Errrr...except that the dissenter is getting his story out in the Washington Post. I'm always amused by these major newspaper stories about the brave dissenters who think that they're being oppressed, and that the public isn't getting the "truth."

But the article contains a couple of key nuggets:

"I'm strictly trying to understand the Earth as a planet," said Hansen, who started his career studying the clouds around Venus but switched in 1978 to climate modeling.

Great. Go for it. But what makes you think that renders you a policy expert, particularly on matters that affect the national and global economy?

John Marburger, the president's Science Advisor is quite pithy on this point:

"I take his work seriously. His work has had a big impact on this administration's climate-change policy," Marburger said. "But he's not an economist. The fact that he's a good scientist does not necessarily make him the best person to formulate policy that would affect the economy."

That's what most people in the policy debate miss. Kyoto and CO2 reduction enthusiasts complain that the people making the decisions don't understand the science. But what makes them experts on all the other aspects of policy that would be affected by their nostrums?

Okay. What should I feed my dog to keep him from farting so many greenhouse gases and heating up the planet?

Sorry, Dick, you're responding to a comment spam that I've deleted.

Besides lack of expertise on other areas, another thing that can trip one up is confusion of values with facts. I see a tendency to make the unsupported leap from 'X is morally wrong' to 'X will harm us'. This shows up in the debate over to the extent to which endangered species should be protected, in global warming, and elsewhere.

I think this also explains why solutions that would ameliorate actual harmful effects of such things aren't embraced by these complainers -- those fixes don't address the moral issues that are really motivating their arguments.

It was nice of the author to give prominent space to that great scientist and inventor of the internet, Al Gore. She had a credible story up to that point.

Figures, all the commentary on Venus always starts off about how Venus is so much like Earth caught in a Global Warming cycle cause all the Carbon Dioxide in its atmosphere traps IR and the same thing will happen to us if we don't stop it. A Venusian climatologist is probably the last person you want to get into a discussion over Global Warming with. "I've seen the face of Global Warming, I know what temperatures hot enough to melt lead are like. Do you want your childrens head to explode under the intense pressure and heat of a Venusian like atmosphere?!?!?!"

I see a tendency to make the unsupported leap from 'X is morally wrong' to 'X will harm us'.

I'm still trying to figure out how we got to either of those arguments. I noticed the occasional leap from the second argument to the first as well.

Do you want your childrens head to explode under the intense pressure and heat of a Venusian like atmosphere?!?!?!

You mean implode. On the positive side, it would be a novel, once in a lifetime experience. ;-)

This story hits on one of the key reasons that I think environmentalism is in danger. It simply doesn't understand (or perhaps even choses to ignore) economics. One doesn't need to be an expert to realize that any environmental restriction results in a cost. That doesn't necessarily mean less jobs, a lower overall standard of living, etc.

After all, pollution is an externality, ie, it is a cost that a polluter forces others to take. So passing that cost on to the polluter makes economic sense. But a lot of environmentalism isn't rational like that.

Global warming is an extreme example with a small visible effect (but now we're being told that pollution is filtering out up to 22% of the Sun's energy and masking the effects of global warming). Yet we're supposed to take draconian measures to limit the production of CO2 (and no carbon sequestration, ie, storing CO2 underground or other tricks for removing it permanently from the atmosphere aren't counted). They ignore that the treaty will result in a huge setback in economic activity which in turn with drive a significant portion of the human population back into poverty.

For another example, we have the EU implementing the phaseout of lead in consumer electronics. It's a far smaller source than lead-lined cathode ray tubes (eg, your TV's or computer monitor's tube) and lead-acid batteries. What is being ignored is that lead serves several useful purposes in electronics. When alloyed with tin, it lowers the melting point of the solder and reduces tin whiskering.

Electronics can get by without lead, but the customer ends up paying for it in terms of a higher price and lower product reliability. Does lead in landfills (the problem that inspired the lead ban in electronics) really justify that and the subsequent harm to the economy especially when much larger targets (but necessary to environmentalist political goals) are apparently let through?

Yeah but check this again:

His work has had a big impact on this administration's climate-change policy," Marburger said. "But he's not an economist."

Yes, but why should we listen to the economists either? It's not like any of their theories actually work to any accuracy, and standard economic theory assumes and encourages exponential growth; which in the long term almost certainly will break something.

Yes, but why should we listen to the economists either? It's not like any of their theories actually work to any accuracy, and standard economic theory assumes and encourages exponential growth; which in the long term almost certainly will break something.

Well actually they do. For example, the basic "law" of supply and demand works quite well to describe causes of price changes in a market.

Exponential growth seems a safe assumption for the next few decades since we have a huge amount of technological advancement and infrastructure building in the queue. And long term (on the scale of centuries to millenia), the "exponential" growth rate (er, risk-free rate of return) will probably be very close to 0% which wouldn't break anything.

> For example, the basic "law" of supply and demand works quite well to describe causes of price changes in a market.

It *can* work quite well. It is only, however, a "law" and not a Law.

It *can* work quite well. It is only, however, a "law" and not a Law.

Hence the use of the quotes. I showed an economic theory that works "with any accuracy". I think part of the problem with economics is the huge incentives to hide information and the conflicts of interest.

You don't have to worry in physics about natural nonsentient phenomena feeding you bad data in order to make a profit. And there's less conflicts of interest, ie, physicists are much less likely to interprete data or make claims based on political or economic bias.

OTOH, many political or business groups maintain a few economists in order to rationalize policies favorable to their ideology or industry sector. And most finance service companies are less interested in accurate economic predictions than generating revenue. So a prediction may be factually wrong yet generate revenue for such a company.

Well there's always the obvious fact that one can trust a economists more than a climatologist about there perspectives of their respective subjects as one is a man made product and the other is a force of nature.

Well there's always the obvious fact that one can trust a economists more than a climatologist about there perspectives of their respective subjects as one is a man made product and the other is a force of nature.

I don't get that. Forces of nature don't intentionally deceive you. And as I mentioned before, there's somewhat less incentive for a climatologist to distort their results or theories in order to obtain some ideological or financial gain.