Humans, like other primates, are communal. Our ancestors spent almost all of their evolutionary history as humans living in small groups of interdependent individuals. At the same time, tribes were in competition for each other for natural resources: foraging grounds, hunting grounds, agricultural lands. The ability of a tribe to survive depended very much on the ability of its members to act in concert, while simultaneously maintaining the capacity for aggression against the members of competing tribes. This simultaneous capacity for both solidarity and aggression is not unique to humans. Chimpanzees (our closest genetic relatives in the animal kingdom) have been known to capture, kill, and even cannibalize the members of rival troops.
In general, humans can't and don’t live on their own in primitive conditions. Abandoning the tribe was not an option, unless one managed to join another tribe. Consequently, survival itself depended on an individual’s ability to sustain his or her membership within the tribe. (Any critic of libertarianism who asserts that libertarians assume otherwise is erecting a straw man.) This dependency on tribal membership for survival, combined with the inherently non-homogeneous distribution of physical and mental attributes amongst the individuals within a tribe, leaves room (evolutionarily speaking) for individuals within the tribe to extract privilege from the rest of the tribe.
Privilege is not always predatory in nature. Some individuals gifted with atypical physical attractiveness or skill in sports or the arts might enjoy social status and privileges beyond their fellow tribe members, for example with regard to the selection of mating partners. (Think rock star.) These privileges are volunteered instinctually exactly because these attributes and talents are outward manifestations of genetic fitness. The instinct to grant privilege goes beyond those who would participate directly in the perpetuation of those genetic tendencies. This is because even those who enjoy the elevated social status as gifted individuals still likely share the instincts to grant those privileges in other situations. What matters is that the overall effect of volunteered genetic favoritism is to make it more likely that the healthier genes will be passed on, but still carrying the instinct to volunteer genetic favoritism. The point is that there is an evolutionary explanation behind the human instinct to both extract and grant privilege.
Privilege becomes predatory when it is used to extract a disproportionate influence on tribal 'consensus.' Every member of the tribe might participate in, or influence the tribal decision-making process to one degree or another, but as a purely practical matter, the tribe would not vote on every issue, or discuss things in committee until everyone agreed what the best course of action was. Instead, tribal decisions would tend to fall on specific individuals. Those individuals would tend to be those individuals who are naturally more equipped physically or mentally to make decisions for the tribe, or simply more equipped to impose them. The other members of the tribe instinctually grant these individuals disproportionate influence on tribal consensus, especially in the face of immediate external threats (like another tribe). This is because the evolutionary advantage of doing so outweighed the evolutionary disadvantage of humbly submitting to tribal consensus as an alternative to expulsion from the tribe and certain death.
This form of privilege is predatory because the individuals who enjoy the elevated social status will tend to make decisions that favor themselves at the expense of other members of the tribe. The more successful humans become at survival, the more room for intra-tribal predations there is before the parasitic behavior impacts survivability of the tribe as a whole. At some point, humans became so good at survival that society could support a whole predatory class that could command the direct services of the other members of the tribe to their own individual benefit. This particular form of predatory privilege manifests itself as authority and it is difficult to overstate the degree to which humans instinctively submit to it in one or another of its myriad forms. Its most spectacular manifestation is the privilege and social status that kings and pharaohs enjoyed, but more commonly it takes on the form of privileged classes.
Now days, Karl Marx is credited with diagnosing class conflict, but the existence of the predatory classes used to be a fact of everyday life. The predatory classes simply were the priveleged classes. It really wasn't that long ago when it was taken for granted that for the members of the privileged classes, leisure was a birthright. Liberalism (in the classic sense, a.k.a. libertarianism) arose in response to exactly this institutionalized inequity. The response of the privileged classes to this onslaught of rationality was—and is—argument by obfuscation.
Thus, while Marx (a professional intellectual in the employ of the predatory classes) might acknowledge class conflict in the form of “free man and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman,” Marx conspicuously circumvents any suggestion that differences in rules regarding property were exactly what distinguished oppressor and oppressed in these class conflicts. Instead, we are supposed to concern ourselves with a newer notion of exploitation that is much more ethereal, but that draws a strong psychological potency from its resonance with tribal instincts.
By no coincidence, Marx’s diagnosis is that it is exactly the establishment of (mutually-binding rules of) property rights and free trade by which the bourgeois exploit the proletarian. By no coincidence, his prescriptions are that the means of production belong in the hands of ‘society,’ which, by no coincidence, in practice, puts the means of production into the hands of the State, which, by no coincidence puts the means of production into the hands of the predatory classes.
So-called modern humans may have politically rejected the notion of inhereted class privilege in the form of royalty and nobility, and Marxism in particular might finally be falling out of fashion after being the root of far too much human suffering, but the human instinct to grant predatorial privilege didn't just go away, and the predatory classes understand this and use it to their advantage. Specifically, a threat to the tribe will very reliably invoke people's instinct to shut off their own individual critical analysis and submit to tribal consensus. In our evolutionary past there were situations where this instinct was critical to the survival of the tribe as a whole, but as our ability to survive extended beyond a hand-to-mouth existence, such instincts increasingly served as a mechanism of intra-tribal predation. The predatory classes thus establish, concentrate, and institutionalize political authority by routinely invoking threats to the tribe.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” ― Hermann Goering
Of course the critical-analysis-shunting effect of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center was milked for all it was worth. The predatorial classes managed to use it to manipulate the U.S. government into invading and occupying an entirely unconnected and militarily debilitated country, not to mention institutionalize warrantless wiretapping and torture.
But a threat to the tribe doesn't have to be a traditional foreign enemy to be useful to the predatory classes. An icon of imending moral decrepitude or the environmental catastrophy du jour can be just as effective. The trick is to find a trend, extrapolate it to the point of disaster, and then blame the trend on humans in such a way that the only percieved solution requires the institutionalization of yet more political authority. The notion of anthropogenic global warming fits the bill perfectly.
Anthropogenic global warming is an entirely political phenomenon. The vast majority of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which varies wildly. Carbon dioxide is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect. And human activity is responsible for only a fraction of that. People like Al Gore will make a big deal out of the historical correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. But this has cause-and-effect completely backwards. As the oceans warm, they hold less carbon dioxide. This is a phenomenon familiar to any high-school science student.
If you actually read the arguments for anthropogenic global warming that actual scientists make, they are very strained and contrived. The sheer scale of the potential environmental disaster we risk is supposed to distract us from this, but anyone who thinks that a scientific consensus is immune to political influence, or who think the cost of avoiding global warming is slight, need only need look up "Lysenkoism." Note also that it was a mere thirty years ago that the so-called experts were just as adamant then that human pollution was inevitably leading to the next ice age.
If your goal (whether conscious or not) is to accumulate and concentrate political authority on a global scale, only a threat to the entire globe gets the job done. Such a global threat is psychologically attractive to those who suffer from extreme civilization-induced alienation, and instinctually perceive a one-world government as the re-establishment on a global scale of a longed-for primordial tribal consensus. This is what the issue of anthropogenic global warming is really about.
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
-Hitler
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
*sigh*
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere does vary widely between regions, and does experience significant fluctuations of the local level. But average global atmospheric concentrations of water vapor are generally quite stable, showing only a minor positive trend which cannot explain the warming phenomenon that we've observed. It's true that the majority of the greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapor, but the greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet warm and livable. Concern is focused on whether or not the greenhouse effect is becoming more potent; that is, whether more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. So it's not important that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What matters is whether or not atmospheric water vapor concentrations are changing, and our observations show only small changes. In the same way, it doesn't matter that human sources account for only a small portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The important consideration is how concentrations of CO2 have changed over time. Atmospheric CO2 trends since the industrial revolution have not correlated with atmospheric temperature, and the proportion of isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere does not match what we would expect if the source of the CO2 were the ocean; it is consistent with a fossil fuel source.
If you're not going to do the research, then honestly, why bother?
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Another Hitler quote is, "How wonderful for rulers that men do not think!"
Donny with an A:[...]The important consideration is how concentrations of CO2 have changed over time. Atmospheric CO2 trends since the industrial revolution have not correlated with atmospheric temperature, and the proportion of isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere does not match what we would expect if the source of the CO2 were the ocean; it is consistent with a fossil fuel source.If you're not going to do the research, then honestly, why bother?
[...]
The important consideration is how concentrations of CO2 have changed over time. Atmospheric CO2 trends since the industrial revolution have not correlated with atmospheric temperature, and the proportion of isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere does not match what we would expect if the source of the CO2 were the ocean; it is consistent with a fossil fuel source.
The environment is clearly recycling anthropogenic CO2 right along with 'natural' CO2. The point, which you didn't address, is that even if humans have an effect on overall CO2 levels, it can only have a minuscule effect on global weather. The only way advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming can argue that CO2 is a pollution is to presuppose that artificial increases in CO2 will trigger some by-the-grace-of-god heretofore untriggered (except on scary Venus) positive runaway feedback mechanism. Given the natural tendency of the weather (including CO2 levels) to change all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with humans, this is patently absurd.
No, as I said, anthropogenic global warming is a purely political phenomenon. It panders to those who imagine themselves particularly deserving of intellectual authority. After all, their concern is for the earth itself! But as I also said, this instinctual drive to establish tribal consensus in the face of a threat is exactly what the predatory classes exploit to further entrench the political authority by which they extract wealth and privilege. And only a threat to the entire globe will serve to institutionalize authority on a global scale. Thus, the government rewards in particular the scientists biased toward the theory of anthropogenic global warming (with money they stole from you and me).
even if humans have an effect on overall CO2 levels, it can only have a minuscule effect on global weather.
"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I willmove the Earth"
- Archimedes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
Danny: The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere does vary widely between regions, and does experience significant fluctuations of the local level. But average global atmospheric concentrations of water vapor are generally quite stable
TokyoTom:"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I willmove the Earth"
More pseudoscience. In this case, a totally unwarranted analogy.
Juan, if you're really interested in discussion, you'll be a little more specific. What, exactly, in your view is the "pseudoscience" that you're referrign to? As for the "totally unwarranted" analogy, perhaps you can explain what you mean. All I did was to introduce the concept of a slight influence applied over time - a reference that is perfectly appropriate to the radiative forcing effect of GHGs that have enduring atmospheric lifespans.
Did scientists become concerned about possible changes in the climate in the early 70s? Yes? Did they predict a cooling? No. Was there sensationalistic news coverage? Yes.
The closest anyone got was a prediction that, if obviously already heavy loads of aerosol pollutants (mainly SO2) and dust quadrupled, then cooling influences on climate would outweigh the warming effects of CO2. Not sure how young you are, but perhaps you might recall that the industrial nations made tremendous efforts to clean up air pollution - so at least in the Northern Hemisphere, atmospheric loads of aerosols dropped dramatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
But CO2 levels have of course grown - and aerosol levels remain high over Asia and still contribute to a cooling effect known as the "Asia Brown Cloud". Perhaps you've heard of it?
Perhaps you are also aware that because of the greater land mass in the Northen Hemisphere, the startling warming being experienced at high latitudes is precisely what scientists have expected from the radiative forcings from GHGs?
Juan, environmental issues are very much about the rights of individuals, and if properly understood then in a manner consistent with libertarianism. See Cordato, whom I have extensively cited. But libertarianism also admits of community-developed solutions with respect to resources that cannot be effectively privatized (water rights, fishery rights, use of forests, etc.), those these situations continually change as new technology is introduced. Yandle provides an interesting perspective on how mankind has evolved ways to deal with commons. And Dolan and Adler certainly have very Lockean approaches to climate change.
As for what is "scientific", I think you`re letting your politics dictate your reality. We have lots of actual data, now extending back hundreds of millions of years, and a continually improving understanding. We can also see rather dramatic changes in temperatures in high northern latitudes, steady changes in climate zones further south, and climbing acidity of the ocean CO2 sink as a resuly of higher atmospheric levels of CO2. Maybe you should spend a week with the IPCC reports, the academy of science statements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, and reading about how private firms are responding on their own - including investing in greater conservation, lighter energy sources and ways to sequester carbon. They do this because they see it makes sense.