Hermann Goering on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Some minor points. I'll let everything else stand.

TokyoTom:

[...] Those most interested in stopping the war obviously aren't in power. [...]

Yet those who would put together an inter-governmental panel on climate change are.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars consume 3.5 million gallons of oil a day. The U.S. Department of Defense as a whole consumes more oil than the entire country of Sweden. Yet it's somehow possible to make genuine political progress in the fight against incandescent light bulbs.

TokyoTom:

[...] The impact of volcanoes on climate is well-studied. [...]

The concern is not with the volcano itself. The concern is with the unimaginable amounts of glacial ice that will be dumped into the ocean in a matter of minutes. And I didn't say that this would warm the climate specifically, only that it will affect the weather.

 

 

 

Tom:

Juan:

I'd love to see all subsidies ended.

Good; me too. By why am I the only one who makes that argument?

You are not making it. I did make it. You're only concerned with the non-problem of GW. And here's something from your bio wich I wish would end this discussion, but of course I know it never will.

"While I prefer where possible to strengthen property rights and tort law protections against pollution, rather than trying to have federal regulation for everything, I also realize that for certain cases our shared tool of government may serve productive or even essential purposes"

So, you are a libertarian who believes that government is essential to protect the enviroment...

As for Exxon...They are green now ? Good for them. Eco-fascism may be a good survival strategy...in the jungle.

With respect to science I think that my view of it is humble, while yours is indeed full of hubris. You think that state funded 'scientitsts' have figured out how the world works using some debatable facts and a bunch of math formulae as premises - I'd call that naive, if it weren't wholly politically motivated, wich, of course, it is.

TokyoTom:

"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the Earth"

- Archimedes

 

The trouble with that is that there IS no place to stand that's not on the Earth so that his lever can move the Earth.  I'm not sure how that relates to global warming.

 

 hjmaiere:  thanks for the engagement.  Sorry you`re leaving so soon.

Look, I`m strongly opposed to the war, too.  But those who started it and are burning through ferocious sums off-budget are the same ones who turned K street into a pork orgy feast while distracting us with loud claims that we need to be really, REALLY afraid of Islamofascists, gays, unmarried mothers who want abortions, enviros, liberals and immigrants.  They are NOT the ones who are saying we should do anything about climate change other than study it.  Given the Luntz memo and the Bush administration`s famous closeness to oil and coal interests, it`s a wonder you don`t think that the reason why they`ve been stonewalling (and wailing about lefty enviros - even while ignoring the scientific, corporate, investor, foreign, defense, intelligence, religious and other concern) is because they`ve been paid good money to do so (and have their own money at stake).

In any cas, an argument against he way is not an argument for denying climate change.  Even Ron Paul has said that he thinks we should be actively discussing this issue with other countries.

By the way, it was Bush`s father who, after much foot-dragging, signed the Framework Climate Convention that led to the IPCC - certainly not Dweeb Bush or Cheney.  This administration approved the IPCC`s reports only because it had no scientific grounds for refusing, after doing its best to water them down.  FWIW, Exxon`s scientists are also active participants in the IPCC and has approved the reports.

The concern is not with the volcano itself. The concern is with the unimaginable amounts of glacial ice that will be dumped into the ocean in a matter of minutes.

It`s hard to know wher you`re coming from.  It seems like you`re saying that because we never know when our car might be hit by a meteor or lightning, fall into an unknown sinkhole or enter a patch of blinding fog that we shouldn`t worry about how many drinks we have after we get in the car.  Why exercise any control over ourselves, ever?

Further, as a scientific matter, it`s been known for decades that Antarctica has active volcanoes and new ones are still being discovered.  But we have no evidence from seismic tracks etc. that any of this is new; in fact the one more recently discovered beneath an ice sheet appears to have been active for around 2000 years, so whatever effect it`s now having isn`t new - and Antarctic melting is accelerating:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/science/mterebus.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/avolcano.htm

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010

 

Juan: 

I`m happy you want to see subsidies eliminated, and good for you on saying it here before me - you win the race!  Now I challenge you to keep finding ways to make common cause with those hateful enviros to make the world a better place.  It might be a more successful stragegy than simply hating enviros.  But if you choose not to, you`re certainly in good company here, with folks who only want to argue with strawmen and those they can most easily demonize.

(In that connection, you might consider looking at my many posts on my blog about guys like Yandle, Callahan, Richman, Adler and others who are in favor of decentralization on climate change and elimination of subsidies, etc.)

TT:  "While I prefer where possible to strengthen property rights and tort law protections against pollution, rather than trying to have federal regulation for everything, I also realize that for certain cases our shared tool of government may serve productive or even essential purposes"

You:  So, you are a libertarian who believes that government is essential to protect the enviroment...

Juan, I`m in favor of rolling back our federal government generally, but I`m not an anarchist.  As for why I believe that a government tole is necessary and how I think the government should play a role, I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him drink.  You can read the things I write and argue with me, or you can refuse - you`re in charge of your own reality.  But Mises himself did not argue against a state role in creating/enforcing proerty rights, and there are plenty of libertarians who agree.  You`ll find some of them, and some of my further thoughts, here

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/draft.aspx

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/building-property-rights-for-common-resources.aspx

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/05/bruce-yandle-on-quot-no-regrets-quot-quot-free-market-environmentalist-quot-approaches-to-climate-change-policy.aspx

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/17/fighting-over-the-wheel-of-government.aspx

http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/

You:  With respect to science I think that my view of it is humble, while yours is indeed full of hubris. You think that state funded 'scientitsts' have figured out how the world works using some debatable facts and a bunch of math formulae as premises - I'd call that naive, if it weren't wholly politically motivated, wich, of course, it is.

It`s interesting that you, with your "humble" view, do nothing but makes unsupported, dismissive and conclusory statements about science, while I "arrogantly" try to explain my view and provide support for it.  I do not believe that my view is perfect or complete, and I am always willing to test it, in the way Ludwig von Mises said:  

"Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination." - Human Action

Is your view of the "non-science" of climate change really as "punture-proof" as you make it out to be?  Why do you need to assume that Exxon has ever changed its mind on climate science (as opposed to its political interests)?  It is investing millions in basic research to develop new, carbon-lite technologies.

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/04/murdoch-amp-149-other-top-vile-collectivists-capitalists-call-for-global-poverty.aspx

 Regards,

Tom

Tom:

I`m happy you want to see subsidies eliminated, and good for you on saying it here before me - you win the race!

Win the race ? What I think I win is the argument...

It might be a more successful stragegy than simply hating enviros.

Is that more PCness on your part ? Am I a thought criminal ? You see, denying the party line is hate speech, isn't it ?

But if you choose not to, you`re certainly in good company here, with folks who only want to argue with strawmen and those they can most easily demonize.

What's that supposed to mean ? If the 'Bush Administration' says that water is wet, am I expected to deny it ?

Tom:

Juan:

So, you are a libertarian who believes that government is essential to protect the enviroment...

Juan, I`m in favor of rolling back our federal government generally, but I`m not an anarchist.

That's not the point. You don't seem to be a miniarchist either - that is the point. You don't care about the rights of the individual. You're interested in protecting the 'enviroment' by violating individual rights, through government, wich is essential (so you claim)

As for why I believe that a government tool is necessary and how I think the government should play a role, I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him drink. You can read the things I write and argue with me, or you can refuse - you`re in charge of your own reality.

I think I'm arguing with you and I think you've not won a single one of these arguments - that is reality, not mine nor yours.

But Mises himself did not argue against a state role in creating/enforcing proerty rights,

Too bad for Mises (but notice that creation and enforcement are different things). Anyway, since you like arguments from authority, take a look at the Austrian quiz.

http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp

So what's the "Mises Institute approved"TM answer ? A, B, C, or D ?

It`s interesting that you, with your "humble" view, do nothing but makes unsupported, dismissive and conclusory statements about science, while I "arrogantly" try to explain my view and provide support for it.

I provided a better view of what is science and what is not. You're not refuting that. The point is not whether GW exists or not, but is a different and more fundamental one. What is GW ? Can 'science' deal in a deterministic way with the weather ? Do you understand that problem ? It's among other things, an information problem.

Mises:

"Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination."

Right. Do you realize that cuts both ways ?

Is your view of the "non-science" of climate change really as "punture-proof" as you make it out to be?

It's more correct than your view of science - wich is just repeating what the establishment dishes out.

Why do you need to assume that Exxon has ever changed its mind on climate science (as opposed to its political interests)? It is investing millions in basic research to develop new, carbon-lite technologies.

What's that supposed to prove ? To me it proves, and I'll repeat it for the third time, that people do politically correct things when it serves their self-interest. Also, firms do R&D. People at Exxon think that oil won't last forever, so they look for other solutions. Does that prove that GW is a problem ? No. Does that prove that GW even exists ? No. All your arguments are non-sequiturs.

TokyoTom:

 

Look, I`m strongly opposed to the war, too.  But those who started it and are burning through ferocious sums off-budget are the same ones who turned K street into a pork orgy feast while distracting us with loud claims that we need to be really, REALLY afraid of Islamofascists, gays, unmarried mothers who want abortions, enviros, liberals and immigrants.  They are NOT the ones who are saying we should do anything about climate change other than study it. [...]

You are wrong. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton. This was when the war really started. Clinton has killed as many innocent Iraqis as Bush 43, only his weapons of choice were disease and starvation by way of trade sanctions. Bill Clintion was also the one who signed the law requiring the phone companies to build their digital equipment in a way that allows the government to wiretap it in real-time. This is what made Bush's illegal wiretapping possible in the first place. The destruction/invasion/occupation of Iraq was never about oil as such.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008011.asp

Hillary or Obama might be likely to pay more lip service to diplomacy than McCain, but they will never willingly abandon the embassy and millitary bases being built there. The democratic politicians have accomplished nothing with regard to policy toward Iraq (or Iran) because they are just as much harlots in the employ of the plutocracy as the neocons. To maintain the illusion of political conflict, they happen to use a different set of lies. And one of those lies is that in order to save the planet from ecological destruction, they need political authority over the entire world.

 

TokyoTom:

[...] Further, as a scientific matter, it`s been known for decades that Antarctica has active volcanoes and new ones are still being discovered.  But we have no evidence from seismic tracks etc. that any of this is new; [...]

That this is nothing new was exactly my point. Humans have long had a peculiar tendency to fill the cracks in our knowledge of the world around us with boogeymen. Those boogeymen get the blame for the bad things that happen to us when they happen for reasons we don't otherwise understand. Throughout history, the predatory classes have used those cracks in our knowledge as systems of control by dictating which boogeymen live in which cracks. The weather has changed, and will change, sometimes catastrophically, for reasons that have nothing to do with humans. But this fact is useless as system of control and therefore receives no attention. It's only the fact that the weather also changes for reasons we don't understand that allows it to serve as a system of control.

 

Why is it that the debate over climate change on a message board about philosophy and economics is focused on science?  Like it or not, you are not scientists.  As far as I can tell, you don't even understand the science.  So why not deal with the question that is within your abilities: What would be the libertarian response to anthropogenic climate change if we knew that it were occurring?

Danny, This forum is, I hope, devoted to philosophy and economics, not to pseudo - science - fiction. If you're interested in cheesy sci-fi, fine, but don't confuse it with philosophy. Now, from a philosophical POV it is quite legitimate to ask what the pseudo-scientific establishment is talking about, and it is quite legitimate to critize their flawed methods.

What I do not like is that this forum is full of nazi quotations.. I am not sure, if von Mises liked a forum with this content under his name..

Juan, from our past conversations you've made it clear that you don't have an intimate enough understanding of the mainstream position to criticize it from a methodological standpoint.  Your position is made even shakier by the fact that the mainstream position is a synthesis of a number of lines of evidence coming from multiple scientific disciplines, which means that a methodological objection needs to address the methodologies of a collection of fundamentally different branches of science.  I'm comfortable saying that you aren't qualified to offer that kind of objection.

I'm not saying that the mainstream position is correct.  I'm only saying that the members of this forum have shown an almost embarrassing inability to critique the mainstream position with anything even resembling effectiveness.  You guys simply don't know what you're talking about.  So I'm suggesting that you might find your time better spent answering questions like the following:

If we knew that climate change were being caused by humans, what would the proper libertarian response be?  What rights, if any, would be violated?

How should scientific uncertainty be dealt with in light of the fact that we might not resolve that uncertainty for a long time?

Can people legitimately be held accountable for damage that has not occurred yet?  If so, how would this be done?

There are a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with, and libertarians are dragging their feet.  As political philosophers, we need to stop focusing on science and start focusing on political philosophy.

Juan, from our past conversations you've made it clear that you don't have an intimate enough understanding of the mainstream position to criticize it from a methodological standpoint.

Danny, I don't know what 'past conversations' you're alluding to. In this conversation it's been shown that GWarmers (is that a word ?) don't know what empirical science is, what kind of problems it can solve and what kind of knowledge it can provide.

You don't understand that either, and seem to instead like to play the central planner game - How should society be 'designed' given the non-problem of GW ? I don't know and I don't care. I don't waste my time solving non-problems wich if existed would be solved 'by the market'. My only comment is, I suggest you don't advocate anything that violates individual rights...I mean, you're a libertarian, right ?

Can people legitimately be held accountable for damage that has not occurred yet?

Right. That kind of question makes clear you're talking about fantasy not about real political problems.

Donny with an A:

Juan, from our past conversations you've made it clear that you don't have an intimate enough understanding of the mainstream position to criticize it from a methodological standpoint.  Your position is made even shakier by the fact that the mainstream position is a synthesis of a number of lines of evidence coming from multiple scientific disciplines, which means that a methodological objection needs to address the methodologies of a collection of fundamentally different branches of science.  I'm comfortable saying that you aren't qualified to offer that kind of objection.

I'm not saying that the mainstream position is correct.  I'm only saying that the members of this forum have shown an almost embarrassing inability to critique the mainstream position with anything even resembling effectiveness.  You guys simply don't know what you're talking about.  So I'm suggesting that you might find your time better spent answering questions like the following:

If we knew that climate change were being caused by humans, what would the proper libertarian response be?  What rights, if any, would be violated?

How should scientific uncertainty be dealt with in light of the fact that we might not resolve that uncertainty for a long time?

Can people legitimately be held accountable for damage that has not occurred yet?  If so, how would this be done?

There are a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with, and libertarians are dragging their feet.  As political philosophers, we need to stop focusing on science and start focusing on political philosophy.

A good, consistent first step would be to ban community-members from having more than their fair share of children (two). That would absolutely result in fewer emissions. After ensuring their won't be an excess of people, the community needs to ensure that no one produces more than their fair share of carbon. Whenever a community-member makes a purchase, the carbon-footprint of that item needs to be calculated and added to his/her yearly total. If the yearly total of carbon is exceeded, the community-member needs to buy carbon-credits to offset his/her excessive lifestyle. The cost of each carbon-credit should chosen by the community in direct, democratic elections.