Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

Donny with an A — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:41:26 GMT

Hmm...so there's a lot in there. With regard to climate models, I addressed a lot of the difficulties in this post: libertarian-left.blogspot.com/.../do-you-believe-in-global-warming.html

That being said, I don't think that uncertainties in climate science somehow prove that we can't say that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, or that we would be misguided to try to quantify it, without resorting to mere subjective opining. Certainly we won't be able to predict things perfectly, but no one's claiming that we can. By your line of reasoning, we would have dismissed Kepler almost before he finished explaining his theory.

With regard to Gary Novak's article, I'm really awestruck that you would actually cite that as evidence. Even the most cursory glance at how his claims relate to established scientific facts would demonstrate that he has precisely no idea what he's talking about. For example, from his experience with night vision goggles, he deduces that only 1-5% of the Earth's energy budget can be accounted for by radiation. However, this estimate lies in the face of not only our models of how the atmosphere works (www.nasa.gov/.../172159main_polar_radiation_budget_large.gif), but also our observations combined with a basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry (www.udel.edu/.../spectrum.jpg). So perhaps you have better evidence than that. But if you're honestly going to reject a well established view which is even accepted by most climate change skeptics on the basis of some armchair "science" done by someone who was admittedly unable to complete his graduate studies in yeast physiology because of apparent emotional problems, I'd suggest you ask yourself if you're not just trying to find a reason to reject the climate change hypothesis rather than actually evaluating the arguments on their merit.

The rest of your post doesn't really make much sense to me, so I'm not sure how to respond. You seem to suggest that in fact, the Bangladeshi farmer is not being harmed, which is stated to not be the case in the example. If you find the example implausible, I'm sure it would be possible to come up with some example that would involve harm. Thought experiments are wonderfully flexible.

Another part of what you said is that if we held contributors to climate change accountable for all the harms their actions caused, then the Bangladeshi farmer would end up owing more than he received. If the share of the total harm done corresponding to the harm visited on him was larger than his share of responsibility for causing climate change, then this would not be true. And if he experienced less harm, then I don't see any problem with him ending up owing money.

That is, if Abdul caused 2% of climate change (obviously a ridiculous number), but 3% of all the damage done by climate change was done to him, then he would end up being compensated. If only 1% of the damage was done to him, and he contributed 2% to the phenomenon, then he would have to pay. Far from being a problem with my argument, I see that as a strength. The fact that Abdul is poor has nothing to do with it. As a libertarian, I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise.

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

G8R HED — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:14:43 GMT

There are as many mathmatical variations in climate models as there are theorists creating them. Even a cursory investigation into the prospect of anthropologic climate change reveals vast disparity in mathmatical probabilities assigned to climate variables.

NOAAA says, www.oar.noaa.gov/.../t_modeling.html, among other things,

"The accuracy of climate models is limited by grid resolution and our ability to describe the complicated atmospheric, oceanic, and chemical processes mathematically. Much of the research in OAR is directed at improving the representation of these processes. Despite some imperfections, models simulate remarkably well current climate and its variability. More capable supercomputers enable significant model improvements by allowing for more accurate representation of currently unresolved physics."

There is no denying the fact that modeling employs empirical assumptions based on what is currently regarded as 'knowledge' - whether correct or incorrect - and subject to the interpretation of the model-er.

The models, then, are simply 'best guess' scenarios of future weather patterns based on what the model-er perceives to be historical weather 'facts'. What those 'facts' are changes almost daily. There is considerable doubt that carbon dioxide is even able to cause warming. http://nov55.com/crunch.html (just one of many I have come across).

What is wrong with using them this way? Nothing at all. Modelers can use their models any way they want....so long as such theoretical speculations are not used as legal grounds to appropriate persons or property. By that, I mean used in such a manner as to direct personal behavior or acquire others' property.

Science in the midst of such disparity as evidenced in the antropologic climate change debate is an illegitimate basis upon which to deny liberty - fraud by science.

Man is equipped to productively adapt to change.

The benefit of science is to enhance that productivity. Science as a means to procure reparations FROM productive society is simply another means of income redistribution.

You have no practical basis which suggests a rice farmer in Bangladesh on ground subject to flooding by salt water should not go out of business. It is likely that more modern methods of rice production on ground more suitable to that purpose yields far greater bushels of rice per measure of what may be (rightly or wrongly) construed to be climate-changing elements. Irregardless of that environmental perspective, the fact that there are more efficient means to supply more rice is the result of productive society and the proper function of economy.

The un-productive (it produces nothing) concept of 'net liability', then, could well be construed to the detriment of lesser developed methods of production. The poor Bangladesh rice farmer may end up owing a 'debt to society' he could never repay in the remainder of his productive lifetime.

This suggests that it is scientific testing of climate change theories that should get out of the way of productive society.

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

Donny with an A — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:47:29 GMT

I'm not sure how master equations are used in climate models, if that's even what you meant by "empirically mastered." Could you explain how they're being used, and what's wrong with using them that way?

I accept that the question of the appropriate burden of proof in climate change matters is an open one. I haven't given the subject enough in-depth thought to really comment.

You're right to point out that I assumed Abdul to have not contributed to his own problems. If the court found Abdul to have contributed, the liability of other involved parties would be diminished by that amount. I don't think that's a real problem for my argument.

And certainly if Abdul contributed to climate change, he would be accountable for part of the damage visited on others. That wouldn't have any bearing on the case in question, but it does raise the question, discussed by Paul Baer in his essay, "Adaptation: Who Pays Whom?" of whether it would make more sense to calculate "net liability" rather than to try to settle each case individually.

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

G8R HED — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:35:18 GMT

I wasn't aware that a person must have expertise to claim relief from scientific speculation.

Today's manufactured 'causal links' between global warming and human activity are as flimsy as creating causal links between skyscrapers and earthquakes.

Computer analysis of empirical information may be as skewed as any theorist desires to make it. I only claim that an 'expert' could 'empirically master'

theoretical cause that skyscrapers are a contributing fractor for earthquakes and call it 'evidence', 'proof', or a 'causal link'.

That manufactured 'causal link' could appear to be just as likely as today's empirically-created causal link between human activity and global warming.

You assert in your proposition:

"that we knew that the impacts on your land were the result of climate change."

It may indeed be that climate change caused the rice-farmer's demise. What authority lends credence to that climate change being linked to specific property-owners causing climate change?

Is there not reason to suspect both the authority and expertise that arrived at such a conclusion?

What protection is there AGAINST such authority and expertise?

Which is more important: reparations to the rice farmer or the property rights of those who are claimed to have harmed him?

One other thing that seems to have gone unnoticed. To what degree is the rice farmer responsible for his own demise? IF your experts determine 'causal link' between human activity and global warming, to what degree must the rice farmer be held accountable for the past decades he has spent burning his rice stubble? Perhaps on a percentage of rice-stubble-burning-to-bushels-of-rice-produced?

What if, by 'causal-link' it is determined that modern practices of producing rice without burning as conducted by more technologically-advanced countries over the last few decades yielded more bushels-per-degree-of-pollution than that of the Bangladesh rice farmer?

Would it not seem evident, then, that the Bangladesh rice farmer owed reparations rather than deserving

a claim of harm?

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

Donny with an A — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:50:16 GMT

G8r hed, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Empirical-mastering isn't a term I've ever heard of, and I'm not sure how "likelihood" factors into the equation. But given that you clearly have made no attempt whatsoever to study the mainstream case, I'm not sure that it would be worth my time to argue with you.

I'd recommend getting a grip yourself. You clearly don't have the expertise necessary to be taken seriously while acting like you are. Of course, if you had that expertise, you wouldn't be acting that way.

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

G8R HED — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:20:33 GMT

Your argument is put in jeopardy because anthropologic global warming is an empirically-mastered delirium of smoke.

It could be equally as likely to empirically-master that skyscrapers cause earthquakes. It is probably more likely that removing the insulating layer of oil from the earth's crust will cause the oceans to boil and we will all be steamed to death like a Bar Harbor lobster bake.

Get a GRIP man!

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

Donny with an A — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:28:11 GMT

Attackdonkey, while I have plenty of respect for Steve Milloy and his work in other areas, my familiarity with the relevant scientific research in this area makes me comfortable saying that if Milloy outright denies that anthropogenic climate change is happening, then he is misrepresenting the state of the science. That's not to suggest that no skepticism is warranted, but denial is simply not a feasible stance at this point. If Milloy doesn't make such a claim, then I apologize for the suggestion. Is there anything in particular that you had in mind? I really don't have time to read all of the articles on the site.

G8r hed, my argument is not put in jeopardy by the possibility that we could not establish the causal link necessary to establish guilt. As far as I am aware, we have precisely no reason to believe that the weight of sky scrapers in Manhattan could be responsible for an earthquake in Bangladesh. We surely have more reason to believe that human emissions of CO2 (among other anthropogenic climate forcings) could cause the ice caps to melt, even if we cannot be certain.

However, if we did establish a causal link between the weight of skyscrapers in Manhattan, then (ignoring a defense of unknowability, which wouldn't apply to contributors to climate change) I don't see why we would be wrong to hold them responsible for the damage caused by the builders' actions.

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

G8R HED — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:51:48 GMT

'Climate' is never static so how can one blame 'climate change' for misfortune?

Does 'causal link' in regards to 'climate change' mean that in the absence of human activity 'climate' would not change?

What if an earthqake caused the rice farmer's land to rise and he could no longer flood his property for growing rice without establishing an intricate and expensive network of terraces and levies? Does that mean a 'causal link' could be established between the weight of skyscrapers in New York City and 'global upheaval'?

re: Climate Change and Getting Out of the Way

Attackdonkey — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:25:15 GMT

trace rising sea levels to the global climate change....

but so what? I don't think anyone can give trace the global climate change to anything we have done?

I don't know if you are familiar but... www.junkscience.com

sorry I wasn't able to read any more I'll read it later.