Monday, November 06, 2006
Refuting the Stern report on climate change
I wish I knew enough about statistics and climate science to know whether Christopher Monckton's refutation of Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economic consequences of climate change is as devestating as it appears to be. The problem is, I have no idea whether Monckton's criticisms are compelling, or might be countered with an equally articulate reply from the alarmist camp. That's the problem, isn't it? The activists who argue that anticipated fluctuations in the Earth's climate can be mitigated by massive changes in industrial economies are demanding a leap of faith from virtually everybody who will pay for those changes, even highly educated laymen who ordinarily do not shy from complex policy questions. That their most publicized bits of advocacy seem rife with error and misdirection does not make that leap any easier for the rest of us to make.
44 Comments:
By 
Dan Trabue, at
Mon Nov 06, 01:08:00 PM:
"...Earth's climate can be mitigated by massive changes in industrial economies are demanding a leap of faith from virtually everybody who will pay for those changes"
Possibly. Just as those who ask us to allow individuals and corporations to continue to pollute at current rates are demanding a leap of faith that said pollution WON'T cause serious societal, ecological and economic damage, wouldn't you agree?
By 
, at
Mon Nov 06, 04:12:00 PM:
Chris Monckton is absolutely correct in his judgement of both the science and the statistical method of the Stern Report.
The key here is that Stern was/is employed by the UK Treasury, under the baleful eye of Gordon Brown, the UK Chancellor.
David Miliband, Secretary of State was interviewed last week on UK national TV, and when pressed by Paxman, the interviewer, he refused to confirm that all the green taxes discussed would be neutral.(ie their affect would be cancelled by tax reductions elsewhere)
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, is known by his use of “stealth taxes”, to increase UK taxes levels, to follow his “tax and spend” socialism. His sleight of hand and politicization of his government departments published statistics has rendered most Treasury publications of statistics and finances as either incorrect (brazenly), or fudged, or simply not available in a form that is readily comparable internationally. UK Economic students are advised to use OECD statistics.
Brown is desperate to raise more taxes to finance upcoming shortfalls. He has been criticized by the IMF, the World Bank, and the EU, for his profligate tax, spend, and borrow economics.
This is a further hidden stealth tax. Nothing more, nothing less.
What is lacking is the incentivization for technologies that would be carbon neutral.
This is a link to a House of Lords Select Committee which severely criticized the science and statistical abuses many months before the Stern publication.(Page 6) It was ignored by Brown.
Melanie Phillips blogged on it here and here
By , at
Mon Nov 06, 04:22:00 PM:
So, Brown has somehow corrupted the UN too. Now I come to think of it, that's not impossible.
The UK contributes less than 3% of global greenhouse gasses, so why the fanfare?
Could be a distraction for impending legal action on cash for peerages, or a multitude of other problems bubbling just below the surface.
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Nov 06, 04:35:00 PM:
A key point here is Monckton's affirmation that "All climate scientists accept that there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat." The point that he does not make, but which is also beyond dispute, is that the cause of that increase in greenhouse gases is anthropogenic. All else follows from this.
It should surprise no one that scientists vehemently disagree with the conclusions of their professional colleagues - they are as a rule more contrarian and contentious than even politicians -nor that the predictive models under intense debate forecast widely divergent outcomes. To my mind the more significant issue is that this current climate change event is influenced by human factors, and is in that way unlike all other "natural variations" in climate preceding it.
It is likewise akin to the current global extinction event, which is unquestionably accelerated by the consequences of human activity and wider in scale and global scope than the five largest previous extinction events in the geologic record.
Since human behavior is the new aggravating factor, it is right and appropriate for humans to discuss what changes we might be willing to make to mitigate unwanted outcomes, and we are going to have to reach some general agreement as to which outcomes are desireable for the majority of us for any potential actions to be effective. We are not simply passive consumers witnessing a natural fluctuation that neither concerns our species nor is influenced by it. We should be having the kind of debate that challenges our assumptions with the best available data while keeping our eyes fixed on understanding the consequences of our actions and inactions.
There are real consequences - ecological, economic and social - to the choices we make, but the wisest course of action is often to act preventively to control for uncertainty when the consequences of inaction are potentially catastrophic. Doing so in this case, I believe, is a better, more conservative option and in the best traditions of solid risk management.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Nov 06, 05:35:00 PM:
the greens would be far easier to understand if they were'nt so anti capitalist. And they weren't so, well, crazy. Burning new subdivisions, assaulting test labs and waging endless legal battles that result in poorly maintained national forests hasn't endeared these people to much of fly over America.
yes, there are arguments about the future of the planet and there have been since the sixties. I recall all the smirking predictions of our demise provided to us by people who were just dead wrong. My personal favorite was over population. Where are those morons now? Remember? We were going to procreate ourselves to death! Mass starvation, the collapse of civil society, bread lines, food wars and guess what?
the jury is still out, IMHO, on this entire issue of human generated ecological disaster. Could we be better stewards? yes. Should we stall out our economies because a few rabidly angry people are predicting doom? NO.
By , at
Mon Nov 06, 06:15:00 PM:
Greenman, you raise valid points relating to mankinds activities which I agree with.
The point I made related to the abuse of both science and statistical method by a prof. who has a previous well recorded history of doom and gloom. He has prostituted, for the sake of glamour, his professional integrity, by tying himself to an obvious political cause, - that of raising socialist taxes.
Gordon Brown is due to make important speaches shortly which will deal with future taxation. This is all part of the preliminary dance to confuse joe public
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Nov 06, 06:51:00 PM:
I'll second what Greenman Tim said, with the additional caveat that while scientists frequently have professional disagreements, this is not a professional piece.
There's a reason science is peer reviewed. Most of these claims are true, but skewed. Certainly a lot of pre-thermometer data is suspect, but then Monckton pretends we have accurate solar intensity values back to 1750. His is a one-sided skepticism. He points out that the number of temperature stations has decreased without ever mentioning the increase in weather satellites to pick up the slack. I asssure you our data gathering capabilities today are better than they were in the 1970's. My favorite line is "Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing." That's absolutely 100% true. Water at the bottom of the ocean is a uniform 4C (well, maybe varies a little with salinity), beacuse that's the simply the physical condition where water is densest and most likely to sink. Uniformly, waters under a certain depth are that cold. But you don't measure increases in ocean temperature from the bottom, instead you measure a bulk average temperature or how far down the warm water extends. In a non peer-reviewed piece you can present one side of an argument or spout irrelevant truths in order to snow the reader.
We can be courteous and call this science if you want, but this review isn't written in the genre or form of a scientific paper: it's in the genre and form of a manifesto. Does that make it inherently wrong? No, but with thousands of credible scientific papers, why would you link to an un-reviewed work that opens with politics and philosophy?
The difference between a peer-reviewed scientific paper and this one is roughly the difference between the heart medication your doctor prescribes and male enlargement pills ordered off the internet. I'm not saying the pills don't work, but personally I'd talk to a doctor before swallowing them.
By wretchardthecat, at
Mon Nov 06, 07:45:00 PM:
I am not persuaded that current measures to mitigate greenhouses gases are beneficial in part because efforts to regulate the human activity which generates them produce effects which are not well understood. For example, any unemployment in the Third World often forces people back into subsistence agriculture and that leads to increased swidden. Subsistence farms are the employer of last resort. Hence, reductions in economic demand create changes to agricultural practices whose effects are not always appreciated.
While we should never be closed to the idea that humans can manage climate change making certain policy changes we should be extremely careful in doing so. The environment is on the order of complexity of the human body. How many things regarded as "good for you" thirty years ago are still so regarded today. This doesn't mean that we ought not to seek things which are "good for us". We must always act on the basis of best information, but in the absence of really comepelling information about certain therapies, advocating a particular thereapy is often an irrational thing to do.
I've often been struck that there are very few instances of sustainable land managements by environmentalists that anyone can point to -- sustainable forests, fisheries, name it -- and I am unpersuaded that persons who can't produce sustainable timber on a sustainable basis, say, can manage the earth by policy. That's not to say that sutainable management isn't desirable. But the regime according to which it is managed is critical.
By , at
Mon Nov 06, 09:28:00 PM:
The greens are the biggist bunch of hypotcrits you could ever imagine i mean while they blabbering about this global warming poppycock nonsnense they travel around in their CO2 producing whatchats and then all those hollywood celberties who do ads for the various eco-freak groups then travel to their award shows in their gas guzzling 4 mpg limos then theres those idiots from GREENPEACE who travel around in their garbage scows that despite their goofy looking sails still use fossil fuels then how much is AL GORE burning up traveling around california trying to garner support for propisition 87 and even former dictator BILL CLINTON and some hollywood celberies are going around asking california voters to appoove propisition 87 but we all know how much their liberal demacrats support taxes on everything. How about instead a HOT AIR TAX to be leaved against all those eco-wackos,hollywood knownothings and poltical hacks who produce all that HOT AIR
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Nov 06, 11:03:00 PM:
wrechard raises some interesting considerations. One should be wary of sweeping solutions to complex problems of whatever nature, be they biological, political, or social concerns. Oftentimes a proposed solution is based on an imperfect understanding of the root causes of the difficulty, confusing them with mere symptoms, or an inadequate appreciation of the synegistic effects of myriad stresses to a given system. I don't trust oversimplifications presented as policy and neither should you.
I also believe that it is important to act on the basis of the best available information, but in certain cases (war, for example) the costs of inaction can be worse than an imperfect response to a rapidly fluid set of circumstances. Ullyses Grant remarked that if he acted on bad information this would soon become apparent and he could still take corrective action, but if he failed to act events would oveetake him. For the same reason, the management principles of the US Marine Corps include the admonition to aim for the 70% solution.
Climate change decisons do not have to be made on short notice and in the fog of war, but there are additional costs to consider the longer we delay and we cannot afford to wait until every model is in agreement and all the variables are understood. It may be that our best solutions today are far from ideal as new information comes to light, but that is what adaptive management is all about. Strategies that allow for adjustments and policies that provide for these adaptations are favorable to rigid and inflexible goals and performance standards. That does not mean, however, we should set the bar artificially low.
I am also unconvinced that placing certain limits on ourselves to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change would stiffle American entrepreneurship and productivity. It is hard to believe there would not also be economic incentives for new industries to develop technologies that would produce cleaner energy from currently "dirty" non-renewable resources if the option to keep polluting as normal were removed.
Sustainability as you describe it has not been attempted at the macro-level. I can think of countless, anecdotal and personal examples of locally sustainable natural resource management successes - in community-based conservation efforts in southern Africa, in community forests in New Hampshire - but not across entire industries or transcending large political boundaries. National law and both economic and environmental policy have tended toward regulation and protectionism rather than mandating sustainable practices in either sphere.
The reason I believe we have not seen macro-level sustainable natural resource management is that those who advocate it do not control the resource base at that scale. Private forest owners in my part of the United States do not tend to manage for a 60-80 year return on their investment because they themselves will not live to realize it and the price of land as developable real estate right now far outweighs its potential timber value. And sometimes, as with ranchers in wolf country, those who live closest to the resource and feel its impacts the keenest will need something of tangible value in exchange for absorbing the costs of predator conservation. I have no problem with asking private conservation interests to help fund such compensation schemes.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Nov 06, 11:08:00 PM:
"very few instances of sustainable land managements by environmentalists that anyone can point to -- sustainable forests, fisheries, name it"
The Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites and other simple living models are out there who live a mostly sustainable way of life.
I think it can safely be argued that we are living beyond our means on a planetary basis. If everyone lived the way we in the wealthy west are living, the world could not sustain that lifestyle. And if we can't sustain that at approaching 7 billion, what will happen at 10 billion? And when oil supplies begin to diminish?
It is only wise to ask these sorts of questions and look for sensible answers, achievable models.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Nov 06, 11:52:00 PM:
"If everyone lived the way we in the wealthy west are living, the world could not sustain that lifestyle."
'We in the wealthy west' don't even begin to approach the levels of waste and pollution coughed out of, say, Chinese industry.
By , at
Mon Nov 06, 11:53:00 PM:
What ever became of all those hurricane we were suppost to be having as AL GORE had predicted in his blabbering banter? it looks like all those comming super storms have fizzled
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 01:03:00 AM:
"We in the wealthy west' don't even begin to approach the levels of waste and pollution coughed out of, say, Chinese industry."
Read again what I said. I didn't say that we weren't polluting less than China. I said nothing about pollution. The topic being discussed was sustainability.
I said that if everyone consumed at the rate that we consume, there aren't enough resources to keep up. It's a matter of mathematics.
"if the average Chinese consumer used as much oil as the average American uses, China would require 90 million barrels per day—11 million more than the entire world produced each day in 2001."
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/808
By , at
Tue Nov 07, 02:15:00 AM:
Green guy:
As with most proponents of "it is all mankinds fault" you use ink by the barrel when a thimbull full would suffice.
Until recently any research or reporting supporting Global Warming was treated as the gospel truth.
Now, at least the views of scientists with opposinbg views are reaching the public.
I would suggest that there are real questions as to the veracity of Stern's report.
By , at
Tue Nov 07, 04:03:00 AM:
"Doubts as to the veracity of the report"
As with any reports, you look to the motives of who is paying the piper.
Decline of popularity of political party.
Seeks headlines.
New initiative.
Anything will do.
Ah, Green issues will do.
Do we have a well qualified stooge?
Stern? Yup, he has a history.
Dang, there's votes here.
Go for it, damn industry, damn living standard, damn sensible proposals on sustainability, bio diversity, alternative technologies, WE NEED VOTES to continue in power. Damn the country. We need more money.
We need more credibility.
What about the UN
Stern worked for the UN before
Ah, thats good, and they are corruptable and gullible.
Great, it's settled then, keep me updated.
The Stern Report.
Links Here is a mix of response to the Stern report, from banal to serious. No doubt there is more.
My point above, of political manipulation for tax purposes is mentioned often, even by left-wing publications. The timing of publication is tactical.
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 07, 06:27:00 AM:
As usual, this thread illustrates the great commenters we have at TigerHawk. Thanks for joining in one and all.
Dan Trabue, your world sustainability arguement -- "if everyone consumed at the rate that we consume, there aren't enough resources to keep up. It's a matter of mathematics" -- has been popular among the Green/limits-to-growth crowd since the 1960s and it is certainly true as stated. Respectfully, though, it is not a useful argument because it is not true in practice and never will be for several reasons.
First, the entire world will never consume resources at the rate of its largest consumers of resources, or even close to it. Why? Because resources are priced by auction. One can only consume what one can buy. What one can buy is a function of the wealth one can create with any given amount of inputs. Americans will only be able to buy a lot of oil as long as we create a lot of wealth with that oil. If we were to fail in wealth creation, or to do it more slowly than somebody else, they would buy more oil and we would buy less.
Second, changes in price allow for the creation of more resources. At higher prices, it is possible to recover a lot more oil and other resources profitably. Eventually, if the costs of incremental extraction get too high, substitutes will become economical. I suspect that our children will live to see a world in which petroleum is used for only very high-value applications, and we use other means for powering our basic transportation.
This is why every prediction about the world "running out" of a particular resource has been wrong, and always will be, for all intents and purposes.
Now, the problem with global climate change is that the "resource" being consumed -- an atmosphere with a small concentration of greenhouse gases -- is not priced and traded and probably cannot be (more on that below). It is a genuine "tragedy of the commons," but the stakes are a lot higher than a few hungry cows or an overgrazed village field.
The "overgrazing" phenomenon really only exists when the government creates or permits to exist a "commons" in the first place. This is why communist countries have such a poor record on environmental matters -- they excel at creating "commons," which are naturally overconsumed.
It seems to me that the only answer is to find a way to price and trade low-greenhouse-gas atmosphere. Obviously there is no direct way, but it seems to me it could be done with a global system for capping and trading any commercial release of greenhouse gas. That is a big topic, but I honestly don't see how any other approach can work.
I'm actually in Ireland right now, and have found myself explaining the political unpopularity of Kyoto-esque solutions among Americans. Apart from skepticism over the science, I think it comes down to this: so far, the changes in climate of the last 30 years, whether or not systematic, seem to have worked out well for Americans. In the northern United States, winters are much more mild than they used to be, and summers are not really any hotter. Everybody I know who can remember the harsh winters of the Seventies prefers the mild winters we have today. Everybody I know loves it that the spring flowers come three weeks earlier than they did, and that there are plenty of 60 degree days in November. It is not surprising that it is hard to find voters who want to pay a lot of taxes or put up with other regulation to do away with that.
The other (unrelated) observation: I think that the left in the United States is losing the political fight over climate change because it cannot agree internally about nuclear power. I'm all for shutting down the coal-fired plants in the Midwest (which are America's biggest source of carbon), if for no other reason that I would like to eat Adirondack fish again in my lifetime. But you need to replace all that generation capacity. Indeed, if the green predictions about climate change are true, we are going to need vastly more power to deal with it. The problem is, nobody realistic thinks that you can get that amount of no-carbon power that quickly out of anything other than nukes, and the greens also oppose nukes. That makes them look silly to the average American.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Nov 07, 10:56:00 AM:
Look, a guy who goes by the handle of GreenmanTim sets himself up for stereotyping, but what I have posted here is not, I would argue, the regular, run of the mill, tree-hugging, "it's all humanity's fault" line that other commentors in this thread object to. I am more interested in responsibility for finding solutions than in assigning blame. Nor am I interested in defending or defaming the science, politics and tactics of the Stern Report. Those are, to my mind, distractions from the core issue at hand that no credible climatologist disagrees with and which bears repeating:
Monckton affirms that "All climate scientists accept that there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat." This is a given, and the cause of that increase in greenhouse gases is human activity.
What we need to do is decide whether that matters to us or not. I am of the opinion that it does, and for some of the "Tragedy of the Commons" reasons that Tigerhawk describes as well as for reasons of what I happen to value; TH values eating fish from Tupper Lake, which is hard to do currently with acid deposition and mercury contamination from distant fossil fuel use.
Well and good. There may be some things at risk globally that the majority of us value conserving, and reaching some agreement on these mutual concerns would be a significant step toward working out strategies to address them. As mentioned above, these strategies need to get at the root causes of the problem and not at symptoms and that is really the hard part. But consensus on the need for a solution to certain problems would be a very good start.
As for my verbosity, davod, guilty as charged, but along with Popeye "I yam what I yam", and that isn't terse.
Cheers,
By skipsailing, at
Tue Nov 07, 10:58:00 AM:
The whole ecology thing isn't something to which I devote much attention. but there are two issues on this comment thread:
(1) I am not convinced that the climate change we are being warned about is solely the result of human activity. I recall reading books in my yute that warned that the earth was emerging from a small ice age and that the oceans would rise. Now we see that there is indeed significant debate about genesis of this so called climate change so I tend to move toward the natural causes camp.
TG points out one of the huge problems the unlikeable greens face. The resistant to the use of nuclear power sends a clear message to me. since we shouldn't use coal and we shouldn't use oil and we shouldn't use nukes, it appears that what we should do is sit in the cold and dark and "enjoy".
No thanks. The Amish are interesting people and I drive through their communities frequently. But that's not a life I would chose, nor is that life style truly scalable. That the greens seem to advocate an agenda tha calls for far fewer people leading subsistence life styles it is small wonder that they are now struggling for attention.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Nov 07, 10:59:00 AM:
By , at
Tue Nov 07, 11:24:00 AM:
Let us make two assumptions:
1) The global warming problem is as bad as the Stern report suggests.
2) Effective but costly mitigation solutions are devised.
Global warming is a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. The earth's atmosphere is borderless and ownerless. There will be great incentive for any individual country or economic actor to cheat on his greenhouse gas emission limitations. An individual country or actor will profit from cheating by gaining higher production at a lower cost, while the environmental cost of that cheating will be widely dispersed to that actor's competitors.
Thus, voluntary cooperation of global warming mitigation would soon break down. Force will be required to save the world from the consequences explained in the Stern report. We wondered, Would 'greens' go to war to save the planet?
Westhawk
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 11:48:00 AM:
"The Amish are interesting people and I drive through their communities frequently. But that's not a life I would chose"
I am not a doom and gloomer. I'm a positive sorta guy. Things ARE good in many ways.
But I am also a realist and one who believes in personal responsibility.
Here's my suggestion: Whether or not the "Amish life" is a life that you would choose, it is a model that is closer to the sort of life that we will all have to live eventually. You may not choose it but your children won't have that choice (or their children, or maybe you). We can't continue to use finite resources infinitely.
Yes, TH is correct that prices will eventually increase, slowing down overconsumption. But I didn't see you come to the more realistic conclusion: That when the prices of resources increase (as more and more people try to live like us - which is a reality in China today), then we will eventually price ourselves out of living in our manner.
You can believe it or not, that would be my suggestion that our future will likely be.
As one who believes in paying for things as we go and personal responsibility - and not leaving a mess for my children - I advocate slowing down our rate of overconsumption and looking for more sustainable models.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 12:11:00 PM:
The Tragedy of the Commons is a concept used to explain how mutually shared Stuff (the air, the land, waterways, roads, etc) will be abused because it is to the benefit of the individual to exploit that for their own good.
A classic example is the cow herders who each own cows sharing a common grazing land. If each herder has 5 cows, then each herder is using the land equally. But, it is in the benefit for an individual herder to increase his herd to, say, 10 cows. He can receive the benefit of selling those additional cows and it’s not costing him any more to graze them extra, as the cost of the grazing is being shared amongst the herders.
It seems to be a popular way to write off personal responsibility and, thus, an interesting cause for “conservatives” and libertarians to champion (which they seem to do).
“Well, yes, I’m polluting more by driving this Tank instead of biking, and I’m making the streets less safe in the process, AND requiring more resources (tanks need more room, after all) but I’m going to be more safe and that’s what’s important. The extra pollution won’t harm me today (maybe my children or the sick and asthmatic, but not me) and I’ll be safe in my tank.”
Is there a certain truth in the “safety” found in driving a tank instead of riding a bike? One could look at it that way. But one could also realize that if HE’s safer driving a tank, then I’ll be safer driving one, too. And a bigger one, to boot! The tragedy of the commons unchallenged can and does spiral off in unintended and undesired directions.
Do we have to accept a certain amount of irresponsible and dangerous choices on the part of others (and ourselves)? Absolutely.
Ought we encourage it or accept it as the norm? ‘Twould be silly to do so.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Nov 07, 12:14:00 PM:
Skip, note that I do not say this warming event is solely the result of human activity. What I said was that human activity is what makes this event different from all others preceding it. Some models suggest we are actualy in a cooling period, and human activity is causing some warming that would be much worse if we were in a hotter period. Who knows? My point is that the key variable here is us and our inputs, not normal fluctuations.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Nov 07, 12:42:00 PM:
Point well taken GMT. My point remains: if we don't know the root causes we should be careful how we respond, if we respond at all.
It gets down to stewardship. We can do better, litter makes me crazy for example, but there is NO reason to cripple our progress.
Dan, I completely disagree. You may yearn for an agrarian life of bucholic splendor, but I don't. I see absolutely no support for your contention that my children will HAVE to live like the amish.
You position completely ignores two powerful dynamics. The first is economics. TH outlines how a free market actually rations scarce commodities. You've offered nothing by way of cogent response to this.
Next, technological progress, coupled with a free market, will provide resources sufficient to the needs of our children.
Human progress carries on, despite the best efforts to quell it. I lived in Mystic, CT for a few years. That's a town that was created in response to the economic realities of whaling and whale oil. Know anybody that uses spermacetti oil today? Neither do I, but I guarantee that in its hey day the whaling industry saw no rational alternative to their product.
You may state that you aren't about doom and gloom, but that's just because you don't read your own comments.
By , at
Tue Nov 07, 12:50:00 PM:
Greenman "Not interested in........the science, politics, and tactics of the Stern report".
I have previously agreed in principle with you, and there are many points I could make.....
But I am interested in the Stern Report, since the implications of the increases in taxes mooted in various circles, atop existing kleptomaniac taxation levels could very well derail the UK economy. Apparent Growth has been sustained by net immigration which will decline if the Reid proposals reach the statute book, and there are already enough men in skirts to cause social friction.
Real estate prices are rising again, mostly in London, probably from re-cycled petro-funds and city banking bonuses, but in the country retail high street demand is falling. Whither interest rates?
This virtual protest is not the only action I am taking, as this disinformation has now become up-close-and -personal.
This thread is good, Sorry about my verbosity, I'll shut it now
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Nov 07, 02:40:00 PM:
blogger - fair point, and I don't mean to be dismissive of those who do take the politics, tactics and science of the Stern report to task. That isn't a question where I have much to add so I will listen and learn from others.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 02:49:00 PM:
Skip said:
"Next, technological progress, coupled with a free market, will provide resources sufficient to the needs of our children."
Objectively, what you mean is that you're willing to BET that technology and a free market will provide sufficient resources for our children. You have no evidence to support that position and you're asking us to take a leap of faith that technology will somehow save us.
My point is that it is not prudent/conservative/rational to bet our future on a possible, but as-yet-unknown, solution.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Nov 07, 05:07:00 PM:
yes, Dan, I'm more than willing to bet on the free market. I see no reason not to. The free market is the closest I've seen to an unfettered expression of the will of the people.
it seems to me that you have little faith in others. Will we bequeath a perfect world to our progeny? No, but that's not our goal. Our goal is to insure that our children can handle what life will bring them.
Strong, smart resilient people survive Dan. If you want to live in the dark to conserve oil now, feel free to do so. If you want to mandate that everybody live in such a manner because you lack faith in our ability to solve problems, even big ones, then no thanks.
As I illustrated in my whale oil example, new methods and techniques constantly replace the status quo. That you don't see that speaks volumes about your world view.
Market discipline forces us to do more with less all the time. I live in an eighty year old house. It is insulated in the most half assed manner imagineable. A few of the rooms are exactly as they were originally built. Why? Because heating the place was far cheaper then than it is now. I can install insulation and get a great ROI, as long as oil prices continue to rise. If they decline precipitously insulation no longer makes economic sense.
what is is about this constant pressure to improve that you don't grasp? Why do you have so little faith in us Dan?
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 05:30:00 PM:
It's not a matter of not having faith. It's a matter of living responsibly.
"If you want to mandate that everybody live in such a manner because you lack faith in our ability to solve problems, even big ones, then no thanks."
You say, "no thanks." But if the majority of people are thinking that we need to live more sustainably and responsibly and that they aren't willing to bet the farm on an non-existent solution, then the people will decide otherwise.
I'm betting on the people to act responsibly rather than betting on a possible but currently non-existent solution.
What is it about living responsibly that you don't get?
By , at
Tue Nov 07, 05:31:00 PM:
Aside from the fact that we are already looking for cleaner energy sources (with much success), most of the GW alarmists arguments rest on the foundation of logical fallacies and bad science. When the foundation of your premise is based on lies and misdirection, it's fairly easy to assume it's all a scam.
Evidence shows increased solar activity has warmed the earth recently, not Co2, which composes a tiny part of the "greenhouse gas" effect (which is also a theory, btw).
The way GW proponents attack all dissenters and critics shows the level of insecurity in their own (religious) faith. Their favorite tactic is to accuse critics of being tools of the oil companies because they're the boogieman dujour.
GW is a scam designed to raise taxes and get government grants. Most of its proponents are lefties and pro-socialists. Follow the money and you'll see what this is really about.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 07:03:00 PM:
"GW is a scam designed to raise taxes and get government grants."
Oh, really? Your evidence? Your well-reasoned and exhaustive research to back up this outstanding claim?
By all means, let's expose this scam and get down to some real science...
I'll be waiting.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Nov 07, 08:18:00 PM:
I agree with Westhawk that the game theory of globabl politics makes action difficult, but is that going to be an adequate excuse if we thaw the glaciers and flood our costal cities? I don't think so.
We should be smart enough to do better.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Nov 07, 11:04:00 PM:
Dan I am coming to the conclusion that you've surrounded yourself with people who "think" as you do.
I spend a couple of hours everyday on a turnpike. I don't see any huge motivation toward so called sustainablity. this is just another catch phrase it seems to me. suystainability means the government decides how we should live. Again, No thanks.
You've tried this before. The technique is simple: make a statement that includes something along the lines of "the majority agrees with me" and then do nothing to prove that. People are voting with the their wallets Dan. Sorry they're not making the choices you'd mandate for them.
As for sustainability, that will be best assured by capitalism Dan. Not some government agency filled with self serving bureaucrats. Capitalism, as I've stated earlier, is the closest thing I've seen to the will of the people.
If someone wishes to buy a huge hummer and drive at 80 MPH because that's how they chose to spend their money, tell us the pretext you busy body socialists will use to deny them that right.
The other point remains: the greens have a not so hidden agenda: the destruction of capitalism.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Nov 07, 11:17:00 PM:
Have you been attending our End Capitalism meetings in disguise?!
As to my suggestion that the majority agrees with me, it's just a hunch. I have no evidence (other than the big sweep that's happening across the US tonight). I agree that people aren't too inclined to make changes. So, you may be right on that one.
But then, polls do say that the environment is a great concern amongst most people. My take on it is that people DO want to live responsibly and don't want to leave things worse for our kids, but we're too stuck in a rut to put forth the effort to change.
I think if you put it in a poll in direct language: "The finite affordable oil resource will be coming to an end sometime in the next century. Should we continue to consume at our current rates and hope that Technology will save us or should we look at implementing policies to encourage alternative plans?"
If you put it in THAT kind of language, I'd suspect that most folk would not want to bet on non-existent technology to save the day. And I'm a bit surprised that folk who identify as "conservative" wouldn't support a more responsible approach.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Nov 08, 09:44:00 AM:
I wonder Dan.
First, how do YOU define "living responsibly"? How does that compare to your understanding of America's current life style? What should change? How best to motivate people toward this change?
Can you answer these?
next, how do YOU know that the next technology is non existant? Again, using the whale oil example, who among the fine folks living in Mystic, CT in the heyday of whaling would have predicted that some goo oozing out of the ground in Pennsylvania would spell the end of their industry?
what efforts are you aware of to improve our ability to create, transmit, store and employ energy? Isn't that really what we're talking about here?
And why do you have so little faith in us as people? As a species?
And what makes you so sure that we're ever going to run out of oil?
Finally, do you honestly think that this election signifies a dramatic change in the Americans toward your hard left positions? On what basis have you reached that conclusion?
By , at
Wed Nov 08, 01:06:00 PM:
A Lesson in history for the Greens.
Before 91,600bc+/- the north pole was centered on the west coast of Alaska, near Queen Charlotte Islands.
Greenland was ice-free, northern Europe and east Siberia were subtropical.
That part of Greater Antarctica that lies towards Africa was under ice. Much of Lesser Antarctica was ice free.
From 91,600bc, to 50,600bc+/- the north pole was centered just off the Lofoten Islands of the N.W. Norwegian coast. The Arctic circle contained most of Europe and all of Greenland. Greenland began its ice-accretion. Passage from Asia to America was open .North Eastern Siberia, Beringia, and Alaska enjoyed a mild climate.
In the south, the part of Greater Antarctica leading towards New Zealand was under ice. New Zealand, South island was extremely cold.
Between 50,600bc and 9,600bc+/-, the North pole centered on Hudson Bay.
All North and Eastern America felt the grip of the Arctic circle. The massive Laurentide Ice Sheet was created during this time.
Lesser Antarctica, like Siberia, Beringia and Alaska was ice free, except in the mountains. Asians traveled to the new world and lesser Antarctica.
Approx. 9,600 bc Earth Crust displacement, which had been responsible for these previous movements, created the poles where they are now.
Professor Hapgood relates all this in “Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings” which show ice free Antarctica with forests and rivers, and an accurate coastline per NASA satellites. Maps of north and south America, in correct projections are also shown, of course river deltas were nowhere near their currents positions, as they have grown into he oceans over thousands of years. Detailed correspondence with Einstein (who agreed ) is quoted in other reference books on this topic.
Christopher Columbus had site of these maps prior to his voyage of discovery.
Details of Polar movements are in “Nature”, a respected, peer reviewed publication from 1970 onwards when a whole series of research articles appeared. The evidence abounds.
Given these drastic (within hours) flips of the poles, of course glaciers were, and are, melting, and are highly publicized, - what is not mentioned is the ice-accretion elsewhere.
Sea-levels have risen probably 500/700 feet in the last 8,000 years, but are roughly stable now. Why wouldn’t they rise, vast ice fields were melting in suddenly temperate zones, and melting rapidly, whereas ice accretion in new cold areas could only happen according to rainfall patterns/volumes.
7,000 years ago there was no Sahara desert. The ruins of large cities, with fresh and foul water drainage systems have been found, mid Sahara, with extensive water conduits from thousands of miles as the inhabitants strove to maintain their cities in the face of increasing drought. The Egyptian Sphinx is water weathered, which puts its age far older than Egyptologists would have us believe. This, and the aforementioned questions the entire school teachings globally. Go figure.
Of course the Greenland glaciers are melting, - if you take a globe and draw the arctic circles as outlined above you will understand why. Thousands and thousands of years of ice accretions are now going. Did you never wonder why the thickest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere was no where near the North pole? The some patterns are evident at the South pole, selective ice-melts.
Suddenly, the strange stories of frozen mammoths, with their bellies still full of food, and the meat still edible, are explained.
Massive Global vulcanism, tidal waves, (ever thought how the salt lakes/flats were created? – the depth of salt is not explained by “river” explanations) and a nuclear winter for decades. Mankind sought altitude to avoid tidal waves. (ever thought about the simultaneous birth of agriculture in Spirit Cave (Northern Thailand) and in the high plateau of South America, where very advanced agricultural/preservation techniques suddenly appeared?
Plato mentioned it in his Timeaus, Proclus commented at length.
Homer, in The Iliad, a Greek collection of pre 3,000bc verbally passed down stories, mentions the moons of mars, demios and phobos. Given their size, and their recent re-discovery, you have to wonder.
In the modern world, global dimming (atmospheric particulates, less sunlight striking the Earth) is balancing greenhouse gas effects. Both need to be eliminated simultaneously, anything out of balance is catatrophic.
My point.
This planet has wild fluctuations and they are still happening. The Sahara is expanding, southern Europe and the East Med are experiencing increasing drought, but they are continuations of long running trends from the above facts. Meltdowns are the same.
Sustainability aside, which I support, The Green case needs urgently to review these facts when citing justifications. Sadly, too many careers have been built around scenarios that deny these facts.
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Nov 08, 02:05:00 PM:
blogger, I believe you are referring to the Magnetic North Pole, which does indeed shift rather dramatically but has nothing to do with climate, except with regard to the visibility of the aurora from different locations in the northern hemisphere as solar radiation interracts with earth's magnetic field. The geographic True North and South poles where all the lines of longitude meet are constants, although the earth's wobble does impact their orientation with regard to the sun. This is why the pole stars shift in cycles over millenia.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Nov 08, 04:25:00 PM:
Here's another reason why the enviro scare is such a hard sell.
It's mid november, I'm on the edge of a major lake effect snow belt.
it's 57 degrees.
what's not to like about that?
By , at
Wed Nov 08, 04:27:00 PM:
Hi, Greenman, no, I am referring to earth crust displacement, which occured in the past. The core remains, the crust slides, hence the apparent (in terms of the surface) movement of the pole, which is thousands of miles, literally overnight. (Think about the magnetic field when that happens)
Nothing to do with the earths wobble, either, which has a period of approx 25,803 years according to Greenwhich latest figures, ie the time taken for the axis to describe a circle in the heavens, hence the star-signs of the astrologists.
Earth crust displacement happens suddenly, and is catastrophic, as described. Early in the "new alignments", weather patterns are not patterns at all. Slowly (1,000 yrs+) patterns emerge. We are seeing the remnants of those patterns now and they still lead to erronious diagnosis.
Your lines of longtitude remain constant in relation to magnetic poles, but they travel over vastly different surfaces, or countries etc. Since those "countries" now occupy a different area in relation to the poles, they experience different weather patterns.
As I said, from 91,600 bc to 50,000 bc+/-Europe and Greenland were buried under ice. Passage to America from Asia, across Beringia, was possible sometime after the old Alaskan ice cap melted. This means that peope from Asia might have arrived in America before 50,600bc, an idea that has recently gained archeological support. In the March 1994 issue of Popular Science, Ray Nelson reported on an important archeological find in New Mexico. Dr Richard S MacNeish, with his team from the Andover Foundation for Archeological research, excavated a site at Pendejo Cave, in Southwestern New Mexico.They found eleven human hairs in a cave 100 meters above the desert. Radiocarbon dating placed the hairs at 53,000bc.
All my information is pre-internet time, and I have not searched for internet links. My readings of what is called pre-history points to vast sheaves of evidence to support the "Nature" magazine peer reviewed articles, prof Hapgoods findings, and Einsteins additions. The maps themselves, as discussed by Hapgood, point to at least, a global maritime civilisation immediately prior to, with remnants surviving post, the 9,600 bc+/- crust displacement.
My own researches point to a considerably older, and more accomplished, civilisation than Hapgood barely hinted at in his very early correspondence with Einsteine. He was conscious of the approbium that his fellow scientists would heap on him, in defence of their staked out knowledge base which was challenged.
I have approached this from a wide discipline base, not just archeology, but what we erroneously call Mythology, astronomy, since all the early religions were star/heavens based, and certain other readings. I have found a coherent whole in widely disparate fields, that point from every direction to the above.
By Dan Trabue, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:43:00 PM:
Skip asked the following questions:
First, how do YOU define "living responsibly"?
In the normal way, I'd suppose. Pay for things as you go. Pay for things yourself instead of pushing the costs off on someone else. Clean up after yourself. Don't throw garbage down. Basic "do unto others" kind of responsibility.
How do you define it?
How does that compare to your understanding of America's current life style?
We currently have laws that disallow throwing garbage in others' yards, but we have much less restrictive laws when it comes to throwing garbage - toxins, even! - into other people's air. I'd advocate more responsible actions and policies. As to how that would affect America's current lifestyle: I'd propose polluting less. Paying for any messes we make, striving to clean them up.
What should change?
We should drive less. Use fewer fossil fuels. Live in smaller circles.
How best to motivate people toward this change?
I don't think a simple "ban on pollution" would work, polluting is too integral into our way of life. But, I would suggest policies that build in real costs of goods and services.
For instance, driving a car costs us, on average, ~$6000/year (if I'm remembering correctly). With that money, we pay for our car, insurance, gas, parking and some bit of our roads (our gas tax dollars go to pay for the interstates).
What that $6,000/year doesn't pay for includes time lost from jobs due to wrecks and pollution-related illnesses, damage to our lakes and streams, damage to our air, lost money from tourism (who wants to go fishing if the fish aren't safe to eat and if you may get sick from just being in the water?). Nor does it pay for city and state roads, all the "free" parking spaces in cities (if you weren't provided free parking, then you'd have to buy a house with a parking space), prime real estate (cities are 30-50% paved!), etc, etc, etc. You get the idea.
Car drivers are subsidized to a great deal by the gov't. Welfare for drivers. I think you agree that welfare is not an ideal response: Ideally people should pay their own way, right?
If all these factors were added to the cost of a purchase of a car or to the price of gasoline, THAT would come closer to reflecting TRUE costs and if we were paying true costs, the personal auto would be a much less attractive alternative. It's a market solution to a real problem, you should appreciate that.
This sort of solution would be the sort that I would propose. As I said, it's about responsibility, about paying your own way and not pushing the costs or the problem off on other people. We do that in other areas of our life, why wouldn't we do that in regards to something as important as the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land on which we live?
By skipsailing, at
Thu Nov 09, 01:17:00 PM:
Hmmm, like so many of your responses Dan this is long on vague generalities and short on practical ideas.
I live near Cleveland, home of the burning river. Lake Erie was dead and is now perhaps the best walleye and small mouth bass fishery in the world. Seems to me that we've made great progress. The balance here doesn't seem so out of whack to me.
I too dislike litter, but I don't see a solution from you. Here's a free market solution: people discard things that have no value. Creating a market for empty beer cans would motivate folks to recycle.
Speaking of recycling, I read here that some 50% of today's steel is actually made from recycled steel. do you recognize that as progress? Is this sufficient?
When you say Pay for things as you go" are you complaining about credit cards? Mortgages? Car loans? What?
As for my receiving a subsidy for my driving I strenuously disagree. First I have a long commute every day and much of that is turnpike, therefore I pay tolls as a means of funding the roads.
further, the nation currently uses the government as a means of building and maintaining roads. I have no problem with privatizing this at all. Lower my taxes and let me pay tolls, I'll be fine.
Are you ignoring gasoline taxes Dan? I buy sixty dollars of gas a week. I pay an enormous amount of tax. My real estate tax just went up by 2,000. Erie county needs my dough for roads. I'm not getting something for nothing here.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Nov 09, 01:57:00 PM:
Ignoring Gas taxes? I cited them specifically, pointing out that they go to pay for interstate roads. The majority of city roads, parking spaces, parking lots, etc comes from general fund local money. MY tax dollars going to pay for your car welfare! I don't own a car but am having to pay my local taxes just like you. I'm subsidizing your driving and I'm pretty damned tired of you freeloaders (that's spoken tongue-in-cheek, to sound like those who complain about "welfare queens").
When I say, Pay for things as you go, I mean don't leave an expense or a mess for those down the road. By the rate of driving we are doing, we are enacting a cost upon society, upon the environment, upon our children. I'm saying that our driving ought to pay for its own clean up as we go, rather than leaving these costs for others to bear.
I don't understand what's not reasonable about that to someone who agrees that we ought to live responsibly and not freeload off of others.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Nov 09, 03:39:00 PM:
And not only are drivers getting subsidized by taxpayers in general, keep in mind too that the elderly and the poor are less likely to drive, so drivers are getting roads paid for by those who don't use it so much!
