Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Lileks, like Republican (and "neolibertarian") bloggers in general, have taken a cue from the lobbyist in the movie, "Thank You for Smoking". How do you win an argument over cigarette smoking? You change the subject from smoking itself to anti-smoking activists. It's the only possible method, because cigarette smoking is just stupid; it doesn't have a defense.

So how do you win an argument over global warming? You change the subject from the environment to environmentalists.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 4, 2007 06:52 AM

It's true enough, Jim, that bad people can have good messages, and that "shooting the messenger" can be a bad thing.

Yet motives are important-- they point out *why* a particular message is being delivered.

And in the case of global warming, the motives of the messengers seem to involve a desire to dictate to the rest of us how to live, rather than to solve or reduce the problem.

If the environmentalists were truly interested in reducing the impact on human beings of global warming, they would be looking at how to best use the resources available to us now, and in the future, to *cope* with the problem, while preserving and expanding human prosperity and the benefits such prosperity brings.

Instead, we get jeremiads about how we must all go back to an Eighteenth-Century lifestyle, and tug our forelocks in respect to the jet-set class (Al Gore and the rest) who only (ha!) wish to tell us to "live simply so that others may simply live". Never mind that such a policy means universal poverty for everyone *forever*, and the death of BILLIONS of people who will starve to death from the famines that will result from the return of pre-modern agricultural methods.

So, yes, it's legitimate to "call" the environmentalists on their message. Too often, when you scratch an environmentalist you find a totalitarian underneath.

Posted by Hale Adams at December 4, 2007 08:08 AM

I prefer a warm Earth to a cool one. Hard to do it though, when heat radiation goes up as the fourth power of temperature.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at December 4, 2007 09:03 AM

And in the case of global warming, the motives of the messengers seem to involve a desire to dictate to the rest of us how to live

Well you can always Barbara Streisand an issue to death. Instead of truly and honestly listening to THE messengers, instead attack the least popular messengers that you can find. If I wanted to defend smoking, it wouldn't be hard: "Barbara Streisand says that you shouldn't smoke. That's because she is an elitist who wants to control your life. She's also a hypocrite, because she's perfectly willing to smoke for profit in her movies."

The fact is that you haven't acknowledged THE messengers, only certain messengers. If you keep coming back to Al Gore, that makes it sound like global warming is no more than a political campaign of the Democratic Party. The sort of messenger that you should listen to is Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry specifically for the study of climate change. (It was the ozone hole in his case, but he also knows about global warming.)

Although with scientists there is another familiar tactic. Since it's rather harder to impugn their motives, the tactic instead is to scout for dissenters and claim that the scientific community hasn't come to any conclusions. Invariably they are out of the loop in one way or another. They are either long retired (Freeman Dyson, even though he was brilliant at particle physics way back when), or they are opinionated also-rans (Roger Pielke), or they aren't really scientists at all (Stephen McIntyre, Bjorn Lomborg). Molina is the real deal.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 4, 2007 09:05 AM

Libertarians have the same fallacies as anarchists in this regard. They think that "If you think pollution is bad, then don't pollute. But don't preach to your neighbour about polluting, that would be communism/fascism."

There's probably a denser way of putting it.

Taking the analogy to the ultimate, "There's no need for any laws: if you think stealing is bad, don't steal." But what if your neighbour steals? "Well, that's just Freedom." This is the problem with anarchism - societies need control mechanisms. The stick and the carrot.

Or maybe if you go to the logical end, you can shoot anybody on sight, rape, kill, steal, anything, there ain't no police. This will quickly lead to small communities forming to have a common defence against the dangerous world so everybody inside the community doesn't have to worry constantly. And guess what, inside those safe communities you shall not rape, kill or steal (at least not without some kind of trial equivalent).
And we're back at square one. Communities generate rules to make life so much easier.

Of course, there have been totalitarian societies where it has gone overboard, the control has been too tight.

But religious dogmatism about any rules being bad is just completely stupid. Of course, since the new libertarians tend to be money-oriented, they say that protection of property is the only law needed and then everything else should be free.

This strikes me as odd too: surely there are things that hurt your personal health that others can do, like polluting drinking water or air, which are nobody's property, that still should be regulated and supervised to some degree.

There are countless examples of things that are harmful to the society. Most of the time legislation lags technology and industry.

Environmentalism then points out these things.

In an anarchist system with no environmental control, companies and individuals will release any amounts of pollutants, if it makes them one bit of more profit. The "cost" (and it's not just about money but often about health and happiness too, say, if you live by the seaside and the sea is dead and polluted) is paid mostly by others.

This is what has happened with CO2 emissions, and will continue to happen, if there are no international treaties to establish some price for CO2 emissions. Be it cap and trade, taxes, whatever...
And voluntary action doesn't work after a point.

Hale Adams' points are not true.

Environmentalists propose a huge amount of technology solutions. But at the same time it must be realized that these solutions will not be taken into use if there is no mechanism established to make them more profitable than the polluting alternatives. Why would I make a change if only a minority does? The cost is paid by me, but the benefit is reaped by everybody. I'm not Jesus.

After you have established some cost for CO2 emissions, the playing field is closer to level, and people can judge for themselves what to do. It actually then is cost effective for people and industries to choose less CO2 polluting technologies and lifestyles - the government could never dictate the details so efficiently. This is a great freedom of choice and a free market strategy. It's revealing that the self described libertarians don't talk about this in anything but a degrading tone.

This is a very simple idea.
No doubt will I be called leftist and fascist in no time.

Posted by mz at December 4, 2007 09:17 AM

Sam Dinkin makes a good point about black body radiative cooling. To those defending the AGW messengers, they'd be more believable if they practiced what they preached, and if they didn't keep on with 'truths' after they've been well discredited.

Posted by Peter at December 4, 2007 10:10 AM

>And in the case of global warming, the motives of the messengers seem to involve a desire to dictate to the rest of us how to live

Interestingly enough, Gore admitted that on the day that his Nobel was announced. He said that he's a global warming advocate because he thinks that it's a good argument to push things that he was pushing before he heard of global warming.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 4, 2007 10:37 AM

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the most die-hard proponents of the global warming theory are also flagrant coercion-junkies whose track records for State-shtupping and government regimentation (as well as their track record for being wrong) predate the rise of environmentalism. No correlation between their ideology and their scientific beliefs at all.

Posted by Bilwick1 at December 4, 2007 10:40 AM

These guys (mz and Jim Harris) are killing me. I've been fighting scientific sheep like this for years and have yet to get a satisfactory answer. In fact they usually resort to name calling. Let me try again with some facts and see if mz, Jim, or anyone else can answer the homework problem. And yes, I have read all of the global warming scientific reports and nobody answers these questions. By the way, if you really support science then you ought to support funding to try and disprove global warming instead of opposing it, that is how science works. If you are right then there is nothing to fear. Here is the homework problem:
Background:
Fact 1
CO2 ~ 0.03% of the earth’s atmosphere (approximately 90% of that is naturally occurring)
Therefore ~ 0.003% is man made. Put another way, if the Earth’s atmosphere were a coke can (21.6 in3), then the CO2 part of the atmosphere would be ~ 0.00648 in3 (or ~ 2.4 BeBes). The man made portion of the CO2 would be ~ 0.000648 in3 (or ~ ¼ of a BeBe)
Fact 2
The Martian atmosphere is approximately 95% CO2 yet it has a near zero greenhouse effect. Quick research problem - Explain why? Hint – It has to do with the fact that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.
Problem
Explain quantitatively how doubling, or for that matter, quadrupling the man made output of CO2 impacts the Earth’s ability to retain heat. Use a detailed explanation of past changes in the Earth’s temperature as a basis for your explanation. Reference 5 significant temperature change events (+ or - 3 degrees or more) in the Earth’s past, cite the cause for these changes to support your current analysis. Note: if you cannot quantitatively explain past temperature change events then include a discussion of why an analysis that doesn't include historical data should be considered valid. Specifically identify how Fact 1 and Fact 2 impact your analysis.

My prediction is that nobody will address this and there will be name calling. But this is science not religion, if you can't question then kneel down and worship ...

Posted by Lisa at December 4, 2007 11:58 AM

Guys,

CO2 is not an industrial pollutant. It is also produced by life (respiration) and is consummed by plant life.

This whole CO2/global warming fraud is such a racket.

Posted by kurt9 at December 4, 2007 01:33 PM

Heh, Lisa, why don't you publish your results if they are so groundbreaking?
Here's some more advanced reading about planetary climates:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

You can probably devise an answer for your question based on it.

I'm no climatologist, but with the Mars case, the gas pressure there is about 6% of Earth's. And of course it receives much less sunlight than Earth. I don't know, the surface also might reflect better as there are no oceans. And of course there's no water vapor to add to that (which forms the majority of greenhouse effect on earth). I don't know the strength of the greenhouse effect on Mars.

If we assume no difference in greenhouse effect, no albedo diffences and half solar energy intensity, temperature should be about 84% from Earth's in radiation equilibrium since
(0.84)^4 ~= 0.5.
That means if Earth were at 300 K, Mars would be at 250 K. Ie it would be 50 C colder on Mars than on Earth.

One can also look at Venus, which has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, which is very thick, the pressure is 90 times that of Earth. And afaik it's a very hot place with a powerful greenhouse effect, even when taking into account the shorter distance from the sun: 700 K.

Posted by mz at December 4, 2007 03:45 PM

mz, see that's my point. No answer.
Number one: if you can't explain, exactly, what has caused temperature variations in the past (absent evil mankind) then YOU CANNOT MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW! PERIOD. Everything needs to stop until this can be addressed.
Number two: You are blinded by your ideology and unable to grasp the science involved here. The point is that CO2 is 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere and 90% of that is natural. Couple that with the fact that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas - even your fellow environmental priests will confirm that - and you are left with a tough case to sell. How is that small amount of CO2 affecting the climate.
Number three: Remember Nuclear Winter? It was a given and the entire scientific community agreed with the idea. At least until the models were proven wrong - I must have missed the apologies.

So, here is the point - quit trying to push your environmental religion on us. If you want to believe blindly (that's called faith) in the absence of scientific fact then go ahead and worship. I have my own religion but I don't confuse it with science.

Posted by lisa at December 4, 2007 05:36 PM

What do you mean no answer? I gave you a link where you can see for yourself if you want to look at the innards of the problem more closely. I also gave many possible explanations and counterexamples.

Further questions:
one: well, multiple reasons have caused temperature variations: the way how sun shines on different parts of the earth in different seasons for one and during which part of Earth's eccentric orbit. (the Milankovitch theory of ice ages.) The shifting locations of continents. Volcanoes. Life affecting the composition of the atmosphere. Probably many more. CO2 and water vapor feedbacks have amplified these. You're asking for the exact explanation of temperature variations in the past in a blog post, so this is not an all encompassing answer of course.

two: Why couldn't it have an effect even if it is a small part of the atmosphere? 400 ppm ain't exactly nothing either.
For example, the researchers have calibrated the climate forcing by using the data from the Pinatubo eruption. Temperature dropped more than just from the direct negative forcing of the eruption, because of the water vapour feedback.
If you look at the roughly 300 K temperature of Earth, even a percent of that is a change of 3 K, 3 celsius. That's quite a lot from many points of view relevant to humans who have built the civilization to assume a relatively status quo.

three: As far as I know, the community didn't agree on a nuclear winter model that has since been proven wrong, but I haven't researched this closely. There might have been some scientists saying this and some that.

summary: I can't have an answer for every possible question someone might come up with. For me it's good enough that there is a fine scientific consensus on the matter established since a long time, and that the mechanisms seem plausible.
If I think the thousands of scientists working on the things made a mistake, I'd do some work by myself first, to make sure it's not me instead who is wrong, if my claim is completely opposite. It's certain that there are small mistakes here and there but the main and majority of evidence looks very strong to me.

Posted by mz at December 4, 2007 06:32 PM

Jim Harris:

So you oppose dismissing global warming "deniers" because they are, or can be imagined to be, paid by Big Oil or some other illegitimate source? And you explain this to global warming affirmers when they use such tactics?

Could you give me three links to where you've done this?

Posted by Bob Hawkins at December 4, 2007 06:33 PM

The interesting thing about all this bitching about global warming is that if global warming is really enough of a serious concern, the most effective solutions don't involve increasing government power, they just involve creating alternative sources of energy and creating incentives to switch to those alternatives to fossil fuels.

Posted by Robert at December 4, 2007 06:57 PM

Pretty much spot on, Robert. Create reasons for people to switch.

Posted by mz at December 4, 2007 07:26 PM

Fact 1: CO2 ~ 0.03% of the earth’s atmosphere (approximately 90% of that is naturally occurring)

That "fact" is a falsehood; see this chart. More than a third of the carbon dioxide in the air is anthropogenic; in another few decades, it will be more than half. It was 0.28% before the Industrial Revolution and now it's 0.38%.

If you think that 0.3% concentration of a chemical is too little concentration to change much, then you should learn some chemistry. Food dyes, for example, can work at lower concentrations than that.

So you oppose dismissing global warming "deniers" because they are, or can be imagined to be, paid by Big Oil or some other illegitimate source?

Jumping straight to motive is the wrong way to argue against any argument. The first and foremost argument against global warming deniers is that they misrepresent the facts, or they don't know them. Why they do so is a separate question. I've never thought that "Big Oil" is the main explanation. An oil company would point out, correctly, that more CO2 comes from coal than from oil, and at a lower price.

just involve creating alternative sources of energy and creating incentives

If a neighbor blows smoke onto your property, you shouldn't have to wait for a miracle smokeless creation to persuade him to stop.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 4, 2007 10:31 PM

Jim Harris:
If a neighbor blows smoke onto your property, you shouldn't have to wait for a miracle smokeless creation to persuade him to stop.

Last time I checked, Nuclear Power isn't a miracle creation, it is a real creation. Ditto for renewables. France's CO2 emissions would be more than quadrupled if France's energy production wasn't 80% nuclear. People need that energy for their economic livelihoods, it isn't analagous to blowing cigarette smoke into your neighbor's house. Creating incentives for alternative energy sources is pretty much the only effective way to reduce fossil fuel dependence, other than economic collapse.

Using deadly force to cause an economic collapse will risk fomenting a revolution against you.

Posted by Robert at December 4, 2007 10:52 PM

Jim and mz,
Thanks you have made my point. Yes I've read the link and many other reports. The fact is that nobody has explained why the Earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past (again absent evil mankind). So until you can do that, how do you take 100 years of data (less than 0.0000001% of the Earth's existence) and make a projection about the future? You would have better luck looking at 1 second of the Dow Jones and trying to predict where the market is going to go. Once again you have reinforced one of my main arguments - you blindly follow the high priests of environmentalism and aggressively look for any data to support their dogma. If you were a true scientists you would aggressively challenge any of these assertions (personally not with wimpy arguments like "For me it's good enough that there is a fine scientific consensus on the matter established since a long time, and that the mechanisms seem plausible.") Let's see who is the real Flat Earther here?
There are enough unknowns and uncertainties that many honest and honorable scientists should be challenging this. Unfortunately, people like you and the other high priests have created a hostile environment and stymied the scientific process. For that you should be thoroughly ashamed!
Let's see, after Katrina we heard environmental dogma "this is just the beginning, wait until next year and the year after that - we'll have more and increasingly severe storms." Yet we haven't had any in the two years since Katrina. Oh yeah - I forgot, we must have faith in the religious council.
Here is a little homework problem for you two junior scientists - research the CO2 level prior to the onset of every ice age. Hint - the ice core records show that it increases dramatically prior to the onset of the ice age. Hmmm ... Ice age ~ 10,000 years, it's been ~ 11,000 since the last one, CO2 levels have risen - whatever could that mean? Ooops, sorry, just trampled on a little environmental dogma.
Here's my final point, and being a lady this should mean a lot to you guys, MAN UP and quit being a sheep. Ditch your idealogical constraints and pursue the truth. Question all the reports. They all make questionable assumptions, then extrapolate to get an answer that will satisfy the high priests and guarantee them continued funding.
Let's see what you are made of ...

Posted by lisa at December 5, 2007 06:46 AM

lisa, as I understand it, water vapor is by far the primary greenshouse gas, responsible for retaining most of the heat of Earth's atmosphere and surface. Where the other greenhouse gasses come in is that they absorb in frequencies that water vapor does not. In particular, carbon dioxide obstructs some of the holes that otherwise would allow heat to radiate out of the atmosphere and surface. So more heat is retained and the atmosphere warms up somewhat.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 5, 2007 07:34 AM

Last time I checked, Nuclear Power isn't a miracle creation, it is a real creation. Ditto for renewables.

That's true, and that would be fine with me. But it requires changes in government policy. The Democrats have asked for 15% electricity from renewable sources by 2020. With incentives if you like; but it would have to be incentives that actually work, not just confetti thrown into the win. Bush promises a veto.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 5, 2007 08:04 AM

Jim Harris:

>> So you oppose dismissing global warming "deniers" because they are, or can be imagined to be, paid by Big Oil or some other illegitimate source?

> (couple hundred words restating what I said but not responding to it)

This doesn't count as one of the links. You accept that, to be consistent, you must oppose these tactics when used by warming affirmers, who make more prominent use of them. Show us where you've done so.

Posted by Bob Hawkins at December 5, 2007 01:43 PM

Good job Lisa. The AGW zealots simply want to dictate how others live by using some dogma as gospel. The tools are different, but the overall strategy is the same as advancing religions. The average person has no problems with the concept of keeping the planet clean and finding healthier means of energy, so long as reasonable approaches are taken.

Posted by Leland at December 5, 2007 02:06 PM

There is a very simple approach that the global warming pundits should be promoting to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. Stop all further immigration, round up and deport all of the existing illegal immigrants. This would do far more to reduce the expected future projected CO2 emissions than any other possible policy. The less people we have coming to the U.S. the less power generation and cars we have in the U.S.

Such a strategy would also be more successful as it would make it easy to get all of the immigration restrictionists (who are mostly conservative) to support what is considered to be a "liberal" cause.

Posted by kurt9 at December 7, 2007 03:44 PM

Post a comment