Global Warming

[AngryAnt]

I had to be impertinent antman, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

No offence taken and thoughtful post G.

If you recognise private property, then there is no room for one human to own another. Private property is of fundamental importance to free markets. I agree that the moral arguments to abolish slavery were the most powerful, because the majority of people back then would have still considered slaves as cheap labour. Adam Smith demonstrated that they were wrong, that free men are cheaper than slaves. He argued the point on moral grounds also.

Nothing to do with private property but everything to do with the rights of human beings. If you don't recognise the rights of human beings, then human beings can in certain circumstances become private property.

Have you forgotten about the massive increase in the standard of living that the industrial revolution created? Only with that increase could people start to ask for greater pay, greater workplace safety, and greater environmental controls. With greater prosperity, people could start to demand more from business. If you had all that lovely government interference before the industrial revolution kicked off, it would never have happened. Full stop.

A strange "what if", and who knows. But let me ask you this... which is the most successful manufacturing economy in the Western world in terms of exports? And do you think this is a highly regulated economy or a minimally regulated economy?

My my. This is ridiculous and disingenuous. What you are comparing between is the current model and anarchy. Government regulation must protect private property, so if a business is dumping sh!t all over the private property of others, then they should be held accountable.

And herein lies the rub. It is precisely because the environment is no-one's private property, and is treated as an externality, that it is at grave risk of further exploitation and degradation. The environment is no-one's private property. Workplace safety is no-ones private property. The concept of private property solving every problem doesn't fly.

If a workplace is known to be lax on safety, people don't have to work there, they can work for someone else that does take it seriously. If a workplace pays a pittance, then people don't have to work there, they can work for someone that pays them properly. Competition is key, and it is something that government regulation works to disband i.e. tariffs, price controls, union power, fractional reserve banking etc. Without government giving special favours to certain groups to allow them to have unfair advantages at the expense of others, free markets allow people to make the decisions that affect their lives. They know better than anyone what is in their interests, so I find it bizarre that we still think that men and women that sit in dreary offices in Canberra know better.

Are you talking about the men and women that we elect through a democratic process?

Ah yeah, the old "if you don't like it, go someplace else argument". It's naive and disingenuous to assume that companies will make workplaces better out the goodness of their hearts. Some will, most won't, and so have to be dragged kicking and screaming. Through - guess what - regulation.

 

[evo]

If you believe one simple relationship in the earth's climate is the be all and end all of its stability, then that has nothing to do with the failure of markets. If every country of Earth had a 100% state controlled economy for the industrial revolution, then AGW would have happened anyway.

Interestingly, Marx was big on expanding industrialisation. It is why post the Russian Revolution Trotsky and Lenin, and later Stalin, went hell for leather expanding Russia's factory capacity. Machines were to be the proletariats saviour if only the State could control the means of production on their behalf.

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


Historical materialism started from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for human beings to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life. While this may seem obvious, Marx was the first to explain that this was the foundation for understanding human society and historical development.[citation needed] Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, most fundamentally production relations.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Given how complex climate science is, it is difficult to know who to defer to? SHY defers to others because AGW fits perfectly with the green agenda.

I am more than capable of interpreting the evidence on show, and I find it very much lacking. Just like the economy I wouldn't give 2 sh!ts what a consensus economist tells me about how to fix the boom and bust cycle. They don't have a clue, and neither do people that pretend they know how the climate system works, let alone how to control it. It is the pretence of knowledge. They might be arguments from incredulity to an extent (not because of inconvenience, but because I can think for myself), but that's because you are looking for the scientific method to debunk an explanation using the scientific method. If the scientific method is not capable of describing the climate, than that just won't happen.

Perhaps you should give up your chemical engineering and become a scientist? Seriously, as a scientist myself I find it amazing that you can stay abreast and critically interpret the body of literature in the fields of climate science. I spend a good proportion of my time staying on top of the literature in my field and couldn't imagine trying to synthesise the content of another. I rely on the scientists in that field to do that and the peer review system to weed out the BS.

Your second paragraph demonstrates a lack of understanding of some basic principles of the scientific process. I don't know where you have seen someone say that they completely understand the climate and how to control it. Such claims are unheard of in the scientific literature, with scientists, on the whole, making qualified, conservative statements. The literature provides a model, supported by independent lines of evidence that informs the current theories on climate. The consensus is based on this data. If you disagree - just an arrogant, "you're wrong" doesn't cut it in science. You have to point out where the method or interpretation is flawed and provide an alternative theory that better describes the current data. You then have to put your ideas up for the scrutiny of others in the field, whom you are often in competition with. The vast majority of climate scientists that claim the data supports AGW have done this.

but that's because you are looking for the scientific method to debunk an explanation using the scientific method. If the scientific method is not capable of describing the climate, than that just won't happen.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that the scientific method will not be able to describe the climate due to its complexity? You are possibly correct, however I can't think of another method that will allow us to analyse such a complex system. The current consensus is based on the available data and represents our best picture of the system. The scientists in the field have reached a point where the confidence in their models warrants action. Your self-admitted argument from incredulity isn't really persuasive as a counter. Nor is your maverick "I can think for myself" statement.

 

[evo]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that the scientific method will not be able to describe the climate due to its complexity? You are possibly correct, however I can't think of another method that will allow us to analyse such a complex system. The current consensus is based on the available data and represents our best picture of the system.

It seems to me climatology has more in common with economic modelling than it does with traditional scientific methods. Obviously the physics involved in the greenhouse effect are clear cut, but the climatic modelling is more like the modelling they use in economics. I imagine your field of expertise doesn't see nearly the amount of charting and complex future modelling that we observe in climatology.

This is not to say it is a good or bad thing, just an observation really.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It seems to me climatology has more in common with economic modelling than it does with traditional scientific methods. Obviously the physics involved in the greenhouse effect are clear cut, but the climatic modelling is more like the modelling they use in economics. I imagine your field of expertise doesn't see nearly the amount of charting and complex future modelling that we observe in climatology.

This is not to say it is a good or bad thing, just an observation really.

Complex? Yes. Intractable? I think not. Like all scientific pursuits the best picture is derived from extensive data collection and analysis. The current climate models take into account numerous factors and provide margins of error.

Complex systems always require scientific modelling, comparison to observed data and refinement. That doesn't mean the models aren't useful. You see it used in numerous scientific fields, not just climatology. Neurobiology and cell biology spring to mind. You see the same types of arguments from incredulity in those fields from groups with vested interests as well.

In the end the utility of the model is borne out by its predictive power.

 

[evo]

I didn't say it is intractable, or not useful.

Are you inferring economic models are those things? ;D It is called the dismal science I suppose.

 

[AngryAnt]

And the evidence the denialists consistently fail to acknowledge or deal with is the empirical evidence - the myriad of independent observations of air and sea temperature, arctic ice, sea ice, changes in habitat and flora and fauna due to climate change, and so on. And the trends in empirical data are used to inform modelling, and to confirm whether modelling is accurate.

 

[Giardiasis]

Nothing to do with private property but everything to do with the rights of human beings. If you don't recognise the rights of human beings, then human beings can in certain circumstances become private property.

Sure but they have become one and the same. Private property encompasses the ownership of one's labour.

A strange "what if", and who knows. But let me ask you this... which is the most successful manufacturing economy in the Western world in terms of exports? And do you think this is a highly regulated economy or a minimally regulated economy?

The US before the new deal?

And herein lies the rub. It is precisely because the environment is no-one's private property, and is treated as an externality, that it is at grave risk of further exploitation and degradation. The environment is no-one's private property. Workplace safety is no-ones private property. The concept of private property solving every problem doesn't fly.

Not true, all property has an owner. If someone does damaging things on their property that's fine, as long as it doesn't then damage the property of another, or impact the air quality of people living nearby etc.

Are you talking about the men and women that we elect through a democratic process?

Ah yeah, the old "if you don't like it, go someplace else argument". It's naive and disingenuous to assume that companies will make workplaces better out the goodness of their hearts. Some will, most won't, and so have to be dragged kicking and screaming. Through - guess what - regulation.

No the bureaucrats we pay to administer government programs.

They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because there is money to be saved, people to retain and customers to satisfy.

Yeah and guess what we lose a lot of business because of that wonderful regulation. That's jobs for people, and business growth for investors.

 

[Giardiasis]

Your second paragraph demonstrates a lack of understanding of some basic principles of the scientific process. I don't know where you have seen someone say that they completely understand the climate and how to control it. Such claims are unheard of in the scientific literature, with scientists, on the whole, making qualified, conservative statements. The literature provides a model, supported by independent lines of evidence that informs the current theories on climate. The consensus is based on this data. If you disagree - just an arrogant, "you're wrong" doesn't cut it in science. You have to point out where the method or interpretation is flawed and provide an alternative theory that better describes the current data. You then have to put your ideas up for the scrutiny of others in the field, whom you are often in competition with. The vast majority of climate scientists that claim the data supports AGW have done this.

The government said this last time I checked. A tax on carbon dioxide emissions will apparently keep the climate in control.

And for all the scientific evidence, the models continue to be wrong. I have already argued the point that science is not a good enough method to determine how the climate works. So that's why there isn't an alternative theory that better describes the current data.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that the scientific method will not be able to describe the climate due to its complexity? You are possibly correct, however I can't think of another method that will allow us to analyse such a complex system. The current consensus is based on the available data and represents our best picture of the system. The scientists in the field have reached a point where the confidence in their models warrants action. Your self-admitted argument from incredulity isn't really persuasive as a counter. Nor is your maverick "I can think for myself" statement.

Yes that is what I'm saying. Unfortunately the best picture isn't going to cut it in the real world where people's livelihoods are at odds with the green solutions presented to them. It is not the confidence of scientists that matter, but the confidence of everybody else.

 

[Giardiasis]

In the end the utility of the model is borne out by its predictive power.

Indeed.

 

[Giardiasis]

And the evidence the denialists consistently fail to acknowledge or deal with is the empirical evidence - the myriad of independent observations of air and sea temperature, arctic ice, sea ice, changes in habitat and flora and fauna due to climate change, and so on. And the trends in empirical data are used to inform modelling, and to confirm whether modelling is accurate.

Just like the warmists consistently fail to acknowledge or deal with the myriad of exaggerations, distortions, lies, green funding, political influence, East Anglia emails, hockey sticks etc.

 

[AngryAnt]

The US before the new deal?

No, it's Germany. Right now. Very highly regulated, highly unionised, highly taxed. Arguably the highest workplace safety standards, very high environmental protection standards. Invests heavily in (government provided) technical and vocational education. The most successful exporting Western nation and the second most successful exporting nation in the world. And they do this with almost no natural resources to speak of.

Oh yeah, and they are the biggest exporter of wind and solar technology in the world - stuff we used to be good at. Because they've seen the way the wind is blowing, pun intended.

But yeah, keep telling us to deregulate, de-unionise, minimise government on expenditure on R&D, education and infrastructure, we don't need all that stuff. All we need is a free market.

 

[Giardiasis]

No, it's Germany. Right now. Very highly regulated, highly unionised, highly taxed. Arguably the highest workplace safety standards, very high environmental protection standards. Invests heavily in (government provided) technical and vocational education. The most successful exporting Western nation and the second most successful exporting nation in the world. And they do this with almost no natural resources to speak of.

Oh yeah, and they are the biggest exporter of wind and solar technology in the world - stuff we used to be good at. Because they've seen the way the wind is blowing, pun intended.

But yeah, keep telling us to deregulate, de-unionise, minimise government on expenditure on R&D, education and infrastructure, we don't need all that stuff. All we need is a free market.

Imagine how much better they'd be doing without it all! In fact it has been by cutting back on that regulation and taxation that has propelled Germany to the top. Fancy that.

And if you want to go per capita it is Hong Kong followed by Singapore. Just saying.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The government said this last time I checked. A tax on carbon dioxide emissions will apparently keep the climate in control.

Rubbish. Australia is just doing their part as a member of the global community and getting in early allowing us to get a jump on the future carbon economy. A global effort is required.

And for all the scientific evidence, the models continue to be wrong. I have already argued the point that science is not a good enough method to determine how the climate works. So that's why there isn't an alternative theory that better describes the current data.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Experts in the field disagree with you and substantiate their claims with empirical evidence. I know whom I find more convincing.

By your logic we should just ignore the climate and any potential impact we may or may not have on it. It's all too complex after all. Too bad that the science, even conservatively, suggests that action is necessary. This from many independent lines of evidence. Your final sentence bears this out. If the predictions are flawed, erring on the side of exaggeration it should be easy enough to point out the flaws in the literature.

Yes that is what I'm saying. Unfortunately the best picture isn't going to cut it in the real world where people's livelihoods are at odds with the green solutions presented to them. It is not the confidence of scientists that matter, but the confidence of everybody else.

Science only ever provides a 'best picture'.
EVery new data point allows us to be 'less wrong' (Asimov?).
The confidence of 'everyone else' has proven to be notoriously unreliable throughout history. That is why science, which actively controls for vested interests and inherent biases provides our 'best picture'.
Again, science is not a closed shop. Critics and naysayers are welcome to argue their position in the literature. It just has to be rigorously argued and that takes work. If there is merit in the arguments then they will survive. If not, there are always Internet forums

 

[AngryAnt]

Imagine how much better they'd be doing without it all! In fact it has been by cutting back on that regulation and taxation that has propelled Germany to the top. Fancy that.

what? You just lost all credibility.

 

[Giardiasis]

what? You just lost all credibility.

You did by implying their success is by virtue of government regulation and taxation. That's what will be their undoing.

How do you explain Hong Kong and Singapore?

 

[Giardiasis]

Rubbish. Australia is just doing their part as a member of the global community and getting in early allowing us to get a jump on the future carbon economy. A global effort is required.

Another perspective is that we are putting extra burden on our businesses, while our competitors reap the benefits. It is delusional to think others will be keen to join the sinking ship.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Experts in the field disagree with you and substantiate their claims with empirical evidence. I know whom I find more convincing.
By your logic we should just ignore the climate and any potential impact we may or may not have on it. It's all too complex after all. Too bad that the science, even conservatively, suggests that action is necessary. This from many independent lines of evidence. Your final sentence bears this out. If the predictions are flawed, erring on the side of exaggeration it should be easy enough to point out the flaws in the literature.

What like the hockey stick?

Yes we should ignore it because we can't control it. What we can control is how we adapt to it.

Science only ever provides a 'best picture'.
EVery new data point allows us to be 'less wrong' (Asimov?).
The confidence of 'everyone else' has proven to be notoriously unreliable throughout history. That is why science, which actively controls for vested interests and inherent biases provides our 'best picture'.
Again, science is not a closed shop. Critics and naysayers are welcome to argue their position in the literature. It just has to be rigorously argued and that takes work. If there is merit in the arguments then they will survive. If not, there are always Internet forums

Only if what you are measuring matters. Science is very much in bed with vested interests, where do you think they get their funding?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Another perspective is that we are putting extra burden on our businesses, while our competitors reap the benefits. It is delusional to think others will be keen to join the sinking ship.

They certainly will when the economic imperative insists and at a much higher cost. Australia is taking the best scientific view and getting in early, with the future economic benefits that this entails.

What like the hockey stick?

Yes, like the hockey stick. Sticking with arguments from the early 2000s without staying abreast of the field, at least casually, suggests that you aren't really that interested in the truth of the matter IMO.

Yes we should ignore it because we can't control it. What we can control is how we adapt to it.

Again, experts in the field disagree, with action now likely to ameliorate the worst of the forecast changes.

Only if what you are measuring matters. Science is very much in bed with vested interests, where do you think they get their funding?

Yes, like all human endeavours vested interests are impossible to avoid, science included. However, part of the process is transparency in funding sources for research and declaration of conflicts of interest. The so-called 'Big Green' is a tad smaller than 'Big Oil'.

To answer your question in regard to sources of funding, it depends on the country. However, in the OECD about 2/3 comes from industry, mainly for applied research, with the other 1/3 coming from government bodies, such as the ARC in Australia, where there is a higher % of 'blue sky' pure research.

 

[poppa x]

It looks as though I'll have to sell the 100,000 heaters I stocked up on in the 1970's when everyone was predicting an ice age.
I guess I'll trade them in on air conditioners.
Always a buck to be made when predicting the future

 

[mld]

Germany is certainly an interesting case, one that should be applauded and studied. We certainly can't underestimate the success of the social market economic model; nor should we understate the role of free market reforms in that success, originating from currency reform, cutting high marginal taxes, and the removal of both price ceilings and rationing for scarce goods. A strong emphasis on individual liberty and property rights was built into the model. The resultant low inflation and high growth served the nation very well in rebuilding into an economic power, as we can see.

[I guess Australia mirrors this in a less dramatic fashion with the market reforms implemented in the 1980s, the success of which is recognised by both sides of politics and resulted in decades of strong growth, improvement in real wages and living conditions, and left us in a strong position to withstand the GFC and ongoing eurozone concerns. I linked to a piece in the lucky country soap box thread that highlights just how well Australia does in terms of income growth right across the income spectrum, which really is quite interesting (and the conclusion that both the broad left and broad right are wrong is one that sits quite well with me!).]

[Actually, it is worth comparing where Germany sits in comparison to Australia in the piece I linked to, especially in measures like income growth for bottom decile earners.]

Germany is also doing quite well out of the suffering of its eurozone partners. This is an interesting piece on how the weak Euro is great news for Germany. This is an interesting contrast with Australia, enjoying similar economic strengths but having the high dollar impact exports and manufacturers and retailers competing against imports.

It will be interesting to see how Germany manages its high wage - high welfare model in the face of continuing growth in competition from developing nations, or what further reforms Germany undertakes in the future.

--

Not sure what any of the Germany business has to do with global warming, except perhaps the idea that we are supposed to be more like Germany. Our economic model seems to be holding up pretty well at the moment though.

While Germany has a focus on low emissions energy generation, it is also still reliant on brown coal power plants for its electricity, and is continuing to build new plants. Due to the recent closure of some of its nuclear plants it has also recently become a net electricty importer, indicating that the current policy settings are no longer sufficient to cover its electricity needs. The off-shore wind power program is currently floundering.

Germany has certainly set aggressive targets and has invested heavily; as they are one of the largest users of energy globally it will be interesting to see where they are in terms of emissions and electricity imports in the next decade.