Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The IPCC has been wrong in the past.

Yes. I understand that if you look at the projections of the previous reports, if anything they've proven to be too optimistic. It's likely one of the more important projections in this report, sea level increase, will also prove optimistic, since they explicitly don't include effects of ice sheet dynamics, and all the uncertainties there are on the 'makes it worse' side.

Denialists really need to get over it at this point. The earth is not flat, and the climate is warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The models can't be made to fit the data without the gases having a major effect.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 2, 2007 09:13 AM

Denialists really need to get over it at this point.

You seem to be missing the point. We're arguing about the proposed solution, not the problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 09:14 AM

"We could stabilize emissions at a cost to the world of 5 percent of GDP (bear in mind that the Iraq War is costing America 0.8 percent of GDP and the world as a whole a lot less)"

Where does he get this 5 percent number?

Seems to me that the growth in Green Technologies required to cut emissions is likely not in the 5 percent equation. In additon to which our quality of life may improve substantially if the pollutants/allergens etc. in current emissions are addressed jointly with warming. The quality of life / imporved health cost savings could also be substantial and probably even more so for horribly polluted countries like China and India.

Technological innovation has always surprised us, hasn't it? Why can't we believe the same will happen if we address global warming? As an engineer I would rather bet on engineering innovation than a bunch of economists, even if they weren't funded by a pre-disposed think tank, coming up with the cost number.

I don't see a big downside to trying. Heck, hybrid cars were laughed at by industry initially and now every manufacturer is scrambling to keep up with Toyota. Meanwhile I know people getting 27-28 mpg in their Hybrid SUVs and if more people "had" to buy them they'd get $7-8k cheaper.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 2, 2007 09:18 AM

Personally, what I think is going on is that all the scientists are saying "engineers, you need to make alternate fuel sources, the world is ending, ahhhh!". The engineers are saying, "get off our backs, we started working on this a long time ago, and we'll get there when we get there!"

In the end, all the shouting is just making the issue emotional. If you really believe that Global Warming is the end of the world, put your money there - start/fund a company that is working on alternative energy. Don't try to get the government to enforce your worldview on everyone else - it isn't necessary. We don't need hyperbole to motivate alternate energy sources, we take cash already.

Posted by David Summers at February 2, 2007 09:40 AM

"Denialists really need to get over it at this point. "

Careful with your Dogma, it might bite.

I think it is the Hyperbolists that really need to get over themselves. When one side goes to extradorinary lengths to shut out the other, it makes me realy question their true motives.

I would take anthropogenic global warming much more seriously if most of the Hyperbolists did not reject nuclear power as a viable solution out of hand. This lends creedance IMO to the Climate Change as a stalking horse for political change by subterfuge hypothesis.

Toast n Tea,

Well more than half of man-made CO2 comes from Smokestack emissions. Passenger vehicles are a relatively small actor.

Again, we have a solution but lack the will to apply it.

There are far worse things that come out of the stacks of Coal fired power plants than CO2 IMO.

Like mercury that bioaccumulates in our food chain along with other heavy toxic elements.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 2, 2007 09:53 AM

Careful with your Dogma, it might bite.

Oh, I don't expect to be the one eating crow about this, Mike.

When one side goes to extradorinary lengths to shut out the other, it makes me realy question their true motives.

They aren't being shut out. The denialists' reputations are being held to account for their statements. Do you think one can say anything at all and not be judged for it, that criticism of sustained error is somehow improper?

What those who have been denying the emerged concensus on global warming are going through is the pain of cognitive dissonance as a position they have personally invested their egos in is progressively demonstrated to be wrong.

I would take anthropogenic global warming much more seriously if most of the Hyperbolists did not reject nuclear power as a viable solution out of hand.

And this position of yours is silly. The question of whether the release of greenhouse gases is warming the planet is a question about physical reality, to be addressed by objective examination of the evidence. The IPCC report is a product of the global scientific community, not 'hyperbolists'(*). That someone untrustworthy also has a position on this doesn't change anything.

(*) 'Denialist' is, OTOH, a perfectly fine term, since those being refered to aren't scientists producing something like the IPCC report. They are just denying a reality they don't like.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 2, 2007 10:24 AM

I agree with the Blender of Puppies:

When they start promoting nukes, stop flying private jets, and stop otherwise consuming several times the resources of most of us peasants, I'll start to take these people a little more at their word. Until then, it just looks to me like they want power over everybody else to "make things right".

Posted by Big D at February 2, 2007 10:26 AM

Mike, I agree with your comments. Especially in regard to wht is spewed into the air. I should, knowing kids with asthma. And on the Nuclear issue, I think many enviros are turning in that direction as the least worst option that can actully meet our energy needs.

On the other hand, I don't think we can adopt an approach of no governmental intervention and and still realistically address the problem. I think if we do that we'll have what we've had for the last 10 years - no major shifts but rather incremental shifts which while nice do nothing significant. For those of a more rightward bent I would argue that it should be similar to what Krauthammer advocates for energy independence (a gas tax via a floor on the price ..something like $4.00). I can't see rapid change wihout some mandatary requirements. There would be a much better incentive for the engineers to come up with something if there was serious money in it.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 2, 2007 10:42 AM

And here's something on the topic that should fire some of us up ;-):

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 2, 2007 10:49 AM

"Oh, I don't expect to be the one eating crow about this, Mike."

Funny, neither do I. I tend to be on good terms with Corvids and do not anticipate consuming any of my friends.

"Blender of Puppies"

I like that.

Toast n' Tea,

Google on emissions from coal fired power plants for more info.

There ae far better things to do with coal than burning it as raw fuel. Making synfuel for example to ease dependance on foreign sources of oil. Then you can control the byproducts and impurities. Fischer-Tropsch is our friend, we should use him much more.

Instead of putting a price floor on Gas as you propose, Iu prefer the .gov providing a support for .alt fuels that guarentee if oil goes below the break even threshold of say $40 per barrel, the .gov will make up the difference.

This is to encourage the capital intensive investment necessary to get the ball rolling. This will priovide a firewall against someone like Saudia Arabia from deliberately oversupplying the market and pulling the rug out from under them.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 2, 2007 11:00 AM

If there can be a Fermi Paradox then there can be a D Paradox so I'm asking, "Where is it?"

Some forty years ago I read Commoner, Reich and some other puds and I read some of the apocalyptic predictions from the Club of Rome. I waited to see if any of the dire predictions made would come to pass and none have.

So now I ask, "Where is it?" How long must we wait to see more than theoretical predictions of dooming climatic events?

For that matter, for how many years now have we been at the "tipping point?" Haven't we passed already about a third of the current hundred year doom scenario?

How long to wait for proof? Where is it?

Posted by D Anghelone at February 2, 2007 11:57 AM

"The models can't be made to fit the data without the gases having a major effect."

While am not stating you are wrong, I am deeply suspicious any model that can only be made to work by the application of the politically correct theory (wish) de jour.

The "natural environment" we enjoy today is an anamoly in the grand scheme of things.

Also, to be honest, I deeply distrust the motives of the people master-minding this stuff.

Posted by at February 2, 2007 12:57 PM

So what do you use as your derogatory term for scientists who don't believe human activities are the dominant cause of the observed warming?

Between the solar-forcing factor and the trend out of the little ice age, there just isn't much left to be attributed to _anthropogenic_ global warming.

And the error bars are large enough for the possibility "humans have precisely zero effect" to be a statistically significant position.

Posted by Al at February 2, 2007 01:26 PM

I think I've mentioned this before on this blog. When I was in elementary school, the environmentalists came around and gave huge presentations about how we would be out of oil in 30 years. That was thirty years ago.

Environmentalist scare tactics had their chance with me and they blew it. I will not be fooled twice.

Global cooling used to be the scare. Before that it was global warming.

The proposed solutions are totally out of line with the problem--spend the money on malaria, AIDS, and clean water provisions, not cutting CO2 emissions by 10%.

Now on the flip side, I think electric cars are cool. Check out teslamotors.com. Reducing dependence on foreign oil would be great if practical, and I think nuclear energy (plus, perhaps other alternative energy sources) plus electric cars (not the 20-mile-per-charge variety, but the one like at tesla) have a real chance of doing that.

I sure hope they get a $25K model out soon. I can't manage the $100K sports car.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at February 2, 2007 01:53 PM

"The models can't be made to fit the data without the gases having a major effect."

******

Do you happen to have any links to the models themselves and the variables that they do consider?

I have seen very few of the models that incorporate global evaporation and transportation of H20, which has a far stronger effect on climate than CO2 but am willing to be convinced.

Also, I have seen the magnitude of known solar variability minimized in the models that I have seen. This raises the suspicion flag.

Also, what happens if the prediction of a new Maunder Minimum comes about (the solar physics community is split just about 50/50 on that one).

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 2, 2007 02:14 PM

Well Dennis, if that happens, kiss every band but 160 meters goodbye.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 2, 2007 02:28 PM

Anthropogenic-caused global warming has been around since the beginning of agriculture. See Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum".

Much of the numbers thrown about _assumes_ a doubling of CO2e from pre-industrial levels -- a level we won't see under "do nothing" scenarios for decades. While possible, our rapidly growing mastery of matter and energy will prevent us from reaching that particular mark. Massive attempts by the "New Aristocracy" to control humanity thereby become unnecessary and harmful.

The key to returning and maintaining atmospheric conditions at any particular level is continued development of mastery over matter and energy. Are nukes necessary? No, but they may be very helpful over the next half century. So will the rapid advances in energy storage techniques.

PS: Using terms like "denialists" and "hyperbolists" moots any rational discussion. It is important to have skeptics and cynics involved on all sides of a scientific argument. The use of these perjorative phrases is part of a power struggle (a dominant element of the IPCC activities) and not a search for fact.
Finally, "scientific consensus" is a contradiction in terms. "Consensus" is a political term and is inimical to science.

Posted by MG at February 2, 2007 02:30 PM

The Property insurance industry believes the
oceans are warming and sea levels are rising like heck.

The big firms are getting out of the property underwriting business
in coastal areas and jacking premiums like heck.

Given how Simberg grovels to insurance companies as the
fonts of brilliance, I'm sure he is completely
happy about his property insurance increases.

He is, isn't he?

Posted by anonymous at February 2, 2007 02:36 PM

Given how Simberg grovels to insurance companies as the fonts of brilliance, I'm sure he is completely happy about his property insurance increases.

I'm not happy about it, Anonymous Moron, but I'm not complaining, since it's perfectly understandable.

Once again, you demonstrate your utter failure to be able read my mind. Why not give it up? You are, after all, a moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 02:41 PM

Let's remember who we're dealing with. IPCC is partly a creation of WMO.

Audit report alleges corruption at U.N. weather agency.

Posted by D Anghelone at February 2, 2007 04:05 PM

Well Dennis, if that happens, kiss every band but 160 meters goodbye.

************

Actually this is not correct. Even in minima there are sporadic E skip events all the way up to the FM bands. Also, 80 meters will stay good. Most of the higher bands will go poof though. Oh well.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 2, 2007 04:35 PM

Now on the flip side, I think electric cars are cool.

They most certainly are, the acceleration on these things is phenomenal.

IMNSHO, Telsa Motors is making a big mistake by targeting their marketing almost exclusively on the californian envirohippies. The biggest appeal of an electric car is the torque.

Posted by Adrasteia at February 2, 2007 04:51 PM

Dennis,

Remember this is in the context of fiction but it expalins what RF would have been like during the Maunder Minimum:

http://1632.org/1632tech/faqs/radio-rfe.html

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 2, 2007 06:33 PM

If you really believe that Global Warming is the end of the world, put your money there - start/fund a company that is working on alternative energy.

It is one the standard arguments of polluters through the ages: "If you think that this is such a problem, then I will switch if and when you invent a more profitable alternative." This was not an acceptable answer when the question was hydraulic gold mining, nor when it was leaded gasoline. It is not an acceptable answer now to global warming.

Coal-fired electricity will always be extremely cheap to the electricity producer and the electricity consumer. The problem is that it is very expensive in the long run to anyone with coastal property. So the question is not whether there are more profitable alternatives, it's whether there are alternatives with lower collective cost. The 5% of GDP estimate is hand-waving, sky-is-falling nonsense. The truth is that both nuclear and wind electricity are a lot cheaper than that. But producers won't switch away from coal unless and until they are forced to face the cost of pollution.

You can see why environmentalism rankles libertarians. (And even conservatives who cherry-pick libertarianism.) The notion of collective costs leads to the anathema, collectivism. Now, I think that the libertarians make many fair points, but if you take libertarianism to this extreme, it would only make sense if we all lived on separate planets. Rand may be hoping for that one day, but let us say conservatively that we're not there yet.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 07:09 PM

The truth is that both nuclear and wind electricity are a lot cheaper than that.

Nuclear plants could be cheaper than coal, and in France they most certainly are.

The problem is that in the US, certain types of people like to lie infront of the bulldozers that are used to construct them. This unneccessarily pushes up cost.

Posted by Adrasteia at February 2, 2007 07:34 PM

> The 5% of GDP estimate is hand-waving, sky-is-falling nonsense. The truth
> is that both nuclear and wind electricity are a lot cheaper than that. But
> producers won't switch away from coal unless and until they are forced
> to face the cost of pollution.

No, Jim, producers won't switch from coal to nuclear because some political groups won't let them.

It's not the Evil Libertarians, either. (Doesn't Mark Whittington hold the copyright on that rant? :-)

If collectivism is the solution to pollution, why are the most collectivist countries (Communist China, the Soviet Union) also the most polluted? And why do collectivists in the United States oppose technologies like nuclear power that would reduce pollution?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 2, 2007 08:11 PM

If collectivism is the solution to pollution, why are the most collectivist countries (Communist China, the Soviet Union) also the most polluted?

That's like asking, "If exercise is good for you, why do football players have so many health problems?" Some problems require collective solutions --- certainly banning leaded gasoline is one example --- but that doesn't mean that collectivism is the complete solution to all of life's problems.

No, Jim, producers won't switch from coal to nuclear because some political groups won't let them.

For both safety and security reasons, nuclear power is inherently a collective enterprise, that is, a child of government policy. You're never going to see "Joe Bob's fishing pole and enriched uranium supply store". It is true that most environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power and I don't really agree with them, but it is not as simple as a handful of lefties laying down in front of bulldozers. If it were that simple, it would not have stopped the Republicans who had a political near-monopoly in Washington for 6 years. The truth is that the anti-nuclear faction has the ear of a majority of Americans. That's too bad, but that's the way it is. On the other hand, it is a really dumb reason to oppose the Kyoto accord.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 08:27 PM

The aspect that is not being discussed here is the fact that if global warming is real, that the resulting warmer world would be better for us and, therefor, it is silly to try to do anything to stop it. This is the position that I and many others take. We need to increase the level of CO2 from 380ppm up to 700-1000ppm, which is optimal for plant growth. This will be good for agriculture and will actually increase the amount of rain fall over much of the Earth. This is very positive and should be encouraged. Also, a warmer world will be a world with much more percentage of the land area having pleasant climate to live in, this is also very positive and should be encouraged as well.

I look forward to a warmer world and believe in doing everything possible to make it happen. The people who think global warming is bad are misguided and are promoting actions that would limit economic growth while, at the sametime, will do very little to stop the global warming (which need not be stopped anyways).

Posted by Kurt9 at February 2, 2007 10:27 PM

One of the reasons why we are so dependent on middle-eastern oil is because of the irrational anti-nuclear hysteria that started in the 70's. This is a boomer thing. Once the boomers die-off, the anti-nuclear hysteria will die-off with them and we can start building the 300-500 one-gigawatt nuclear plants that will help to lessen our dependence on middle-eastern oil.

I understand that there is a company in Texas that has developed an "ultracapacitor" technology that makes the plug-in recharable cars feasible. Anyone know anything about this?

Also, government regulation is stupid and misguided. A much simpler and effective approach would be a series of X-prizes for the development of the technology to obsolete fossil fuels.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 2, 2007 10:33 PM

> That's like asking, "If exercise is good for you, why do football players have so many health problems?"

Meaning what? Do you think the Soviet Union was so polluted because it was an economic powerhouse?

> Some problems require collective solutions --- certainly banning leaded gasoline is one example ---
> but that doesn't mean that collectivism is the complete solution to all of life's problems.

You haven't shown that collectivism is the solution to any of life's problems.

> For both safety and security reasons, nuclear power is inherently a collective enterprise, that is, a child
> of government policy. You're never going to see "Joe Bob's fishing pole and enriched uranium supply store".

No, nuclear power is not inherently a collective enterprise. You never heard of Wesinghouse? General Electric? Con Ed?

You just proved my point, Jim. Many people who talk about global warming don't want a solution. They want to use it as a club to spread their ideology, as you are doing.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 3, 2007 02:31 AM

Kurt9, you may look forward to a warmer world. I on the other hand hate looking out during the short days of winter at mud. Some of us do happen to like snow and like it to STICK so we can SKI and also so that it is BRIGHT and PRETTY. Maybe you should try skiing or some other way of enjoying snow as well, it might be better for your health than global warming our asses on a couch breathing stale air.

Posted by Offside at February 3, 2007 06:51 AM

Do you think the Soviet Union was so polluted because it was an economic powerhouse?

The point is that there are many kinds of cooperation in the world, for many purposes. Some of them are good and some are bad. Lumping all kinds cooperation together as "collectivism" is fanatical thinking. The American ban on leaded gasoline is a kind of collective action, but it has nothing to do with Soviet Communism --- except in the minds of people who hate environmentalism in general.

No, nuclear power is not inherently a collective enterprise. You never heard of Wesinghouse? General Electric? Con Ed?

They are so heavily regulated that they are basically government contractors. Which is the way that it has to be unless you would like to see enriched uranium for sale on E-Bay.

They want to use it as a club to spread their ideology, as you are doing.

This is rather like the situation with Christianity in public schools. Some Christians think of their beliefs as the default. They see any step away from Christianity --- for example teaching evolution in biology class --- as an ideological attack on the reasonable middle ground. The truth is that evolution, not either creationism or intelligent design nor even any equal-time doctrine, is the reasonable middle ground in biology class.

By the same token, I personally have no a priori opposition to libertarianism. The libertarians make a lot of good points and their doctrine has its place. But I also care about the environment. Axiomatic libertarianism would stand in the way of reasonable action on leaded gasoline, the ozone hole, or global warming. We all share the same atmosphere; there is no way to cut it up into private lots.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 09:43 AM

I personally think a Libertarian case can be made for some Environmental regulation under the old Oliver Wendel Holmes precept that: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins".

Most pollution will not remain onsite and will wander or infiltrate onto other peoples property. Anyone degrading my property, water or air is in essence taking my property.

To claim that Libertarianism precludes proper and sane Environmental laws is silly. It just sets a higher standard for invoking the power of government. Libertarianism is not Anarchy.

And I say this as someone more between Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul and not a pure Libertarian by any stretch.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 3, 2007 10:41 AM

Axiomatic libertarianism would stand in the way of reasonable action on leaded gasoline, the ozone hole, or global warming. We all share the same atmosphere; there is no way to cut it up into private lots.

What you have forgotten is that men may, in fact, be rational. That they may voluntarily act collectively to address issues such as these. This is what the libertarian believes.

The label "collectivism" is not usually applied by the latter merely to systems that promote collective action, or in which action in support of group goals is encouraged. (If it were, then any libertarian who believed big firms like IBM or GE were a sensible human development would ipso facto become a crypto-collectivist.)

Usually what folks call "collectivist" is a system in which some minority (a Politburo, a Senate, or a National Academy) imposes its will on everyone else for the collective good. It's not the pursuit of collective goals to which people object so much as the choice of coercive, anti-liberty means to pursue them.

The true collectivist responds, usually, by revealing that in the end he does not believe the average man is rational. The true collectivist is an elitist who believes that most people really do need decisions to be made for them, by force if need be, because otherwise they'll make the wrong choices. He really believes that, faced with incontrovertable evidence that choosing to buy an SUV instead of a hybrid will destroy the future, the average Joe will nevertheless make the wrong choice and doom us all.

And the counter argument to this is that, as history shows, attempts to pick out the best and brightest and put them in charge of us all have inevitably proved worse than just letting folks do more or less what they want. It's difficult to see a conclusion other than that, yes, it's true that picking out the best of us to make decisions for all of us obviously should -- in theory -- improve things, but in practise it never ever does.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 3, 2007 10:43 AM

What you have forgotten is that men may, in fact, be rational. That they may voluntarily act collectively to address issues such as these.

There is no rational self-interest in giving up leaded gasoline in favor of catalytic converters. Leaded gasoline is still cheaper than the alternatives, and it is still used in restricted circumstances. The only reasons to give it up are altruism and coercion. Yet these are the twin evils of libertarian/Randian thought.

I have to repeat that I often agree with the libertarians. Coercion is usually a bad thing. Some of the world's worst people are self-perceived altruists who refuse to stop. All I'm saying is that libertarianism isn't universal salvation.

[The collectivist] really believes that, faced with incontrovertable evidence that choosing to buy an SUV instead of a hybrid will destroy the future, the average Joe will nevertheless make the wrong choice and doom us all.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. That is exactly the way that people once b*tched about the move away from leaded gas. It's not really that lead poisons us, it's that collectivist enviros are on an elitist crusade. In its early days, the Reagan Administration maneuvered to let the lead back in.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Offside,

I'm a beach and bar guy myself. I like scuba diving, wind wurfing, and sailing. I like to party in tropical places. I dislike cold weather.

Anyways, global warming will bring more, not less, snow to higher elevations. The reason is that global warming will increase the energy in the atmosphere and, thus, create more precipitation. At higher elevations (mountain areas) this will still come down as snow because even if the earth does warm up an additional 5degC, these areas will still be cold enough to get snow.

In the global warming scenario, you will still be able to ski, you just won't have to put up with the snow-clogged streets in the city.

Anyways, any kind of government regulation on this issue is simply plain dumb. Most people won't go for it and even if it did pass, it will simply drive the remaining energy-intensive industries (i.e. manufacturing) to China and other Asian countries. Since most of my work is there, this suits me just fine. However, this is not such a great scenario for most Americans who do not speak Japanese or Chinese and how do not work in industries that sell into Asia.

I actually do think civilization should get past using hydrocarbon energy sources. However, instead of bone-headed regulation that will just crater the economy, I think the X-Prize approach is a vastly superior approach to obsoleting hydrocardon energy sources.

Even the CEO of Exxon-Mobil said that burning petroleum for energy is like burning Picasso paintings to heat the house. Some form of nuclear power (and deep geothermal) is far superior. We have also seen how government funded science never works (i.e. NASA, Tokamak fusion program, etc.), which clearly shows the bureaucracy cannot do the job. So, why not remove government bureaucracy from the equation and institute X-prizes for the people who develop new approaches to nuclear or other novel forms of energy? This approach would also help to promote rather than retard economic growth in the U.S., which would be good for all of us who do not have my Asian business experience/connections.

Posted by Kurt9 at February 3, 2007 11:21 AM

Forget it. It's a done deal. The pseudoLeft's dream of World Government is here, bar a bit of argy-bargy.

The current crop of politicians has abdicated all responsibility. If they're responsible, somebody might blame them, and therefore not vote for them, and that would cut off their access to graft, coke, and fellatio. They therefore pass "enabling" laws, and devolve responsibility for actual regulation to faceless bureaucrats who operate with no checks whatever; the politicians don't know what they're doing and don't want to, and nobody else has the chops to rein them in.

This is ideal. We will have a UN Intergovernmental Convention and a treaty of some sort; then we will have a massive and growing bureaucracy who will impose regulations as the whim suits. When constituents complain, the politicos will shrug and say, "'Tain't my fault, we gotta follow the rules." Mr. Harris fondly imagines that as one of the supporters of the notion he will have some small privilege as an advisor. He is mistaken; they need no advisors, only toadies. But he won't discover his mistake until too late. Others, more cynical, will go to work for our new masters, cash the salary checks, and mouth the platitudes necessary to stay employed.

For a brief look at the middle-term result, check the very old Poul Anderson story UN Man. (Note that Anderson approved.) Longer term -- well, when the Roman Empire collapsed the only surviving remnant was the bureaucracy originally set up to manage religious affairs. Possibly the only thing left of the U.S. in another couple of centuries will be the EPA, managed as a near-absolute tyranny. There may not even be that.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at February 3, 2007 11:30 AM

> The point is that there are many kinds of cooperation in the world, for many purposes. Some of them
> are good and some are bad. Lumping all kinds cooperation together as "collectivism" is fanatical thinking.

Right -- even Evil Libertarians cooperate with one another.

You're the only who claimed cooperation requires collectivism. So, who's engaged in "fanatical thinking?"

> The American ban on leaded gasoline is a kind of collective action,

It was a regulatory action. Calling every government action collectivism is political cant.

>> No, nuclear power is not inherently a collective enterprise. You never heard of Wesinghouse? General Electric? Con Ed?

> They are so heavily regulated that they are basically government contractors.

No, they are private enterprise. The facts are not on your side, Jim.

> Which is the way that it has to be unless you would like to see enriched uranium for sale on E-Bay.

Nonsense. Do you think everything that's sold is sold on Ebay?

Ebay doesn't allow the sale of enriched uranium. They don't allow the sale of dynamite, most live animals, and most forms of alcohol.

Does that mean selling horses, cattle, and beer is not private enterprise?

>> They want to use it as a club to spread their ideology, as you are doing.

> This is rather like the situation with Christianity in public schools. Some Christians
> think of their beliefs as the default.

Whether or not that is true, it's irrelevant. Christians do not going around screaming about a coming environmental catastrophe and then refusing to allow the adoption of technologies that could prevent it.

Well, except for Christians who also happen to be radical environmentalists. Contrary to your stereotyping, the two groups are not mutually exclusive.

> By the same token, I personally have no a priori opposition to libertarianism. The libertarians make
> a lot of good points and their doctrine has its place. But I also care about the environment.

I care about the environment, Jim. I've probably worked on more endangered species research projects than you have.

By not allowing the use of technology that could reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Left is holding the environment hostage to the Global Warming gun and threatening to shoot unless the world agrees to their demands. You don't do that to something you care about, Jim.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 3, 2007 12:55 PM

Simberg

so why aren'y you happy that your insurance is going up?

After all, it's just a fluke of nature that the polar caps are
melting. After all, insurance companies know everything,
so why aren't you happy tha tyour insurance rates are
rising?

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 01:28 PM

After all, insurance companies know everything,
so why aren't you happy that your insurance rates are rising?

This has to be one of the stupidest and most nonsensical questions that you've ever asked, and that's a pretty high bar, given that you are the most consistently stupid commenter that I've ever had at this site.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 3, 2007 01:30 PM

He does make the rest of us look damn good in comparison. I will grant ole Rob that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 3, 2007 03:32 PM

Well if you are so unhappy with your insurance company,
why don't you drop the coverage?

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 03:48 PM

Why is Rand's relationship with his insurance company any of your business? Perhaps when you can establish that, he might answer you.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 3, 2007 04:10 PM

> Why is Rand's relationship with his insurance company any of your business?

Because it's Rand's insurance. Like most stalkers, Mr. Anonymous has an abnormal obsession with his victim's personal life.

If Rand put his dirty underwear up for sale on Ebay, Mr. Anonymous would probably bid on it.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 3, 2007 08:57 PM

It will cost much less than 5% of GDP to achieve zero emmissions. Solar power Satellites are emission free and will cost less than 1% of GDP.

See details at these links:

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

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Solar_Power_Satellites

As well as elminating global warming, there is a peace dividend due to elimination of oil revenues to unfriendly countries and groups.

Posted by Charles Radley at February 4, 2007 10:24 AM

There is no rational self-interest in giving up leaded gasoline in favor of catalytic converters.

Are you an idiot, or do you not have children for whom it would be exceedingly bad (brain damage) to breathe lead in the air? Or both?

Leaded gasoline is still cheaper than the alternatives, and it is still used in restricted circumstances.

It's only cheaper in the sense that it's cheaper to not bother filling your gas tank before you take off on a 100 mile drive across the desert. Short run only, possibly very short.

You're just stuck in the belief that ordinary people are incapable of balancing short- and long-term costs, and will inevitably pick short-term gain (cheaper gas! yay!) over long-term gain (children with fewer birth defects, less environmental damage). You think Smart People(TM), amongst whom you count your considerable self, should simply tell the rest of us what to do, for our own good.

Good luck with that message, man. I'd say if it succeeds -- if people are dumb enough to put their future into your hands -- then you'll be proven right, people are too dumb to rule themselves.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 05:16 PM

Post a comment