Global warming?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The positive impact is elsewhere in the equation: to allow us to live, in numbers, in comfort, and to move around as necessary to drive the economy and improve the standard of living of the entire world.

And we can only accomplish that by a further reliance on fossil fuels and, if we want to be solely reliant on US oil, by drilling in sensitive environmental areas, which will still not meet US demand?

Weak argument, IMO. Not just weak, baseless.

Here are two of them:

Weakening the economy could prevent the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence and will, that will be necessary to get China, India, and Russia to go along with the plan.

There may not be enough general political will to embrace an environmental project aimed at helping something highly abstract, especially during a recession with a deep budget deficit and other big budget items on the table.

No one is suggestion cutting off all use of oil tomorrow or even within the next 5 years or 20 years. There is no evidence that reducing (not eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels by reasonable amounts over a period of time (20+ yrs) would weaken the economy....unless you believe the "sky is falling" oil industry and free market crowd

Another weak argument....much like the arguments made decades ago about the tough environmental laws that were enacted (they cost too much, they will make the US less competitive....). In fact, the economy became more diverse and innovative and thus stronger.

As to "preventing the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence.....", my only response is "huh"?

Leading by example has served us well, at least until recently, when, in many cases, our examples have not been so positive and have weakened our influence. Becoming a leader in developing, then exporting (selling) energy efficient technologies to other countries would more likely have a positive impact.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

And we can only accomplish that by a further reliance on fossil fuels and, if we want to be solely reliant on US oil, by drilling in sensitive environmental areas, which will still not meet US demand?

Another day, another Redux straw man.

There is no evidence that reducing (not eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels by reasonable amounts over a period of time (20+ yrs) would weaken the economy....unless you believe the "sky is falling" oil industry and free market crowd

Well I took Econ 101 so I understand that artificially limiting supply raises prices. If that means I'm part of the "free market crowd" then I guess I am outside the group of people whom you will listen to. Pity.

Another weak argument....much like the arguments made decades ago about the tough environmental laws that were enacted (they cost too much, they will make the US less competitive....). In fact, the economy became more diverse and innovative and thus stronger.

Can you see it now? This is productivity. The Clean Air Acts of 1963, 1970, 1977, the Clean Water Acts of 1972, 1977 and 1987 took their toll on it. I think these were positive, necessary steps. I think China is skipping a similar change so they can grow their economy at the most rapid rate. At some point energy will be cheaper to China than it is to the US. Since the Chinese population is four times the US,... how much ya want to hobble the US in dealing with them? Another two decades?

To also put this into perspective, if productivity growth is less than zero, your children will live a lower standard of living than you do.

[Henry]

Citing flat earth theory and other failed premises, or evolution and other successful premises, as synonymous to the AGW debate is a straw man argument - apples and oranges. These sorts of questions are scientific in nature and the debate did not conclude until the evidence was in. Long ago for flat earth theory (perhaps 5,000 years ago when the first mariner noticed the way the mast of a ship over the horizon emerges into view from top down), more recently for evolution, of course.

They fail at being representative corollaries because the AGW evidence is decidely not in, nor is the debate over. The debate may be over once a pro-AGW advocate is convinced, but others are not bound to his or her decision.

Citing consensus or citing the 'sheer numbers' of those who believe is a logical fallacy, that of the appeal to popularity, that if enough people believe a thing, that thing must be true. It brings an obvious question that illustrates why appeals to popularity lead inevitably to error - where is the tipping point? Is a premise untrue at 2,734,919 believers, but true at 2,734,920? True at 50.1% but not at 50%? It's absurd. That's not how reliable new knowledge is determined.

How then is it determined? By the scientific evidence, of course. With AGW the evidence depends entirely on one's faith in projective modeling, a decidedly unreliable methodology where the processes being modeled are complex, and very little exceeds global climate change in complexity. How to have faith, how to award belief, to a set of models that failed to predict global cooling over the past decade or so? Not to mention that if one speaks in terms of believing or not believing, one has ceased to speak in scientific terms.

Do not assume that because you hear so few voices speaking out against the 'fact' of AGW, that there are no such voices to be heard. Few can argue against the fact that to refuse to believe in AGW is to invite shout-downs of "denier! infidel! blasphemer!" and accusations of being pro-corporate fascist, capitalist pig, or any number of other belief-serving blind assumptions, nor is it any coincidence that this sort of reaction, just like the appeal to 'believe', is the stuff of religion, not science. One can imagine the appropriate AGW bumper sticker or tee shirt: "Gore said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

If not the evidence, then what convinces people of AGW? That question may only be answered by the individuals involved, but one look at the resultant implications if/were anthropogenic global warming true lends a clue. If AWG is a fact and at a precipitously calamitous level, then all sorts of responses arise. They happen to fall right in line with certain political agenda, and those groups have seized the moment.

AGW justifies greenies wanting to move ASAP away from fossil fuels to renewables. AGW justifies those who would love to undermine the infrastructure of capitalism and western-style 'big bidness' sich as oil, coal, transportation, etc. AGW is extremely handy because of its global scope - one can use it to justify virtually anything with a little creative thinking.

Has the question of AGW been co-opted by assorted political factions in furtherance of their respective agenda? I don't think there's any doubt about that, nor that there's much doubt that most of these factions won little traction for their efforts before this latest round of global climate warnings. Logic dictates that AGW could be co-opted for political gain and also be true, but certification depends on solid, scientific evidence, not solidly done prospective models that nonetheless require faith in order to believe them accurate. A poorly executed scientific experiment or research teaches one nothing, for the results cannot be trusted. However, a well executed, well-controlled scientific experiment more often than not tells us our hypothesis was wrong than right, and this is a success. Too many pro-AGW advocates defend the scientific efficacy of the research and modeling as if that automatically translates into proof of AGW. That is nonsense. That jury remains faaaaar out.

I am old and recall the global cooling warnings of the 1970s, but more pertinently, I remember how assorted political factions attempted to co-opt global cooling for their agenda as well. Their efforts were short-lived and global cooling got little traction because (1) the science in support of it was scant, and (2) it was not claimed to be man-made, therefore held little political co-optive value.

If AGW were being co-opted politically, exaggerated in an effort to grab traction for pet political positions, what observations would that hypothesis produce?

1. First of all, you'd see dire predictions implying need of immediate actions.

2. Those immediately needed actions will coincide with the long-stated desires of a fairly narrow region of the political spectrum, most of which were sought before AGW came along.

3. Those dire predictions would remain always in the near-distant future, but not so distant as to lose their immediacy. Everything is just twenty years away. Twenty years from now, if AGW is not as advertised, everything will remain just twenty years away.

4. People who don't know how to interpret the scientific data will pretend they do, or will accept the interpretations of those who do know how - they will extend faith, once removed, and have no way to know if these trusted scientific believers are correct or not. Advocates will cite 'science' but think and behave decidedly unscientifically, relying on fallacies of logic, unscientific reasoning, and other pathways known to lead to error.

5. Propagandic practices will emerge if AGW is being co-opted for political gain. The crux of the biscuit is The Debate: Is Man Causing Global Warming And Is It Catastrophic? Political c0-option means the debate must be ended. However, the science and research is far from reliable, far from completed. What to do? Why, you simply declare there is no debate and move on. This makes it necessary to behave with obvious incongruency though - you'd have to simultaneously claim there is no debate even while the actual scientists continue to debate. However, if AGW is simply a political co-option, propagandic practices dictate you must declare the debate over and shout down anyone who says otherwise. Concoct negative labels like "deniers", which brings a tinge of evil resonance because of genuine labels from other debates, like 'Holocaust deniers'. If the infidel still resists, tie his refusal to believe negatively to his citizenship, his patriotism, or his morality. Keep it up until you find the irrelevancy that finally sticks. Eventually you'll wear him down anyway.

6. The truth of AGW lies along a continuum somewhere between (a) an as yet scientifically unproved hypothesis at best, and (b) an utter myth with no basis in reality at worst. However, if it is being co-opted to further socio-political goals, the discussion and 'debate' will proceed not on the acceptance of scientific evidence so strong it becomes unreasonable and illogical, not to accept it, but on calls to faith, on emotional appeals to believe for the good of __________ [fill in the political goal(s)], with castigations foisted upon the good citizenship, sincerity, patriotism, intelligence, and morality of any denier with the temerity to refuse to join the faith-based movement.

These are the sort of observations we'd expect to make if there were people using AGW to promote socio-political agenda. I'll leave it to the individual reader to decide if any of these are in evidence.

The amount of evidence for AGW is huge, literally mountains of data. However, far too much of it is speculative to say the least and emits from models of dubious efficacy. I would liken it to weak tea, too weak to 'drink' (accept as fact). One may pour a million gallons of weak tea into a huge vat, but in the end you still only have weak tea. The volume is irrelevant. In the same way, a premise is not established because a large number of people believe it.

As for me, I resist the call to 'believe' in AGW. I consider it a scientific question, one of potentially huge import, and certainly too important to leave to the vagaries of simple 'belief'. I have zero problem adhering to the fact of things concerning AGW - I don't know. And neither do you. Believe, yes. Know, no.

I don't want to believe - any idiot can simply believe a thing to be true. I want to know.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Another day, another Redux straw man.

Bullshit....This discussion is littered with straw men...and from my perspective, it comes more from the other side.

Start with Merc's most recent article (that led to this latest discussion) that distorted and grossly misrepresented the cost of the current energy/climate legislation under consideration.

Then on to your pretty chart where the years 1947-73 look great. Why is that.....could it be that the post-WWII boom years, from 1947-55, resulted in large part from heavy government subsidies from housing and education (remember the GI bill?) to the infusion of $billions of government funding into the infant tech industry, the infant bio-med industry, etc....followed by the even more massive government investment in the "space age" from the late 50s through all of the 60s, creating and subsidizing the new aerospace industry.....skew the results of that 25 yr period as opposed to the periods of 5-10 years since then....and then onto your econ 101 thesis, which is ridiculously simplistic in its conclusion. Straw men, both.

We can take the easy way out and do little or nothing in the way of a comprehensive national policy as we have for the last 30 years and continue our reliance on fossil fuels and either importing or drilling.

Or we can start now with a serious government supported (initially) effort to develop cleaner and ultimately cheaper sources of energy and mandates to improve energy efficiencies, creating a new industry that could be sold by American companies to countries around the world.

You evidently choose one path (correct me if i am wrong)..."keep on truckin" as is until we are absolutely certain that we have to change our production and consumption habits, just tinker around the edges, and/or just leave it to the affected industries to make that decision in the best interest of consumers and the country. I choose the other....its time to find "a better way" now both for our long term economic security and long term environmental protection.

I agree my way is harder and probably riskier in the short term...but IMO, we have to stop thinking short term. The greater long term risk is postponing any comprehensive action and just sliding by.

[SamIam]

I would also like to add that the US had almost no global competion from 1947 to 1973 because Europe was still in ruins and Japan and China had not begun to gear up either.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well I took Econ 101 so I understand that artificially limiting supply raises prices. If that means I'm part of the "free market crowd" then I guess I am outside the group of people whom you will listen to. Pity.

Bottom line: solutions to global warming require innovation, promote people who do not fear change, and result in increased economic prosperity, wealth, and health.

We know from history: those who did most to solve previous environmental problems prospered most from the resulting innovations and productivity increases. 1960s pollution standards meant engines burned less gasoline to do same. Needed less parts. More reliable. Lasted longer. Cost less. Where did solutions to pollution destroy the economy - as naysayers claimed? Where naysayers stifled innovation (ie GM) and denied the problem’s existence, then naysayers also harmed the American economy.

Econ 101 says solutions to global warming also make us economically wealthier and healthier. To ignore the problem and its solutions means importing more foreign oil - squander American wealth - be less productive – be more wasteful - stifle innovate. Why would White House lawyers rewrite science papers? People who wanted this to happen to America said we would all be driving Pintos today if EPA standards were enforced. Why were they wrong? George Jr, his White House lawyers, and other naysayers advocated the same political agenda based in fear. In their uneducated world, Econ 101 says we must not innovate - we must ignore all problems – because that is good.

Let's see those numbers again. A car consumes ten gallons of gas while using something above one gallon productively. Well over eight of every ten gallons is wasted - does nothing productive. UT and Henry say this is good and acceptable. Solutions to global warming imply three out of ten gallons would be used productively. Lessons from Econ 101 (and history) say we can all use less energy to do more. Its called innovation. Who would fear this? Naysayers who deny global warming using political agendas.

Fear of change and denial facts was routine among the naysayers. Same troglodytes attempted to subvert 1970 emission standard and denied ozone depletion. Econ 101 says solutions to global warming only make our economy healthier and more productive. Naysayers say it is good when over eight of every ten gallons of gasoline are wasted. Naysayers love the waste, destruction and stifled innovation. Naysayers fear change. Ignore numbers. The numbers are obvious.

Global warming does exist. Exceeds anything the earth has ever seen. Only remaining question is how severe that problem is.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

Bullshit....This discussion is littered with straw men...and from my perspective, it comes more from the other side.

BUT MOM, WHAAAAA, ALL THE OTHER GUYS WERE DOING IT TOO!

Then on to your pretty chart ...and then onto your econ 101 thesis. Straw men, both.

Maybe look up the meaning of the term?

You evidently choose one path (correct me if i am wrong)..."keep on truckin" as is until we are absolutely certain that we have to change our production and consumption habits, just tinker around the edges, and/or just leave it to the affected industries to make that decision in the best interest of consumers and the country. I choose the other....its time to find "a better way" now both for our long term economic security and long term environmental protection.

I agree my way is harder and probably riskier in the short term...but IMO, we have to stop thinking short term. The greater long term risk is postponing any comprehensive action and just sliding by.

What you present here is a false dilemma.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking.

What, no comment on your bogus chart?

And the fact that the GDP has grown at a steady rate since 1947....with the one blip (until 2007) occuring in 1974 as a result of the Arab oil embargo....when we should have begun rethinking our reliance on foreign oil and a comprehensive national energy plan...and a couple of small dips during the Reagan years



In 1974, the Japanese understood the need to retool its economy....it shifted from oil-intensive industries to electronics and, at the same time, its auto makers entered the US market by producing small, more fuel efficient cars and, for the first time, impacting US auto sales.

Economics 101, as tw noted, innovation breads productivity. Relying on the status quo leads to stagnation.

[Undertoad]

If you need help on the basics you can always attend a class.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you need help on the basics you can always attend a class.

Nah...I stand by what I posted.

But then, I am not a believer in the Milton Friedman "no government regulations" and the "free market will act in the best interest of the country" school of economics.

More of a Keynesian.

I thought all that government investment in the 47-55 post WW II "boom years" development of infant industries followed by the 60s "space age" creation of the new aerospace industry was good for the economy, all of which had "trickled down" positive impacts (as opposed to supply side economics). The same for the comprehensive environmental laws of the 70s. All of the above not only created jobs, but stimulated innovation and contributed in no small way to a vibrant economy.

[Undertoad]

It has to be per capita. Fixed dollars.



Here's the section I'm talking about, with trend lines. 1960-1973, 1973-1983; 1983-2000.

Right...a dip in the mid-70s that most economist attribute to the 6-month OPEC oil embargo, a smaller dip in 79 as a result of a smaller oil embargo (after the Iranian revolution), and then a dip after Reagan's first tax cut in 82 and rising again after Reagan pretty much abandoned supply side economics and worked with the Democrats in Congress on the tax reform in 84 that broadened the tax base.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Global warming does exist. Exceeds anything the earth has ever seen. Only remaining question is how severe that problem is.

Is it caused by man and can we effect a change?

Originally Posted by Redux

the Democrats in Congress on the tax reform in 84 that broadened the tax base.

[Undertoad]

Well everybody has their narratives. But if the oil embargo is the entire explanation for a bad economy, then A) apparently the Econ 101 supply curve is useful and important after all, as limiting supply raised prices; and B) why are you in favor of having an artificial, self-imposed embargo every year for twenty years?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well everybody has their narratives. But if the oil embargo is the entire explanation for a bad economy, then A) apparently the Econ 101 supply curve is useful and important after all, as limiting supply raised prices; and B) why are you in favor of having an artificial, self-imposed embargo every year for twenty years?

Nonsense.

The 6-month OPEC oil embargo was an unanticipated event initiated by foreign powers for the sole purrpose of disrupting the flow of oil to the US and adversely impacting the economy.

Hardly the same as a planned (slow) phased-in transition over a period of 20 years, with government tax abatement programs and other assistance for some industries and citizens who may be impacted beyond reasonable means.

You can do better than that!