Brrr… it’s cold outside here in LA – currently 34 degrees f. Every year around this time we all look at each other and say, “I can’t remember it ever being this cold.” But it has been, of course. I don’t even think today is a record of any sort. Meanwhile, there’s snow on the ground in Vegas. What does this mean? Not a helluva lot, unless you’re trying to ski down the ramp from the Wynn into the luxe shopping mall on the way to the Venetian, which might not be a bad idea at the moment, considering there should be a lot of sales on items like high-priced Siberian furs from down on their luck Russian mafiosi.
Still the global warming dispute goes on. If there’s ever been an argument with (excuse the metaphor) more heat than light, this is it. Sometimes the whole thing reminds me of Galileo’s travails insisting the Earth revolved around the Sun, which I admit I largely know about from Brecht’s play, not a particularly accurate source, I know. But what we often seem to have here is the AWG skeptics ironically in the role of Galileo with the liberal intelligentsia playing an ultra-conservative clergy led by Al Gore. Nevertheless, as I have said what feels like a zillion times, just because Al thinks something is so, doesn’t mean it isn’t. It’s just another irrelevant blowhard statement. So nobody really knows, though many say they do.
Which leads me to the auto bailout announced today. Nobody really knows about that either. Some say the inept companies should be sent to bankruptcy court; others (evidently including Bush) think to do so would create a ripple effect that could be catastrophic to our fragile economy. Well… many talking heads will (and have been) opining on various sides of this. Do any of them really know the answer this? Well, in retrospect some will claim to, but that of course will be subject to debate as well and largely unprovable. (Look at all the pro-and-con discussions of FDR and the Depression going on now.)
The only way to know the truth of matters like this then is to clone ourselves and try opposite solutions. The good news is that, scientifically at least, we are almost ready to do that. [You mean we should clone Nancy Pelosi?-ed. Only if we keep her on a collective farm.]
UPDATE: Excellent and apropos piece on PJM Saturday morning.
The only thing scarier than global warming is what well-meaning humans might do to stop it. And think about it; is stasis (or even control) what we really want? Sometimes I think that the most significant change in the last few decades has been our ability to measure and record change. This, coupled with the belief that the west is the source of all evil, makes it all fall into place.
Science and Al Gore ought to be kept separate, for the children’s sake.
The problem is that people (on both sides) politically argue climate change using weather as their evidence. It seems like every time there’s a storm (Katrina, anyone?) or dry spell or hot day or cold day, it’s being trumped up as evidence. It’s totally incorrect to do that, though of course it’s very human. Honestly, I think the evidence for human-caused global warming is pretty compelling; the catch is that the proposed cures are far, far worse than the disease, and I’m not convinced that the cures would actually cure anything.
I was relieved to hear, mostly unheralded, that the sunspots have come back. This is good news; the last time they went away (called a Maunder minimum) we had a mini ice age, complete with glaciers in Europe. This was only a couple hundred years ago.
As for the bailout, when you look at the fine print, it seems like the President has given them a handout without any real strings attached at all. Huge sums of money up front, conditions vague and due someday later. “Net Present Value” can be anything you want it to be, depending on your assumptions. And Bush’s helpful suggestions about their labor costs won’t fly anymore than anyone elses’. Certainly if the Big Three all went out of business, there’d be huge repercussions in the economy. Dumping tax money into keeping them unviable will also have repercussions.
This is a con, pure and simple.
“So nobody really knows, though many say they do.”
This is, however well meaning, factually inaccurate. The evidence against the global warming myth is substantial and convincing. Employing the concept that “nobody really knows” in this particular situation is inappropriate. It is a postmodernist attempt to avoid making a decision. Also, to even begin to adhere to the mandates of the climate extremists will bankrupt the country. Those who push this madness, it must be added, ultimately hide behind a false understanding of the precautionary principle. This is similar to my putting on body armor and driving a tank to the corner food store because of the outside chance of a devastating traffic accident. There is simply, alas, not enough money in my personal bank account to pay for these items.
Not exactly, David. If you browse through the now copious literature of AWG skeptics, you find that some do believe in some degree of anthropogenic influence. It’s not simple and may never be solved until centuries from now when our race may well be inhabiting the stars.
Wellspring, SC24 is not “on track”.
cf http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/hard-lesson-about-solar-realities-for-noaa-nasa/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/09/21-spotless-days-and-solar-magnetic-field-still-in-a-funk/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/even-quieter-on-the-solar-front-another-all-quiet-alert-issued/
David, I’m not so sure. The evidence for AGW is, Wellspring’s thoughts notwithstanding, nonexistant. There is a theory that does not match well with experimental reality. That’s it.
But that does not necessarily mean we are not affecting climate. Just that, if we are, technology has not yet advanced to the point where we can measure or determine the affect.
Much like the religion analogy–lots of people belive in god, lots don’t. The people who believe are satisfied with faith in lieu of proof, or take indirect proofs as sufficient (nature, for example). The people who don’t believe cannot let go of the fact that there is no direct proof. But as they say, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. Maybe god does exist, maybe he doesn’t.
As Roger says, we don’t know. I advocate doing absolutley nothing for the simple reason that since we don’t know what, if any, effect we are having, we cannot gauge a proper response.
I think that there is enough data to indicate that our environment is changing. It seems reasonable to postulate that humans may be the cause of some of it…
However, as Tim mentioned, we have neither the knowledge or technology to really grok the details. Anyone that claims otherwise, is lying (either side of the debate).
So, at best, we can say “It appears that the environment is changing in some ways”.. we can theorize what those changes might mean (higher sea level etc).. THEN we can do the one useful thing to respond.
We can put together options for what to do when the climate changes. If the smart people think that NYC will lose 15% of its living space and that fires are likely to ravage the west… THEN FIGURE OUT A PLAN TO DEAL WITH IT.
I don’t mind if scientist put some time into trying to figure out the cause. I don’t mind if they push us toward solutions for energy that don’t include dumping various poisons into my habitat. However, I think most of our energy should be spent on preparing to deal with global climate change, rather than try to put it back in a non-existant bottle.
For a more complete description of what happened with Galileo and the Church, see D’nesh Disouza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity.” It seems the common understanding of the whole affair is based on description provided by one who was no friend of the Church and that is not all that tied to the known facts.
The idea that puny man has any effect whatsoever on global climate is laughable.
I’m with ricpic. It’s called the sun, look into it. Well, not directly into it, but you get the idea.
If people want to research the theory of AGW, by all means, have at it. Don’t let little ol’ me stop you. Just don’t dictate what I can drive, how I heat my home, or how many squares I’m supposed to use on each trip to the bathroom (with the pointless low-flow toilet that you have to flush twice, thereby wasting more water anyway; thanks do-gooders!). Just like the more psychotic animal rights people took sensible anti-cruelty measures way too far and now want to make animals equal to humans, the sensible anti-pollution movement has morphed into the ridiculous ‘green’ circus we have now. Hey, let’s cripple the economy and endlessly flog ourselves over unproven junk science! Great plan. If these people are so concerned and upset they should stop flying in airplanes, unless it’s to travel to China or India and browbeat them for a change, seeing as they are the worst ‘offenders’ as it is.
Saint Al would be pleased to know I shoveled the entire property by hand today after it snowed like hell here in Michigan – no deadly emissions (except for all the exhaling – I’ll have to work on that).
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go throw a few more of Paul Ehrlich’s books on the fire – it gets cold here in flyover country.
The climate is always changing; that’s what it does. Humanity’s influence on the climate is likely to be rather small, although not nonexistent. People have to adjust and adapt to climate change. Large metropolitan areas in California will be affected by earthquakes. That is far more certain than AGW and the thinly veiled collectivist “solutions” to it. New Orleans was built below sea level; we know this too. Whatever happens with the climate, there will be damage and a need to re-think. Humanity insists on living where it isn’t safe.
In the near future, the sluggish economy will result in fewer carbon emissions (right now people are driving fewer miles, aren’t buying cars, and are spending less money). We also do not have the economic wherewithal to embark on some expensive lark based upon Algore’s pontifications/fantasies. The debate will chill for a bit, because of the economy. In the meantime some of the “facts” might begin to sort themselves out.
“….you find that some do believe in some degree of anthropogenic influence.”
I have no problem with that position. We are then left with the very reasonable question: so what? Is any possible global warming even a problem? Hypothetically, does it really matter if the Earth’s temperature increases a few degrees? Might it even be a good thing? Lastly, we must deal with the precautionary principle—logically understood. What is likely to occur? As I said previously, we don’t wear armor and drive a tank to the corner store because there exists one chance in twenty million a serious accident might happen!
Never fear everyone, “Obama Picks Climate Change Experts For Key Science Posts” is today’s headline. Together with our tax dollars, the “experts” are going to “address” the “problem” of “climate change.” Well, I feel better already.
I agree with Barry. Change is the rule, not the exception. We have to adapt. That does not mean that man has no impact on climate, but we are not the driving force behind it.
As for the auto bailout. I live in Indiana and in this state there are all sorts of medium sized and even small businesses who depend on contracts from auto makers to survive. If those companies go belly up, they will take a lot of people with them. And those people are taxpayers too.
I have to say, that it seems to me that some people on the right do not care who gets hurt. In fact they are hoping to bust some unions. Their attitude in some ways reminds me of people on the left who hoped for bad news in the war in Iraq in the hopes that they would benefit politically from it. In both cases people seem to be forgetting about the human costs to all this.
I think that just blaming unions or the companies or sub prime lending is not really accurate. I think the high price of energy just bled the economy of capitol. And that hurt everyone.
I have to say, that it seems to me that some people on the right do not care who gets hurt.
A bailout doesn’t prevent people from getting hurt — it merely transfers the hurt to people that didn’t have anything to do with causing the hurt: the taxpayers.
The Big Three are in trouble primarily because their cost structure and work rules are not competitive. Right now, the UAW workers at the Big Three make $150,000/year while Honda, Toyota and Nissan are able to staff their plants with people willing and able to do the same job for $85,000/year. The high price of energy didn’t cause that situation — it was caused by irrational union demands and short-sighted management that agreed to those demands.
Nothing justifies the notion that the irrationality and mismanagement of some should be paid for by others — others who had absolutely no role in the irrationality and mismanagement, no control over it and no influence on it. Punishing the innocent for the mistakes of the guilty is the very definition of an injustice. Yet that is exactly what a bailout accomplishes.
Bankruptcy is the only rational and just solution to the Big Three’s situation.
Michael:
Easy for you to say. We pay for the troubles of others every day. I work for a health care agency and I see the American taxpayer pick up the tab for the sick and elderly all the time. Now maybe you think it would be better to just let them pay the price for their illness or poverty, but if we did that a lot of doctors would not be living nearly as well as they do right now.
I do not think that people have any idea how many people would lose their jobs if these companies just went belly up. And I am not talking about the UAW workers either. I am talking about all the businesses and people who are not in any way responsible for the management decisions of the Big Three, but who would go down with them.
BTW, I live in Indiana and this state went to great lengths to get that Toyota plant to come to this state. Maybe they should make the same kind of offer to GM. Like say, we build roads to your front door and pay your taxes for several years.
In fact the other day I was reading something very like what you just said over at Instapundit and it occurred to me that Glenn Reynolds is a college professor with tenure. Think of how many tax dollars go into higher education in this country. How much money in financial loans and state pension plans and all kinds of support so that some professor with tenure can lecture factory workers about capitalism.
yeah right.
Terrye:
The fact that the government initiates physical force (or threat thereof) to make us pay for the troubles of other people every day does not make it right. One wrong — or many wrongs — don’t justify additional wrongs. Punishing one man, by seizing a portion of his property, for the consequences of another man’s actions is still an injustice — no matter how frequently it’s done.
Nor is the loss of a job comparable to having your money seized. There is no “right” to a job — only a right to take one if it’s offered. If the offer is withdrawn, nothing that belongs to you has been taken from you. If you decide to stop paying someone else to cut your grass, and instead to cut it yourself, you’ve taken no property from anyone. But when the government takes your income, they HAVE taken something that belongs to you.
What’s more, you are committing a variant of the “broken window” fallacy. This fallacy, as explained by Henry Hazlitt in his wonderful book, “Economics in One Lesson”, consists of looking only at the immediate, obvious effects of an event without considering all of the ramifications.
In this case, you focus solely on the jobs that will be lost without a bailout. What you fail to consider is that any Federal expenditures for a bailout will come, inevitably, out of the taxpayer’s pockets; all public spending comes at the expense of private spending. So every dollar the government spends on a “job-saving bailout” is a dollar that some private citizen will no longer spend on a “job creating purchase”. Every job the government saves by spending the taxpayer’s money is cancelled by a job lost as a result of the fact that the taxpayer no longer spends that money. What’s more, since the jobs you want the government to save pay WAY above average wages, more private sector jobs will be lost than will be saved as a result of the bailout; thus, it’s not even a break-even proposition.
In short, government does not have the power to create additional employment. It can only cause shifts in employment, increasing it in some areas only at the expense of decreasing it in others.