Global Warming backdown

[Pliny]

The one big reason why I jumped off of the libertarian bandwagon over the last few years is because the economic ideas of the right, which emphasize individual autonomy and oppose mandatory collective strategies, are no help in dealing with this and other crises that require a global effort. Free market economics may actually work to increase economic growth, but what if growth in consumption is something that the world can no longer afford!

This is a real odd point since stimulating the economy to get it to grow seems to be the prime objective of government??

Governments do want it to grow but I think they promote over-consumption and exponential growth. A free market will produce what consumers demand instead of what government subsidizes and bails out. The problem governments have with a free market is that it doesn't guarantee economic growth.

A recent analysis of resource consumption last year, concluded that it would take three planet earths to supply the resources for our population, if everyone reached the U.S. level of consumption. We live on a finite planet, so we are coming to the end of the period where we can grow our way out of economic problems like past decades.

Right. Government tools used to grow the economy and inflate it are proving to produce an increasingly unwieldy economy and are no longer able to sustain the growth they so desperately need and want.

And the fact that a real and effective strategy to stop climate change would require a worldwide cooperative effort, is one of the big reasons why there are many pessimists who say that we are already doomed. Fact is global warming is an "inconvenient truth." Even the most modest solutions got shot down at Copenhagen. Specifically, the primary agents for climate change are the high consumption first world economies, but the nations that are already being the most at risk are the impoverished regions of the third world which have only contributed fractionally to global warming, and do not have the resources to deal with the droughts, floods, rising oceans etc. that threaten their survival. A modest proposal to provide compensation to developing nations to deal with these problems and to help them improve their standards of living with renewable energy sources, was given a drop in the bucket to deal with the problems. And most of these same first world nations (including Canada) are not making any serious attempts to control their own increases in greenhouse gases!

The failure of Copenhagen to provide any meaningful results leads many to pessimism, including many earth scientists. For example, yesterday we got a link to science website for a story on the Pine Island Glacier that was grossly misinterpreted by the deniers....nevertheless, another story I noticed on the site had this shocking analysis from retired microbiologist Frank Fenner: Scientist Claims Human Race ‘Will Be Extinct Within 100 Years’ Gee, even James Lovelock concludes that world population will shrink to 500 million in the next century, but this guy believes that the cascade towards human extinction won't be stopped! Let's just say that the 95 year old professor emeritus of Australian National University has drawn a very pessimistic conclusion about our chances, based on his past studies of species extinction and a few human examples of populations that consumed and polluted their way to environmental destruction...such as Easter Island.

These are alarmist claims. The end of humanity. The end of the world. They have all been predicted throughout our history on this planet. One time it may be true. But I think our challenge is to meet our challenges and continue, perhaps until we no longer find humanity a necessary vehicle in it's evolution. Perhaps we could shirnk ourselves down to the size of ants and then there will be room for trillions of human beings before we need to again address resource depletion, over-population and pollution. A far-fetched scenario most certainly but the real future may be even further far-fetched. Who knows?

I've noticed that some other earth scientists are pessimistic about our chances of dealing with global warming and other ecological challenges, but the mainstream prevailing opinion among science advocates and political allies like Al Gore, is that the movement has to stay upbeat and refrain from giving the impression that the situation may be hopeless. The simpleminded critics of Gore et al. may think they are hiding something...and it may turn out that what they are avoiding and scripting their language around, is that the problem is even more challenging than they let on publicly.

Yeah! Could be!!

[Bonam]

These are alarmist claims. The end of humanity. The end of the world. They have all been predicted throughout our history on this planet. One time it may be true. But I think our challenge is to meet our challenges and continue, perhaps until we no longer find humanity a necessary vehicle in it's evolution. Perhaps we could shirnk ourselves down to the size of ants and then there will be room for trillions of human beings before we need to again address resource depletion, over-population and pollution. A far-fetched scenario most certainly but the real future may be even further far-fetched. Who knows?

Of course the real answer to the lack of sufficient resources for an exponentially growing population on Earth is not to shrink ourselves, nor to stop growing the population, but rather to seek additional resources on places besides the Earth. In terms of energy and raw materials, just our immediate vicinity in space (the solar system) can provide millions of times more than what the Earth can provide.

[WIP]

This is a real odd point since stimulating the economy to get it to grow seems to be the prime objective of government??

Governments do want it to grow but I think they promote over-consumption and exponential growth. A free market will produce what consumers demand instead of what government subsidizes and bails out. The problem governments have with a free market is that it doesn't guarantee economic growth.

Where did I mention government in my piece? It's not just governments that promote the notion that continued economic growth is a necessity; it's mainly the private sector that promotes over-consumption through sophisticated marketing campaigns that get people to spend money impulsively on things they didn't realize they needed. Ultimately, the problem boils down to expectations that populations and economies should keep growing year after year, while the planet we live on is finite in size.

Right. Government tools used to grow the economy and inflate it are proving to produce an increasingly unwieldy economy and are no longer able to sustain the growth they so desperately need and want.

And that has nothing to do with my question of how we are going to cope with the sharp increases in demand by developing nations like China, India, Brazil and Russia, which are trying to achieve Western standards of consumption....and again that's why some resource experts estimated that it would take three planet earths to supply the needs of seven billion people living an American lifestyle.

These are alarmist claims. The end of humanity. The end of the world. They have all been predicted throughout our history on this planet. One time it may be true. But I think our challenge is to meet our challenges and continue, perhaps until we no longer find humanity a necessary vehicle in it's evolution. Perhaps we could shirnk ourselves down to the size of ants and then there will be room for trillions of human beings before we need to again address resource depletion, over-population and pollution. A far-fetched scenario most certainly but the real future may be even further far-fetched. Who knows?

Well, shrinking us down to the size of ants would certainly be a creative solution to the growing human bio-mass problem....if it was possible! But how big a brain would a human the size of ant have? I know end of time predictions have been made in every generation by religious zealots, but it's only been in the last hundred years that we've developed the capacity to cause our own extinction. Right now it looks like we are getting close to the limits of growth, and to be sustainable for more than a couple of centuries, the population will have to decline substantially from present levels.

Yeah! Could be!!

I've heard more than a few environmental policy advocates say that environmentalists have to be careful about messaging, and worry that dumping too much negative information out there will cause people to back away from environmental issues and give up on it -- and that could be why they almost always focus on near term problems that may occur in the next 20 years....the prospects of looking further into the future if we stay on the present course are just too bleak to want to inform the public about.

[WIP]

Of course the real answer to the lack of sufficient resources for an exponentially growing population on Earth is not to shrink ourselves, nor to stop growing the population, but rather to seek additional resources on places besides the Earth. In terms of energy and raw materials, just our immediate vicinity in space (the solar system) can provide millions of times more than what the Earth can provide.

Back 30 or 40 years ago, we assumed that we would already have colonies in space and on the Moon by now, and would have already had manned missions to Mars. Back in 1975, I bought a book by a NASA engineer named Gerard O'Neil, which presented rough outlines of how to build giant space colonies supporting about 10,000 people, in the L5 zone where the Sun, Earth, and Moon's gravities cancel each other out. The colony construction was proposed with technologies that existed at the time, mostly using lunar materials to build them....and of course nothing happened, and the whole space program has been virtually dormant since then.

Certainly part of the problem has been that the challenges of living in space have been discovered to be greater than originally envisioned. Even creating a self-sufficient biosphere appears to be a dilemma after the failure of the Biosphere 2 experiments, where the large closed system failed each time after a few weeks for reasons that are still unknown. O'Neil likely thought a giant greenhouse with soil, water and a few plants and animals would just work together. The failure of Biosphere 2 underlined how complex and intricate our planet's biosphere is, and why we shouldn't take it for granted.

[bloodyminded]

Where did I mention government in my piece? It's not just governments that promote the notion that continued economic growth is a necessity; it's mainly the private sector that promotes over-consumption through sophisticated marketing campaigns that get people to spend money impulsively on things they didn't realize they needed.

Sure. In fact, a mainstay of free market theory has been that "informed consumers make educated choices"; and the advertising industry spends massive amounts of money explicitly to undermine this principle.

[Pliny]

Of course the real answer to the lack of sufficient resources for an exponentially growing population on Earth is not to shrink ourselves, nor to stop growing the population, but rather to seek additional resources on places besides the Earth. In terms of energy and raw materials, just our immediate vicinity in space (the solar system) can provide millions of times more than what the Earth can provide.

You're obviously an optimist, Bonam. You are readying for the future whereas the pessimist alarmist is only interested in stopping us.

[bloodyminded]

You're obviously an optimist, Bonam. You are readying for the future whereas the pessimist alarmist is only interested in stopping us.

Blandly stating that "I trust scientific progress will save the Earth" (in the manner of 19th century scientific progressives who didn't even know that animal extinction was possible, for just one error in understanding)...well, let's just say that "I trust" is not "readying for the future."

[Pliny]

Where did I mention government in my piece?

You didn't. You mentioned economic growth and I mentioned the Governments propensity to promote over-consumption and never allow deflation or free market corrections. Like Obama said.."That's what a stimulus is!"

It's not just governments that promote the notion that continued economic growth is a necessity; it's mainly the private sector that promotes over-consumption through sophisticated marketing campaigns that get people to spend money impulsively on things they didn't realize they needed. Ultimately, the problem boils down to expectations that populations and economies should keep growing year after year, while the planet we live on is finite in size.

The private sector does not promote over-consumption. It attempts to sell and advertise and it is only our production and standard of living that allow us to frivolously consume with encouragement by government. Bush's answer to 9/11 was to tell America to go shopping and keep the economy going. Making the advertisers job easier.

And that has nothing to do with my question of how we are going to cope with the sharp increases in demand by developing nations like China, India, Brazil and Russia, which are trying to achieve Western standards of consumption....and again that's why some resource experts estimated that it would take three planet earths to supply the needs of seven billion people living an American lifestyle.

Not everyone wants to live an American lifestyle. You are an example. Iran and the fundamentalist Muslim world reject the American lifestyle.

The truth is we are only limited by our production. Resources need to be found most defintely but do yuo think we can produce the resources necessary. If we can't we have to adjust our lifestyles.

Well, shrinking us down to the size of ants would certainly be a creative solution to the growing human bio-mass problem....if it was possible! But how big a brain would a human the size of ant have? I know end of time predictions have been made in every generation by religious zealots, but it's only been in the last hundred years that we've developed the capacity to cause our own extinction. Right now it looks like we are getting close to the limits of growth, and to be sustainable for more than a couple of centuries, the population will have to decline substantially from present levels.

Bigness of brains is what constitutes intelligence is it? Dinosaurs had bigger brains but I don't think were more intelligent.

So then the argument will be about relative body-brain size.

Yes. It looks like we are at the limits of our growth. This has been a constant throughout our history. We will have to stop growing if that is true. Should we plow on or should we take control of our destiny and stifle any growth, stomping on anyone who suggests we need to grow. There goes the government. Governemnt really is working at odds with itself. It must encourage economic growth but reduce resource consumption. Basically, it has to start taxing air usage to maintain itself if it wants us to lower our resource consumption.

I've heard more than a few environmental policy advocates say that environmentalists have to be careful about messaging, and worry that dumping too much negative information out there will cause people to back away from environmental issues and give up on it -- and that could be why they almost always focus on near term problems that may occur in the next 20 years....the prospects of looking further into the future if we stay on the present course are just too bleak to want to inform the public about.

They have informed the public. And we must start a massive redistribution of wealth - now or we will all die.

[Pliny]

Blandly stating that "I trust scientific progress will save the Earth" (in the manner of 19th century scientific progressives who didn't even know that animal extinction was possible, for just one error in understanding)...well, let's just say that "I trust" is not "readying for the future."

And you have no trust in scientific progress? I know there are people smarter than I am. You have to imagine that concept yourself to trust in scientific progress.

[bloodyminded]

And you have no trust in scientific progress? I know there are people smarter than I am. You have to imagine that concept yourself to trust in scientific progress.

That there are legions of people smarter than I am is such a truism that it needs not be said.

I have some trust in scientific progress. But it's folly to take it for granted that it's going to solve all our problems. In fact, this seems crazy.

At any rate, i was only responding to your affirmation of blind faith as "readying for the future."

That's fine for the born-agains who hold that belief itself is sufficient for entry to Heaven.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

You didn't. You mentioned economic growth and I mentioned the Governments propensity to promote over-consumption and never allow deflation or free market corrections. Like Obama said.."That's what a stimulus is!"

Okay, now I get it, your beef is with John Maynard Keynes then! The believers in "let the market decide" can't seem to deal with the fact that a capitalist economy on a downward spiral, keeps spiraling downward through deflation and economic contraction, and cannot just get out of it by itself. Herbert Hoover tried the modern libertarian/conservative solution....it didn't work. FDR tried a number of stimulus programs that received the same complaints of Obama's; but like the recent stimulus, it was too small and too short term to bring the nation permanently out of the Depression. For some reason I cannot fathom, the disciples of Milton Friedman, who claim that FDR's stimulus programs didn't work, fail to note that FDR solved the problems of the Depression with the ultimate giant government stimulus spending program....WWII.

The private sector does not promote over-consumption. It attempts to sell and advertise and it is only our production and standard of living that allow us to frivolously consume with encouragement by government. Bush's answer to 9/11 was to tell America to go shopping and keep the economy going. Making the advertisers job easier.

Yes, it attempts to sell and advertise, and sometimes its best efforts fail to find a market, but many times the psychologists who guide the best impulse advertising create demand for dubious products...especially in the marketing directed at children and teenagers!

Back in the 1940's, an economist predicted that by 1980, most Americans would be working a 20 hour work week. What he failed to factor in, was that more and more products would be added to the list of consumer wants...some good, some questionable...but the consumption-driven economy demands more and more products and services, and continued economic growth, or it starts to go the other way and implode.

Bigness of brains is what constitutes intelligence is it? Dinosaurs had bigger brains but I don't think were more intelligent.

So then the argument will be about relative body-brain size.

Yes, it does! Mind is a creation of brain function...the less brain activity, the less of a mind you end up with. And there is not much room in an ant's head for a brain. But if an ant colony is considered as an organism, as some entomologists advise, then they do some very smart things -- such as agriculture, animal husbandry, warfare and even slavery. But no, dinosaurs generally had small brains, especially considering brain size to body weight.

Yes. It looks like we are at the limits of our growth. This has been a constant throughout our history. We will have to stop growing if that is true. Should we plow on or should we take control of our destiny and stifle any growth, stomping on anyone who suggests we need to grow. There goes the government. Governemnt really is working at odds with itself. It must encourage economic growth but reduce resource consumption. Basically, it has to start taxing air usage to maintain itself if it wants us to lower our resource consumption.

They have informed the public. And we must start a massive redistribution of wealth - now or we will all die.

Well, there are some people who believe that "Degrowth" is possible. I'm not sure if we are wired to behave this altruistically. It will take a major leap in consciousness, but if we cannot reduce our environmental impact caused by both our population size, and our rampant use of natural resources, extinction is the only likely alternative.

Libertarian ethics and economics considers any form of collective thinking and restrictions to be abhorrent, so I'm not surprised that they went all gangbusters as soon as the global warming issue became a concern 20 years ago!

[Bonam]

You're obviously an optimist, Bonam. You are readying for the future whereas the pessimist alarmist is only interested in stopping us.

Not really an optimist, I am merely stating what is possible. There are vast amounts of resources available in our immediate vicinity, and of course even more as you look farther away. Someone else mentioned that reality fell far short of the predictions of space colonization made in the 60s and early 70s. This is of course true, and is due to two main reasons. First, after the US won the "space race" to get to the Moon, public interest in space exploration waned. Had funding levels remained at the same fraction of the economy as during the peak of Apollo, progress in space would have been much more rapid. The second reason was growing public fear and lobbying against the use of nuclear energy. Materials used for nuclear reactions have approximately a million times the energy density of those used for chemical reactions, and this high level of energy is absolutely critical for any large scale undertaking in space to be even remotely cost-effective.

With reduced funding for space exploration and major obstacles in the way of the use of nuclear energy in space, there really was no way for the predictions/dreams of the 60s to be achieved.

Nevertheless, it remains possible, and in fact the cost of space development to the point where we could begin to extract substantial quantities of useful resources and energy offworld is small in comparison to some of the estimates thrown around of what it will cost to prevent/slow/adapt to climate change.

Yes, it does! Mind is a creation of brain function...the less brain activity, the less of a mind you end up with. And there is not much room in an ant's head for a brain. But if an ant colony is considered as an organism, as some entomologists advise, then they do some very smart things -- such as agriculture, animal husbandry, warfare and even slavery. But no, dinosaurs generally had small brains, especially considering brain size to body weight.

It's not actually so much about the size of the brain, as it is about the density of the brain and the number of interconnections between neurons. Once sufficient understanding of the exact functionality of the brain is achieved (within the next decade or two), it will be possible to replicate human brain-like structures using electronics/nanotechnology on a far smaller scale, while still being much faster and more efficient. Artificial neural networks that can interface directly with the brains of living organisms have already been developed and tested, and the neuron interconnections of many areas of the brain have already been mapped out in great detail.

[bloodyminded]

Libertarian ethics and economics considers any form of collective thinking and restrictions to be abhorrent

That's odd, since they parrot one another at every turn, and summon the names of the Great Men, as they plagiarize bland overarching theories from Economics 101 (while ignoring some of Adam Smith's juicier tidbits as inconvenient, of course).

[Pliny]

That there are legions of people smarter than I am is such a truism that it needs not be said.

I have some trust in scientific progress. But it's folly to take it for granted that it's going to solve all our problems. In fact, this seems crazy.

Especially when politics gets in the mix.

At any rate, i was only responding to your affirmation of blind faith as "readying for the future."

That's fine for the born-agains who hold that belief itself is sufficient for entry to Heaven.

It isn't blind faith. WE may or may not make it but let's meet he challenge as best we can. That means ensuring political social engineering.

[Pliny]

Okay, now I get it, your beef is with John Maynard Keynes then! The believers in "let the market decide" can't seem to deal with the fact that a capitalist economy on a downward spiral, keeps spiraling downward through deflation and economic contraction, and cannot just get out of it by itself.

Deflation does not necessarily coincide with economic contraction.

It can occur in an expanding economy. Governments are not flexible and require stabel revenues which deflation does not provide them but inflation does so they promote inflation and they can create inflation because they control the money supply and the availability of credit.

Sorry. This is an example of a very poor understanding of economics. The boom-bust cycle is created by monetary pumping. In a free market without fractional reserve banking no boom bust cycle would occur. I do have a beef with John Maynard Keynes. His theories are more intended to be used in a fascistic society.

Herbert Hoover tried the modern libertarian/conservative solution....it didn't work.

Hoover was the Treasury Secratary in the 1920's befroe he was elected President in 1928. He brought in many social programs mostly related to farm subsidies and marketing boards to guarantee prices to farmers. He developed all sorts of government agencies and inflated the money supply. When the stock market crashed during his Presidency he brought in wage and price controls, enacted the Glass-Steagall act and developed the first make work projects that FDR continued and implemented - such as the Hoover Dam project.

FDR tried a number of stimulus programs that received the same complaints of Obama's; but like the recent stimulus, it was too small and too short term to bring the nation permanently out of the Depression. For some reason I cannot fathom, the disciples of Milton Friedman, who claim that FDR's stimulus programs didn't work, fail to note that FDR solved the problems of the Depression with the ultimate giant government stimulus spending program....WWII.

it seems during WW II that people were further inconvenienced with the rationing of staples and a decrease in the money supply. Government wasn't putting money into the hands of consumers to stimulate production. It was taking money out of the economy and limiting it's spending to armaments and war materiel not needless, unwanted and preferential social programs and make work projects. The people were left with little money for consumption beyond the essentials before the end of the war.

Certainly, the production of armaments was government spending but it was by no means an economic stimulus intended to result in greater consumer spending which is the intent of a stimulus injection of money and credit. If anything it's benefit was in the shrinking of the available money and credit in the domestic economy.

Milton Friedman at this time developed the withholding tax which helped government to pay as it went instead of waiting until the end of the year for it's revenues. Friedman really liked to help governments in need.

Yes, it attempts to sell and advertise, and sometimes its best efforts fail to find a market, but many times the psychologists who guide the best impulse advertising create demand for dubious products...especially in the marketing directed at children and teenagers!

Perhaps we should take a look at our education system regarding how children and teenagers do not seem to differentiate between needs and wants and are considered intellectually unable to control themselves and their demands. Adults who have gone through the public education system seem to behave in the same manner.

But hey! It keeps the economy growing - just what government needs.

Back in the 1940's, an economist predicted that by 1980, most Americans would be working a 20 hour work week. What he failed to factor in, was that more and more products would be added to the list of consumer wants...some good, some questionable...but the consumption-driven economy demands more and more products and services, and continued economic growth, or it starts to go the other way and implode.

If he had read and understood Bastiat's "What is Seen and What is not Seen" he would have realized this. In order for us to work a 20 hour work week our production would have to have doubled. Ultimately, it is our production that provides us our standard of living. Reducing our hours of production must be compensated for by increased productivity. I think it is plain to see that if we halve our production we halve our consumption . If we want to work twenty hours a week we have to still produce what was produced in a forty hour week to maintain our standard of living.

It doesn't work like the Unions think - that there is not enough work around. An increase in the amount of production means an increase in the amount of work.

Yes, it does! Mind is a creation of brain function...the less brain activity, the less of a mind you end up with. And there is not much room in an ant's head for a brain. But if an ant colony is considered as an organism, as some entomologists advise, then they do some very smart things -- such as agriculture, animal husbandry, warfare and even slavery. But no, dinosaurs generally had small brains, especially considering brain size to body weight.

Dinosaur brains were still bigger than ours and if that is all you are considering then your statement is not true.

Well, there are some people who believe that "Degrowth" is possible. I'm not sure if we are wired to behave this altruistically. It will take a major leap in consciousness, but if we cannot reduce our environmental impact caused by both our population size, and our rampant use of natural resources, extinction is the only likely alternative.

Certainly a lot of people will die if we make mistakes but I am not sure about extinction.

Libertarian ethics and economics considers any form of collective thinking and restrictions to be abhorrent, so I'm not surprised that they went all gangbusters as soon as the global warming issue became a concern 20 years ago!

What is collective thinking? Where is the collective brain?

There has to be rules and common agreements for a society to exist.

If one thinks, as Hazlitt states, that "the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy, it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups", and considers it is not just what is seen but what the unseen consequences are and accounts for both the short and long term consequences then he has an understanding of economics.

There is a shortsightedness in groups to only see the consequences as it affects them and can even demonstrate the effects of a policy or act. This is the lobbyist at work and what he says may be entirely true but the effects on others and long term effects are not presented in his argument only the consequences that are obvious and that relate to their interest.

Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" to get a good grounding in that concept.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pliny

[TimG]

Here's something we know right now: the rate of atmospheric CO2 levels is increasing at an accelerating rate, and will be at 400 ppm within two years at the present rate.

So what? I have yet to see anyone present compelling evidence that a warming planet is a bad thing once all things are considered. In fact, most economists seem to agree with me because the consensus 'social cost' of carbon is $50/tC which works out to about 4 cents/litre tax on gasoline - a cost which we are already capturing with the existing gasoline taxes.

The real issue is there are no viable alternatives to burning fossil fuels. This means the 'precautionary principal' cannot be invoked because the cost of 'doing something' exceeds the likely harms.

[waldo]

Here's something we know right now: the rate of atmospheric CO2 levels is increasing at an accelerating rate, and will be at 400 ppm within two years at the present rate. This is especially troubling considering that the world's economies have been in a recession in the last two years, and yet those CO2 numbers (linked below) keeps climbing! We have to go back 15 million yearsto observe a time in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels were even at their present level. Nearly all of the plants and animals (including us!) have evolved during an age when carbon levels are much lower than present, and we have no idea how we are going to deal with the changes that will come from present CO2 levels, let alone raising them even higher.

So what? I have yet to see anyone present compelling evidence that a warming planet is a bad thing once all things are considered.

uhhh... do you have qualifications for, "bad thing"... and "once all things are considered"?

[TimG]

uhhh... do you have qualifications for, "bad thing"... and "once all things are considered"?

This entire debate is premised on the idea that sacrifices today are required to prevent catastrophe in the future. I have not seen any evidence that catastrophe is likely to occur simply because the planet warms nor have most economists who have looked at the problem. In most cases, the cost of 'climate change' in 100 years works out to about 1 year worth of global growth (i.e. a mild recession). That is a price I can live with given the potentially destructive economic policies that the CAGW crowd keeps trying to push on us. Edited July 3, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

uhhh... do you have qualifications for, "bad thing"... and "once all things are considered"?

This entire debate is premised on the idea that sacrifices today are required to prevent catastrophe in the future. I have not seen any evidence that catastrophe is likely to occur simply because the planet warms nor have most economists who have looked at the problem. In most cases, the cost of 'climate change' in 100 years works out to about 1 year worth of global growth (i.e. a mild recession). That is a price I can live with given the potentially destructive economic policies that the CAGW crowd keeps trying to push on us.

since you've ignored the initial request for qualifications, given you're a relatively early adopter of the specious acronym, perhaps you could offer your like qualifications for the 'C' in CAGW as well as to who/what constitutes the "crowd".

while we're on a roll, do you have any/a favoured economist(s)... you know... the one's you say, "have looked at the problem"?

[TimG]

since you've ignored the initial request for qualifications, given you're a relatively early adopter of the specious acronym, perhaps you could offer your like qualifications for the 'C' in CAGW as well as to who/what constitutes the "crowd".

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

There have been 13 – count them, 13 – studies published in the peer reviewed literature that have wrestled with the economic implications of a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GhGs) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Those 13 studies have yielded 14 estimates of what will subsequently happen to global GDP. For those who are curious, 10 of those studies assume a subsequent warming of 2.5 C; two assume that a 1 C warming would follow; and two assume a 3 C warming would follow.

Here are the estimated changes to GDP relative to a baseline scenario where no CO2e buildup occurs: +2.5%, +2.3%, +0.9%, +0.1%, no change, -0.1%. -0.4%, -0.9% -1.3%, -1.4%, -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% and -4.8%. In short, climate change will either add or subtract about one year of economic growth from the global economy in the second half of this century.The positive findings in that dataset reflect the fact that temperature has an ambiguous effect on human health; that very little of the modern industrialized economy is weather dependent, that adaptation to climate change is relatively cheap, and that many clear benefits follow from CO2 saturation and warmer weather.

[waldo]

since you've ignored the initial request for qualifications, given you're a relatively early adopter of the specious acronym, perhaps you could offer your like qualifications for the 'C' in CAGW as well as to who/what constitutes the "crowd".

while we're on a roll, do you have any/a favoured economist(s)... you know... the one's you say, "have looked at the problem"?

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

There have been 13 – count them, 13 – studies published in the peer reviewed literature that have wrestled with the economic implications of a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GhGs) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Those 13 studies have yielded 14 estimates of what will subsequently happen to global GDP. For those who are curious, 10 of those studies assume a subsequent warming of 2.5 C; two assume that a 1 C warming would follow; and two assume a 3 C warming would follow.

Here are the estimated changes to GDP relative to a baseline scenario where no CO2e buildup occurs: +2.5%, +2.3%, +0.9%, +0.1%, no change, -0.1%. -0.4%, -0.9% -1.3%, -1.4%, -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% and -4.8%. In short, climate change will either add or subtract about one year of economic growth from the global economy in the second half of this century.The positive findings in that dataset reflect the fact that temperature has an ambiguous effect on human health; that very little of the modern industrialized economy is weather dependent, that adaptation to climate change is relatively cheap, and that many clear benefits follow from CO2 saturation and warmer weather.

excellent! Thanks for coming out - and now that we've established who your go-to sources are

first... you drop a blind link to a Richard Toll article... adviser to the skeptic/denier organization, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) - Guardian article on the GWPF

then... you proceed to drop an unsubstantiated quote... that turns out to be from an article written by Jerry Taylor... senior fellow at the well known denier organization, the Cato Institute - sourcewatch on the Cato Institute

[jbg]

Not everyone wants to live an American lifestyle. You are an example. Iran and the fundamentalist Muslim world reject the American lifestyle.

Actually the consumption levels by the leadership classes in those societies is very high. It is the common people that are stuck with a primitive lifestyle.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually the consumption levels by the leadership classes in those societies is very high. It is the common people that are stuck with a primitive lifestyle.

You got that right....the reformers in Iran sure as hell want a piece of the "American lifestyle" action long enjoyed by the elites.

[Pliny]

Actually the consumption levels by the leadership classes in those societies is very high. It is the common people that are stuck with a primitive lifestyle.

Does Ahmadinejhad have a private jet? They deny the American lifestyle but still must consume. It is true they are not encouraged to overconsume or be materialistic, something western governments are dependent upon.

[Pliny]

You got that right....the reformers in Iran sure as hell want a piece of the "American lifestyle" action long enjoyed by the elites.

That is what the struggle is about. The importation of cultures and subsequent loss of power over the people.