Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Wise Words on Global Warming

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Nathan - 4 Easy Ways To Preven — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:56:34 -0000

I totally agree that you can believe in global warming and think that the recommendations people make are not the solution to dealing with the problem.

However, a market based cap-and trade program is a great way to deal with global warming gases that addresses the problem while also supporting free markets.

Just because you believe in free markets doesn't mean you can't use the government to solve large problems like global warming.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Tom Adams — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:21:15 -0000

Is a carbon cap and trade system a statist solution? Is it statist to eliminate a form of harmful communism, eliminate unlimited dumping in a commons?

I suppose having a civil law system backed by a police force is a statist solution to the problem of protecting private property.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

ben — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:08:13 -0000

Tom

"Shouldn't we at least spend the time to figure out if the effects of GW will or will not be positive?"

Since GW policy is unnecessary if either GW is beneficial overall or if the cost of policy outweighs its benefits, focusing on one or the other is sufficient to reject policy.

My understanding is that although GW will produce some benefits, the costs will outweigh those and overall GW is a bad for people. So if policy is to be rejected it must be on comparison of costs and benefits.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Tom — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:24:35 -0000

"There's a difference between attempts to prevent global warming from happening, and dealing with its consequences."

Shouldn't we at least spend the time to figure out if the effects of GW will or will not be positive?

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

ben — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:09:43 -0000

Sheldon Richman

There's a difference between attempts to prevent global warming from happening, and dealing with its consequences. I have been concerned with the former. Quite possibly a case can be made for compensating people affected by warming, I haven't thought about it.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

joan — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:27:02 -0000

Eric:

You are making the assumption that a well-meaning bureaucrat, politician, or taxpayer would find no value in research that would disprove warming. Given that congress, the public, and the Bush administration is opposed to any action,I think the pressure on government scientists from this source is to disprove its existence. You are grasping at straws with an argument like this. The debate in the sientific community has been going on for over 25 years with government scientists on both sides, what has tipped the balance in opinon is the recent evidence of warming.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Eric H — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:31:39 -0000

I predicted "At the rate this thread is going, I predict an example of publication bias."

Score!

"do you trust oil/gas/coal for CO2 information or the NOAA/NASA"

Appeal to authority is the flip-side of ad hominem. The fact that an oil company paid for something (or that a researcher at one time received money from them) does not prove something is false any more than the fact that the government paid for it is false.

Government researchers are paid to produce things that are useful to the government. They tend to not publish things that aren't - if they do, it will soon dawn on some well-meaning bureaucrat, politician, or taxpayer that we ought not spend money on something of no value or which could be funded by someone who does value it. Agencies, especially the increasingly irrelevant and narcissistic NASA, must justify their own existence somehow.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Sheldon Richman — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:36:13 -0000

"Don's post said that there is no inconsistency between accepting anthropogenic global warming and denying it is worth "fixing"."

In Dolan's paper, which I linked to in my FEE article, he raises the issue of libertarian/Lockean justice in connection with global warming. Is there an issue of justice here? Assuming that people living in low-lying areas in Bangladesh are being damaged by man-caused global warming, is compensation due? What does "worth fixing" meaning? If I impose on you but by some measure the damage to you is regarded as less than the cost to me of stopping the damage, does that mean nothing should be done? Does that satisfy the demands of individual rights and justice? This is the sort of thing Dolan asks.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Brad Hutchings — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:06:31 -0000

Hey, good news! Now, it's only half as bad as they previously thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

ben — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:05:38 -0000

Bruce

You're still missing the point. A reasoned case against government action can be made taking anthropogenic global warming as given. That is the main point in Don's post. It is a point missed by most in the global warming movement.

Who is "simply not wanting to respond"?

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Bruce Hall — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:02:04 -0000

Ben,

I guess denial is a valid approach, but denial with a valid reason seems somehow more... valid.

Simply not wanting to respond is a choice, but not a very convincing one.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

ben — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:57:19 -0000

Don's post said that there is no inconsistency between accepting anthropogenic global warming and denying it is worth "fixing".

It seems to me this should be the one post on global warming where a debate about the merits of whether warming is occurring shouldn't happen. Don is taking warming as given and saying the case for policy response doesn't stack up.

Bracken and Bruce have apparently missed this essential point.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

ben — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:44:51 -0000

The success of CFC "targets and timetables" approach to reductions are a poor guide for how to reduce carbon emissions. Kyoto was designed in light of the success of the Montreal Protocol but greenhouse gases are less amenable to this approach. The reason is that there is no ready substitute for greenhouse gas emissions in the way that there is for CFCs.

I think the lesson to take away from Montreal is not that targets and timetables can work, it is the value of having access to a clean alternative. Montreal's lesson is more about the role of technology than the best approach to regulation.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

python — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:41:03 -0000

Whether or not I believe that humans are playing as large of a role in Global Warming as Al Gore wants me think is irrelevant to this discussion. I thought this discussion was about when it is appropriate for the Government to get involved in Global Warming (e.g. carbon tax, KYOTO, etc.).

As of December 9, 2006 I would need about 100 times as much "proof" about humanity's role before I would consent to "forced loss of freedom".

All those who run to the government for solutions are doing just that. Those that think that a collection of individuals can act without Big Brother will resist government interference.

I find it amusing that we are supposed to trust scientists who's income and/or reputation is largely based on whether or not we should keep funding global warming research, but we are not supposed to trust oil companies. Scientists are pure whereas businesses are corrupt, right? If you think that tenured professors don't care about huge federal grants then I have some Arizona Glaciers to sell you.

I've worked in science and academia for 16 years and it's about as pure as the rest of humanity.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Brad Hutchings — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:16:15 -0000

I want to expand on how the RealClimate article is not a response to Crichton's contention that science has a spotty record on its panics of the last 100 years. In the article linked by Bracken, here is the whole discussion of that:

"Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left."

That wasn't the point of the appendix. Crichton cites and discusses several huge scares (DDT, population bomb, etc.) that popular scientific thought got wrong and cost lives. The point is not to call the atmospheric scientists morally equivalent to eugenicists, nor to question their funding sources. The point was to provide a historical context for evaluating current claims of impending disaster.

"This time, we're not making this up!" is not an answer. An answer might be to respond to Arnold Kling's criticism that models are unreliable. Show the economists how to apply atmospheric science model making to make better economic models. Or fix the BCS rankings if that's too difficult.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Paul Zrimsek — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:03:36 -0000

do you trust the national science academies or a science fiction writer??

No.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Brad Hutchings — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:55:51 -0000

Bracken, With respect to Crichton, I was talking about things like eugenics, DDT, MTBE, etc. Perhaps you just never read the book or the afterward. We're talking about the intersection of science and politics, that it has a spotty legacy at best.

Bruce G Charlton above, enumerates the Al Gore argument sequence. What if the global warmers are wrong at one of the steps, and their incorrectness costs lives, makes lives worse, or makes people less free? What if you're wrong in proportion, as was clearly the case with banning DDT? This study of trade-offs among people is what economists know how to do, not atmospheric scientists.

It reminds me of a typical dot-com story (that I lived through) where the brilliant engineer company founder runs the company into the ground because he thinks he knows everything and doesn't need non-engineers. Not so bad, except in doing so, he takes other people and other people's money into the ground with him.

Until the global warming proponents (mostly scientists and politicians and journalists who parrot their message) grow enough humility to invite a real discussion, it's probably prudent to just deny, deny, deny. And it's funny that as a real discussion starts without their blessing (i.e. Copenhagen Consensus), there truly are trade-offs to consider.

Here's a way the scientists could start showing humility. Condemn the "stop funding the deniers" letter sent by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller to Exxon. Stop that kind of garbage and there might be a reasonable conversation to be had.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Bruce Hall — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:19:21 -0000

Bracken,

since you are citing a 5-year "trend" and the work of the geologists, climatologists, meteorologists, astrophysists, and environmental scientists evaluate changes over millions of years... I have to presume you want to selectively support your arguments with "evidence" that is circumstantial... at best.

But, worse, anyone who doesn't agree with you and provides sound, scientific evidence to contradict your position must be labeled a "mouthpiece"... because they do not fit your political agenda.

http://hallofrecord.blogspo...

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Bracken — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:00:16 -0000

Bruce

What you are stating is simply false,

all these issue have been examined recently in the literature

as one example CO2 levels

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/cc...

"friendsofscience" is an oil/coal mouthpiece it is not a credible source of information.

do you trust oil/gas/coal for CO2 information or the NOAA/NASA

do you trust the national science academies or a science fiction writer??

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Bruce Hall — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:34:31 -0000

http://www.friendsofscience...

An examination of published scientific data show many inconsistencies between the climate record and the CO2 - Global Warming hypothesis. Some of these are:

* The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, and the nature of CO2 / water vapour interactions is not clearly understood. Moreover, James Hansen (2000) downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

* Antarctic ice cores in one study show carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 ppm about 600 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations, while in another study Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 levels lag an increase in temperature by 900 to 1200 years.

* World Climate Report shows that annual growth in concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have remained essentially flat from 1975 to the present - during a time of maximum production of CO2 from fossil fuels. This casts doubt on the claim that rapid and dramatic build-ups of CO2 will occur in the future.

* We know that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels was not the cause of dramatic historical climate changes, for example, 1000 years ago, in the Medieval Warm Period or in the Little Ice Age that followed from about 1350 to about 1860. We are still emerging, in an oscillating fashion, on the warming trend that came after the Little Ice Age. Global historical temperature data is readily available, for example Canada, Mediterranean, Alaska, China and Canadian Rockies.

* In the 20th century, there was little correlation between temperature changes and CO2 levels. Some surface temperature measurements show a 0.5°C rise over the past 100 years. However, that average hides some significant details. From 1905 to 1940, a rise of about 0.5°C was measured, during which time there was an imperceptible rise in CO2. From 1940 to 1975, the temperature decreased about 0.2°C, while CO2 levels started to increase more rapidly. The out-of-sync relationship is obvious.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Bracken — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:18:22 -0000

Crichton has been rebutted,

here is a site set up by NASA and Academic climatologists

http://www.realclimate.org/

Response to Crichton

http://www.realclimate.org/...

NASA report

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/re...

Link to 2001 statement on global warming issued jointly by 16 different national academies of science

http://www.royalsociety.org...

If you look at the statements from the individual national academies of science there is a striking consensus.

Final point, about 100 years ago the swedish scientists who first identified CO2 as one of the gases responsible for the greenhouse effect initially proposed burning coal seams to increase the CO2 levels and warm icy Sweden.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Russell Nelson — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:08:17 -0000

True_Liberal: that type of argument works better if you can show that the substitute for R-12 and R-22 has a patent expiration in the future.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

True_Liberal — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:41:02 -0000

If you would like to learn more about why CFC's R-12 & R-22 have been phased out, it might be instructive to look up the patent expiration dates on these chemicals.

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Brad Hutchings — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:55:28 -0000

Bracken, I don't think we have enough high quality data to even know where we are right now. I suspect that we've opened our eyes in the past 3 decades with ways to measure these things and gotten scared. I also suspect that many scientists have too healthy an interest in the politics, particularly left-wing politics. Cicerone certainly wasn't and isn't shy about his leanings, as a Professor and Chancellor at UC Irvine, and as President of the National Academy of Sciences. I haven't seen a rebuttal of Crichton's 20th century chronology of really stupid paths the scientists have led us down. You'd think if this was really a super serial emergency, that the philosophers might make a point of rebutting that or explaining why times are different now.

Any solution either has to make carbon energy more expensive or has to effectively ration it. There is no way around that. Our population will grow 60% to half a billion sometime this century. Assuming we're the source of these emissions, that means individuals must cut back 50% just to keep the status quo, which wouldn't do much to help global warming. Nevermind India, China, South America, Africa in 20 years, etc.

The final point is... It's 55° outside in the late evening in SoCal. This cold weather makes my knees ache. If it were 60° outside right now, I'd still be chilly, but a lot more comfortable. I think we ought to have the debate about how much global warming we would like. If things get past there, maybe we let the totalitarians fix it for us. 2°C +/- 90% over a century doesn't hit that threshold. When you jack up gas prices over $5 to pay for mitigation or start taking people's SUVs away, expect that attitude to become widespread in the United States. When you tell developing countries that they can't aspire to the wealth we have, expect worse. Is it worth starting WW3 over a couple degrees? Could easily happen...

Re: Wise Words on Global Warming

Kevin — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:00:26 -0000

Bracken,

In reference to John's mention of the Science magazine survey, you said:

"the survey you are refering to was commission by the editorial board of Science. I don't think that the survey has any real significance."

I would beg to differ. I have seen the article by Oreskes brought up on numerous occasions when they wish to assert that "the science is settled" in regards to man-made global warming,