Global Warming

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

But you have still ignored the point that once the fashion among environmentalists was global cooling, and essentially they gathered all the evidence to conform to that paradigm. Now it's the opposite.

And your obvious silence on the economic factor of the global warming red herring is also telling. Few if any of the environmentalists actually understand economics to see the fallacy of their position.

I didn't ignore the point. I use the words 'climate change' and 'global warming' interchangeably. I will make an effort to use ‘climate change’ here to avoid ambiguity.

“For billions of the world’s people, business-driven globalization means uprooting old ways of life and threatening livelihoods and cultures.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/define/index.htm

You’ve several times made leaps into assuming you know what I advocate based on what (global capitalism and such) I am critical about. As far as global exchange, I'm interested in revolutionary new economics--not tweaking the existing one or going to something else that's already been done... I think that maybe the UN has capacity to do some of this (in conjuction with local communities--also a term that's difficult to define.)

I can discuss economics more, as well (particularly Green Economics). But I think that takes this particular thread too far off the topic.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

are advocating the use of electric vehicles (not hybrids) and looking down on everyone else that drives gasoline engines, claiming they are "cleaner". This, while the whole time we are burning massive amounts of coal to charge up their batteries.

I guess that's why I drive a jeep

I don't claim that electric vehicles are the answer, either. It isn't just the production of energy for the batteries, either. Same with hydrogen. There is a net loss of energy with the production of hydrogen. Unless there is MASSIVE energy put into decentralized and renewable energy (using remaining high energy source--oil--to fuel the transformation), those other options are not any more ecologically sound. [Hydrogen is cheered by the same people who want more centralization of power production (in dangerous ways--like nuclear power)] Finally biodisel is problematic, as well. Some forests in Brazil are being cleared to grow soybeans for that--that's not ecologically good. That's just a sample of how 'having cake and eating it too' is going to be VERY difficult. We are just going to need to accept that the age of cars is going downhill, I believe.

I try not to drive mine too much. I don't scorn those who drive SUV's. Minivans and light trucks are just about the same. There is a subtle subtext in the SUV discourse (but that's another issue.)

I also have calculated how much carbon I put in the atmosphere (car, home, other consumption) and I plant the number of trees (more) needed to ofset what I put up there. THAT is even more important than reduction... is immediate protection of the remaining carbon stores (e.g., wilderness and vast rainforests) and restoring forest of ALREADY degraded/destroyed, as best as possible (not ever going to get back, but it will help.) More on that later.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I didn't ignore the point. I use the words 'climate change' and 'global warming' interchangeably. I will make an effort to use ‘climate change’ here to avoid ambiguity.

“For billions of the world’s people, business-driven globalization means uprooting old ways of life and threatening livelihoods and cultures.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/define/index.htm

You’ve several times made leaps into assuming you know what I advocate based on what (global capitalism and such) I am critical about. I can discuss economics, as well (particularly Green Economics). But I think that takes this particular thread too far off the topic.

I'm interested in revolutionary new economics--not tweaking the existing one or going to something else that's already been done...

"Green economics" is nothing more than a comfy new name for what is otherwise known as nothing more than a socialist meme. "Green economists" pretty much understand nothing about economics: time preference, marginal utility, business cycles, money and credit, capital and interest, game theory, market structure and pricing, wages, theory of value, cost/benefit analysis, or why there is such a thing as private property and free trade.

The global warming thesis, if logically extended, would mean adding more and more regulation to the markets that are already under heavy regulation and growing. Regulation is bad for business. The more you intervene in the market process, into the lives of individuals and private property, the more deleterious effect on productivity, the economy, and the pistons of the market process. What "Green economics" and "Green ideology" teach are the tired old rants we have always heard about how humans are evil, their works are evil and only government control can restrain them from destroying the fragile living world. Environmentalism is nothing more than a nihilistic movement that denies everything from human creativity, human ingenuity, the individual.

As for global warming, the earth has changed and fluctuated in its climate millions of times before man ever stepped foot. Man's supposed 'impact' on global warming is inconclusive and no data exists to suggest otherwise. That is the question and that's what the Greenies don't like to admit much less take into account. Humans are not soothsayers or medicine men able to predict cycles or weathers. As I said before, Bush was right to scrap the Kyoto treaty, about one of the only things he has done right. The same environmentalists that rant and rave about oil and pollution are the ones that worked so hard to prevent nuclear power from becoming an alternative source.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

What many ECONOMISTS don’t understand (especially ‘classical’ economists) is that people CAN’T eat, drink, breathe, or shelter themselves with… MONEY. You can't eat $$$

“Economics (from the Greek οίκος [oikos], 'family, household, estate', and νομος [nomos], 'custom, law', hence "household management" and "management of the state") is a social science that typically studies the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and services. …

Various schools of heterodox economics, for instance socialist economics or green economics, seek to explain economic phenomena using different basic assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

[parthiapride]

Re: Global Warming

"Green economics" is nothing more than a comfy new name for what is otherwise known as nothing more than a socialist meme. "Green economists" pretty much understand nothing about economics: time preference, marginal utility, business cycles, money and credit, capital and interest, game theory, market structure and pricing, wages, theory of value, cost/benefit analysis, or why there is such a thing as private property and free trade.

The global warming thesis, if logically extended, would mean adding more and more regulation to the markets that are already under heavy regulation and growing. Regulation is bad for business. The more you intervene in the market process, into the lives of individuals and private property, the more deleterious effect on productivity, the economy, and the pistons of the market process. What "Green economics" and "Green ideology" teach are the tired old rants we have always heard about how humans are evil, their works are evil and only government control can restrain them from destroying the fragile living world. Environmentalism is nothing more than a nihilistic movement that denies everything from human creativity, human ingenuity, the individual.

As for global warming, the earth has changed and fluctuated in its climate millions of times before man ever stepped foot. Man's supposed 'impact' on global warming is inconclusive and no data exists to suggest otherwise. That is the question and that's what the Greenies don't like to admit much less take into account. Humans are not soothsayers or medicine men able to predict cycles or weathers. As I said before, Bush was right to scrap the Kyoto treaty, about one of the only things he has done right. The same environmentalists that rant and rave about oil and pollution are the ones that worked so hard to prevent nuclear power from becoming an alternative source.

Yeah dude...Chernoby kicked ass!

Can't wait for more!

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

What many ECONOMISTS don’t understand (especially ‘classical’ economists) is that people CAN’T eat, drink, breathe, or shelter themselves with… MONEY. You can't eat $$$

“Economics (from the Greek οίκος [oikos], 'family, household, estate', and νομος [nomos], 'custom, law', hence "household management" and "management of the state") is a social science that typically studies the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and services. …

Various schools of heterodox economics, for instance socialist economics or green economics, seek to explain economic phenomena using different basic assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

First of all, your definition of economics is only partially correct. The most important thing about economics is not studying some numbers, but who puts all that action into motion, and that is the individual. The pivotal point of economics is the study of human action.

Second of all, people do not eat money, but money in one form or another has been used as a medium of exchange since the dawn of civilization. You do not have to like it, but the fact that you stated what you did about money implying that 'non-money' products are more valuable indicates you are unfamiliar with economics. Furthermore, the classical school of economics is merely one school out of a myriad and I most certainly do not prescribe to the classical school.

[karoaper]

Re: Global Warming

I've got 2 weeks to defend my proposal, so I'm trying to resist my addiction to AC forum, but this is an interesting discussion, so,

I wanted to make several points. One is an observation that, as far as I know, none of us are scientifically qualified to discuss the validity or invalidity of "global warming". And in many other areas where we are likewise laymen, we do not attempt to argue with other laypeople as if we're experts. Why is it that we do it concerning the science-based question of accelerated climate change due to human effects. Because majority of us have an a-priori bias towards one or another side. This is an argument, whose outcome can affect areas where our interests may be deeply vested, such as business, economics, politics. If I may bring as an example you Mouse. You clearly have a strong bias for free-markets and unregulated business, this much clear from our other interesting discussions. Whatever your reasons for such a path, this strong leaning creates a bias that I think affects your clarity of judgment and analysis concerning a question that is directly unrelated to the areas I specified. Likewise, it is probably same with many of us. I think bias on philosophical and logical grounds leaves the opinions unsalted.

Second on more technical grounds, I'll reply to the argument that the changes introduced by man's actions to earth's chemical and physical constitution are relatively minute and thus insignificant. As I mentioned earlier, weather and atmospheric/oceanic processes do not follow a linear change-to-outcome ratio. Such processes are key examples of non-linear dynamics, where an absolutely minute change causes unpredictable and large effects. This according to Edward Lorenz and his paper on sensitivity of longterm changes to initial conditions. So from a mathematical point of view, the argument that the effects of human actions are small, relatively to earth's natural comings and goings, and thus insignificant is not a sound one. Now, I do agree that the earth is not is some stable equilibrium in any case either. The sun will die and earth will become uninhabitable in time. Also, the point is not whether the extreme we are accelerating towards is cooling or warming. The point is the rate of divergence from the equilibrium towards either extreme. In fact, due to the wildly chaotic/non-linear nature of the process, the exact extreme we may get to is not easily answered. Either way, complete divergence from stability means death of one of the players in this multi-multi-dimensional system. The weaker players and their chain of dependents will naturally die out first.

Finally, I do agree with you Siggie that there is no proof that human actions have a major effect on climate change. What that means to me is that there is scientific debate concerning that, meaning there is a large scientific body arguing for it and a large one arguing against it. My point is that while that is a source of comfort for some, it's no consolation to me. It's like accelerating without headlights on a road and not knowing if you're headed towards a precipice or not. Instead of accelerating, let's slow down instead, that's all I'm saying. Let's make sure that in the next 10 years, we put less CO2 into the atmosphere than more, that we reverse the pattern of clear-cutting, etc. I would much rather have a false-negative judgment than a false-positive, negative being the reality of "global warming".

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

Great post Karoaper.

True science, by default, is 'conservative' (not conservative in the political sense, but rather not claiming some kind of certianty, without consensus... and even then, that is still that is open...) Sometimes, though, science can't keep up with what is happening in the material system. That is where citizen advocacy groups (who err on the side of safety 'vs.' scientific 'proof') come in. I tend to err on the side of avoiding the worst-case-scenerio, regardless of the available data (and **I** do that with REASON.)

[Edit--Karoaper, work on your proposal for now! This will still be here when you finish that.]

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I've got 2 weeks to defend my proposal, so I'm trying to resist my addiction to AC forum, but this is an interesting discussion, so,

I wanted to make several points. One is an observation that, as far as I know, none of us are scientifically qualified to discuss the validity or invalidity of "global warming". And in many other areas where we are likewise laymen, we do not attempt to argue with other laypeople as if we're experts. Why is it that we do it concerning the science-based question of accelerated climate change due to human effects. Because majority of us have an a-priori bias towards one or another side. This is an argument, whose outcome can affect areas where our interests may be deeply vested, such as business, economics, politics. If I may bring as an example you Mouse. You clearly have a strong bias for free-markets and unregulated business, this much clear from our other interesting discussions. Whatever your reasons for such a path, this strong leaning creates a bias that I think affects your clarity of judgment and analysis concerning a question that is directly unrelated to the areas I specified. Likewise, it is probably same with many of us. I think bias on philosophical and logical grounds leaves the opinions unsalted.

I do have a strong bias for free-markets. That I have never denied and in fact, I will proudly proclaim that I am the lover of all that is market based. However, correct me if I am wrong, I know you stated that it's probably the same with many of us, but are you insinuating that there is such a thing as not having a bias?

If so, I disagree for the following reasons. While we live in an objective world, our understanding of that world can never be anything more than our mind’s subjective experiences with the world. Since everyone is biased, it thereby follows that according to that, there is no such thing as 'clarity of judgement'. All 'clarity of judgement' is therefore filtered through the prism of the individual's subjective experiences. Precisely because we are individuals and experience being and time individually, our perceptions, understandings, and thought processes are always filtered through our individual sense of self.

Second on more technical grounds, I'll reply to the argument that the changes introduced by man's actions to earth's chemical and physical constitution are relatively minute and thus insignificant. As I mentioned earlier, weather and atmospheric/oceanic processes do not follow a linear change-to-outcome ratio. Such processes are key examples of non-linear dynamics, where an absolutely minute change causes unpredictable and large effects. This according to Edward Lorenz and his paper on sensitivity of longterm changes to initial conditions. So from a mathematical point of view, the argument that the effects of human actions are small, relatively to earth's natural comings and goings, and thus insignificant is not a sound one. Now, I do agree that the earth is not is some stable equilibrium in any case either. The sun will die and earth will become uninhabitable in time. Also, the point is not whether the extreme we are accelerating towards is cooling or warming. The point is the rate of divergence from the equilibrium towards either extreme. In fact, due to the wildly chaotic/non-linear nature of the process, the exact extreme we may get to is not easily answered. Either way, complete divergence from stability means death of one of the players in this multi-multi-dimensional system. The weaker players and their chain of dependents will naturally die out first.

Finally, I do agree with you Siggie that there is no proof that human actions have a major effect on climate change. What that means to me is that there is scientific debate concerning that, meaning there is a large scientific body arguing for it and a large one arguing against it. My point is that while that is a source of comfort for some, it's no consolation to me. It's like accelerating without headlights on a road and not knowing if you're headed towards a precipice or not. Instead of accelerating, let's slow down instead, that's all I'm saying. Let's make sure that in the next 10 years, we put less CO2 into the atmosphere than more, that we reverse the pattern of clear-cutting, etc. I would much rather have a false-negative judgment than a false-positive, negative being the reality of "global warming".

I think no one will deny the earth's climate fluctuations. This cannot be emphasized enough, and as you mentioned, the issue pertains to human-caused global warming. Global temperatures are always trending upward or downward. They always have been throughout the lifetime of this planet. Right now the trend is upward, which in itself signifies nothing about causation. It's moderate, as such rises go, but undeniable. The real question is, what evidence is there to support the thesis that humans are having a significant impact on this? Indeed, as a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory physicist once pointed out, in the cycle of ice age glaciations and retreats over the past million years, it's perfectly in keeping with the temporal patterns of recent past climate change that we would be experiencing just such a temperature rise right now.

He had detailed charts that made quite clear that nothing about current temperature trends looked abnormal in the context of the last several hundred thousand years. On the contrary, such an increase is entirely understandable, give or take a couple of hundred years. The physicist offered his conclusion that he saw no reason to either attribute or deny human causation in the current upward trend.

Thanks for a great post as usual, and good luck on your proposal. Stop foruming and work!

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

Inherent in my talk is the assumption that Homo sapiens are a good (despite a possible ‘wrong turn’ in social development of some). I would hope that it is abundantly clear by now that I am not at all misanthropic. (Again) If I believed that ‘humanity’ was bad, why would I care or do anything? I’d just let things go as they are! ‘Environmentalists’ have a basic assumption that HUMANS should not go extinct and that human beings (mostly) ‘good’ for the planet. [Important citation: "Is Humanity Suicidal?" later]

As far as politics, of any political party in the US, I like the Greens [http://www.gp.org/] the most right now. Anonymouse, you might even like this...

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

Originally ratified at the Green Party Convention in Denver, CO, June 2000.
Platform


1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.


9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

Ten Key Values from other state and local Greens.
There is no authoritative version of the Ten Key Values of the Greens. The Ten Key Values are guiding principles that are adapted and defined to fit each state and local chapter.