists do – is the very opposite of scientific inquiry.” I hope that you understand that what you refer to is fundamentally a political endeavor – one that, given an evolving scientific understanding and the limited time and capability of all who find themselves caught up in that endeavor, may indeed imperfectly reflect the scientific nuances (or even the principal understandings).
While I have tried to avoid what you deplore, as humans we must always act individually on the basis of imperfect knowledge. In addition, I think that it might be helpful for you to understand that the attempts at “moral suasion” that so bridle you are a classic non-formal means by which groups establish rules relating to resources (see Yandle, Elinor Ostrom and others). There is nothing unusual about it – and it in the eyes of Austrians may very well be preferable to formal collective action.
4. I agree that “to act like a hysterical leftist confronting heresy” is not a sensible strategy for discussions with libertarians. But this strikes me a somewhat of a strawman. If you intend it as directed towards me, perhaps it would help if you could provide some examples of where you perceive that I have acted as a “leftist”, an “hysterical” one at that, “confronting heresy”?
5. I appreciate your suggestion that I my “energies would be better expended convincing statist environmentalists that free markets are the best solution to AGW.” I hope you will not object too strongly if I choose also to waste my time here – where I am merely a commenter, and not one of those Misesean insiders who keep posting on this topic.
Besides, I think that this and other environmental issues present a host of difficult problems to which glib references to “free markets” essentially begs the question of how free markets address resources that are unowned.
Anyway, I do appreciate your interest and continuing comments on this topic.
Regards,
TT
Just stop holding out on us Tom.
Lets see that evidence of yours.
Surely after a year trying these tactics on you must have found some evidence?
Graeme:
“Lets see that evidence of yours.”
My belief is that human forcings in addition to CO2 are work.
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has said the following:
1. “For all of the human-caused warming radiative forcings, which includes the 0.5 Watts per meter squared value for the shortwave albedo change, and estimating tropospheric ozone as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the aerosol black carbon direct effect as 0.2 Watts per meter squared, the black carbon on snow and ice as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the semidirect indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared, and the glaciation indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared (with the latter two forcings using a nominal value, since these forcings are very poorly known), the contribution due to CO2 will fall to about 28%.”
“This analysis also ignores solar influences on the heating in which a published paper concludes,
‘We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. ‘ (see). Even the IPCC estimates that there has been a warming influence from the Sun in their radiative forcing summary figure of about 0.25 Watts per meter squared (see). Adding this 0.25 Watts per meter squared value reduces the percent contribution of CO2 to about 26.5%.”
“This calculation does not mean that there is not merit in reducing the human input of CO2 into the atmosphere, but it does mean that even in the context of global warming, it is only a fraction of the actual positive radiative forcings.”
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/
2. “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/main-conclusions/
Admittedly, this is an appeal to authority, but surely you know that Dr. Pielke Sr. has a blog and would be more than willing to back up his conclusions. Have you already taken advantage to this opportunity, and been dissatisfied with the results?
Regards,
Tom
Sea levels still do not rise when the icebergs melt. They fall.
“My belief is that human forcings in addition to CO2 are work.”
What on earth does that mean?
When you marshall evidence for something you need to know what specific hypothesis you are trying to find evidence for!
So after a year of trying to drag and shame evidence out of you have done a runner AGAIN.
Since if you don’t have a specific hypothesis there is nothing for me to verify or falsify or even so much as comprehend.
Third parties… In this scandalous affair not only is Tom not unique. Everyone on the alarmist side is like Tom.
You really got to deal with the reality of this scandal at this here conference thats coming up.
My advice is to go incognito onto alarmist sites and try and shake these guys down for answers.
You will be amazed by these people.
For starters their whole paradigm (accepted by both sides) makes no sense.
Actually when looking at the link T.T. provided about addressing global warming myths, it was admitted that the predicted temperature rise would in reality mean milder winters, warmer summers, some shift in farmable land (some lands may less usable whereas some may be more usable) and interesting it could be sugggested that may be in fact be greater capacity for food production. Hence in the not-so-distant-future even level-headed proponents admit that the changes are not going particularly disastrous and claims for grand sweeping changes to our lifestyle are unfounded. Maybe those hoping for grand calamities should stick to making disaster movies?
Comments on this entry are closed.