UN Pushes for Global Bureaucracy to Allegedly Fight Climate Change
It’s fashionable among “respectable” libertarians and other small-government types to make fun of their more extreme brethren, especially when it comes to the United Nations. And yet the UN’s “Negotiating Text”–draft language containing options for the delegates who will meet in Paris in December–doesn’t need any wild imagination to appear sinister. We can just quote from the thing.
I give a more comprehensive explanation in my post for the Institute for Energy Research, but for our purposes here let me give you some of the highlights. Again, these are all quotes taken from the suggested text that the UN has released:
5.1. Option (a): Ensuring significant global greenhouse gas emission reductions over the next few decades or a 40–70 per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions below 2010 levels by 2050 and near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century… [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Negotiating Text, p. 5]
92. [Scale of resources provided by developed country Parties shall be based on a percentage of their GNP of at least (X per cent) taking into consideration the following:
a. The provision of finance to be based on a floor of USD 100 billion per year, and shall take into account the different assessment of climate-related finance needs prepared by the secretariat and reports by other international organizations;
b. Based on an ex ante process to commit quantified support relative to the required effort and in line with developing countries’ needs… [UNFCCC Negotiating Text, p. 43][Stressing that all actions to address climate change and all the processes established under this agreement should ensure [a gender-responsive approach][gender equality and intergenerational equity], take into account [environmental integrity][the protection of the integrity of Mother Earth], and respect human rights, the right to development and the rights of [youth and] indigenous peoples, [as well as ensure a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work, in accordance with nationally defined development priorities and strategies,]] [UNFCCC Negotiating Text, p. 4]
One does not need a tinfoil hat to see that the treaty that some want to come out of the December meetings will establish a giant international bureaucracy, beyond the control of any one national State, with the ability to disburse more than $100 billion, and to pass judgment on every manner of human life, but particularly operations in the energy sector. Moreover, the goals of this organization will not be limited to the projections of climate change shooting out of computer models, but will also involve traditional social reforms favored by anti-capitalist Leftists.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, these are the simple facts for anyone who wants to click the UN document and begin skimming.
1. 40-70% emissions reductions.
2. right to development
3. creation of decent work
Pick any one or two.
Germany is 1 and 3.
China is 2 and 3.
Sweden may be 1 and 2 (per capita, it’s surpassed Denmark in GDP (PPP)).
“One does not need a tinfoil hat to see that the treaty that some want to come out of the December meetings will establish a giant international bureaucracy …”
lulz
+1
What could possibly go wrong with this idea?
Why is 2010 the magic date?
[Time stamped]
Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 1 of 4 – Lee Doren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY#t=7m35s
“Ok, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:
“Anybody who says that we are running out of resources does not understand the Price System.
“As resources become more and more scarce, the supply of those resources decreases and then the price of those resources increases.
“That makes people naturally not buy those resources and look to alternative resources that are cheaper.
“That is what’s going to happen as we start running out of resources, and nothing needs to be done about it.“
[Time stamped]
Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 1 of 4 – Lee Doren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY#t=8m15s
“[N]othing is a resource until we know how to use it.
“Land that used to have oil on it used to be worthless because we didn’t know that gasoline could be used as a resource.
“It’s 4,000 miles to the center of the Earth; We haven’t scratched the surface.”
Anybody who says that we are running out of resources does not understand the Price System.
As resources become more and more scarce, the supply of those resources decreases and then the price of those resources increases.
That makes people naturally not buy those resources and look to alternative resources that are cheaper.
Well yes, that’s what happens when you run out of something. And?
Anybody who says that we are running out of resources does not understand the Price System.
As resources become more and more scarce, the supply of those resources decreases and then the price of those resources increases.
That makes people naturally not buy those resources and look to alternative resources that are cheaper.
Well yes, that’s what happens when you run out of a resource. And?
So running out of one resource is not only not a violent crime that justifies some people telling others what to do with their own property, backed ultimately by death if they refuse the order and the punishment, but there is already a peaceful means by which we can transition from one major energy source to another with as forward looking as possible. Prices are a function of information, and long before a major energy source actually runs out, the rising price has already made a placement economically viable.
People collectively are smarter than you or anyone else individually.
“Well yes, that’s what happens when you run out of a resource. And?”
And so, there’s no need to pretend like there’s Global Cooling- I mean Global Warming- I mean Climate Change in order to try and force people to support so-called “sustainable development”.
The Price System let’s consumers know who is best providing what they want, and then consumers, because their resources are SCARCE, will pick and choose which sellers they will trade with, resulting in competition among sellers, with the best provider receiving “wealth inequality”.
Guest,
In the case of pollution the problem is that the costs aren’t included in the price system. That’s why, to take the case of global warming, people talk about putting a price on carbon, so the market can respond correctly.
They are included in the price system. The price is the price of the state that is preventing class action lawsuits!
The price is there, you just don’t see it.
“In the case of pollution the problem is that the costs aren’t included in the price system.”
Costs are only relevant to the subjective preferences of individuals; Therefore, only individuals can determine whether or not a particular action is profitable for them to attempt to prevent or to adapt to pollution.
But Global Warming is not about pollution. It’s about attempting to globally regulate production so as to be “sustainable”, which must ignore consumer preferences and must require tyranny to enforce it.
(I disagree with the class action approach. Each accuser needs to prove that he had his property rights violated.
(Now, in a real justice system the goal would be to prove guilt, and therefore the source of evidence would never be an issue. No so-called evidence would be considered “inadmissible” – evidence is evidence.
(So, evidence provided in a prior trial could be used in the next.
(Also, the point of a jury being to hold the court accountable, they would have the responsibility of determining what evidence is relevant, such as what is or is not heresay.)
(No more interruptions from laywers who want to cover the jurors’ ears, as it were.)
Costs are only relevant to the subjective preferences of individuals; Therefore, only individuals can determine whether or not a particular action is profitable for them to attempt to prevent or to adapt to pollution.
Sure. So for example a person in Miami might have a strong subjective preference that his house not be under water. But under the current system there’s nothing he can do about that. A power plant can spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they want. They don’t have to get the permission of the folks whose houses will end up under water because of this, or even pay them compensation for the damage done.
If people had to pay for the cost of emitting CO2, they would emit less and would look for alternatives. This is exactly what you were (correctly) praising the market system for originally.
“So for example a person in Miami might have a strong subjective preference that his house not be under water. But under the current system there’s nothing he can do about that.”
Again, there’s no need to pretend like this is going to happen.
Let’s now deal with the real goal of the Commie Global Warming hysteria by addressing the issue of so-called “sustainable development”.
“A power plant can spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they want. They don’t have to get the permission of the folks whose …”
Let’s act like you didn’t mention the “under water” nonsense and instead address the issue of power plants polluting water, maybe, that may affect housing along a river.
I’m actually of the persuasion that if you’re not trying to protect yourself from ALL water pollutants, including animals crapping and dying in the river, then you’re not really all that concerned about pollutants in the water.
And the attempt to make upstream “polluters” pay for your failure to plan is a violation of THEIR property rights. They didn’t come onto your property.
Are you going to hold all of your neighbors accountable for birds and insects who may have come from their property and then did something you didn’t like to yours?
No, because they stop on your property, too.
If you want river water to be free of pollutants when it gets to your property, then direct some of it to some kind of treatment container so that it’s not possible to pollute it.
(Note that Ron Paul, a fine Austrian and my hero, would very much disapprove of my position, but I think it’s the right one.)
“If people had to pay for the cost of emitting CO2, they would emit less and would look for alternatives.”
No one is harmed by the emission of CO2; This isn’t even what Global Warmists believe.
The Global Warming claim is that CO2 causes warming, and it’s the warming that is supposed to cause all the problems.
But, there again, the Global Warming claim is a hoax to impose so-called “sustainable development” on people pursuant to the Commie, mistaken belief that “wealth inequality” is bad and that greedy capitalists steal resources from others so that others don’t have as much.
See below for my response.
Whoa whoa whoa! Nuclear power plants don’t spew CO2! You should at least be consistent Josiah.
I don’t follow your argument here. How does the price you are talking about signal whether to increase or decrease supply?
“How does the price you are talking about signal whether to increase or decrease supply?”
When the specific individuals who are able to supply the means to satisfy consumers’ preferences see that others are willing to pay a higher or lower price, this will make it more or less profitable to supply it.
If one seller is charging a higher price than what would be profitable for another seller (which can only be determined by the seller), then it is in the 2nd seller’s interest to supply it for less.
So, he naturally introduces a greater supply onto the market because the prices let him know that it’s profitable to do so.
But you have to have a free market in order for buyers and sellers to know what the other wants.
I think this video answers your question better than I can in a short comment:
The Birth of the Austrian School | Joseph T. Salerno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZRZKX5zAD4
Duration: 56:34
It’s charming in a pathologically insane way that alleged climate change is such a dire threat that it’s worth $14 trillion just to slow it down… but we’ll just scrap the whole idea if it doesn’t ensure “gender equality.”
Let’s act like you didn’t mention the “under water” nonsense
No, let’s not. If the only way you have to deal with sea level rise caused by global warming is to pretend it can’t happen, the you are basically admiting defeat.
I’m actually of the persuasion that if you’re not trying to protect yourself from ALL water pollutants, including animals crapping and dying in the river, then you’re not really all that concerned about pollutants in the water.
Some kinds of pollutants are toxic at very low levels. Others are naturally dissipated. The idea that you can’t have different preferences about them is silly.
And the attempt to make upstream “polluters” pay for your failure to plan is a violation of THEIR property rights. They didn’t come onto your property.
Suppose your next door neighbor is planning on setting off a nuke on his property. Is stopping him a violation of his property rights? After all, he’s not coming on to your property.
Are you going to hold all of your neighbors accountable for birds and insects who may have come from their property and then did something you didn’t like to yours?
Not if they are wild birds, obviously. But if the guy is operating a bird farm and the birds come and eat all my crops, then of course he can be liable.
The Global Warming claim is that CO2 causes warming, and it’s the warming that is supposed to cause all the problems.
Of course. So what? Suppose I blow up some explosives on my property and a resulting Avalanche crushes your house. I don’t get to claim “hey, it wasn’t the explosion that hurt you, it was the rocks!”
I should be able to get paid for all the farmers who can grow better crops with a bit of additional CO2. More than just farmers, I should also get paid for faster growing forests as well. Because the Science says.
Using the traditional method of pricing externalities (i.e. pick an arbitrary number) I demand payment of 10c for every tonne of food produced in the whole world, and 2c for every tonne of lumber. This is my basic property right, by all fairness and justice.
I should be able to get paid for all the farmers who can grow better crops with a bit of additional CO2
You are perfectly within your rights to say that you’ll stop emitting CO2 unless farmers pay you. This is what happens with honey bees, for example. But under the common law, while you can be held liable for doing something that damages a neighbor’s property, you typically can’t force payment if you do something that benefits your neighbor.
If you want to change this, that’s fine, so long as you also make payments for all the negative externalities from CO2. Overall you’d still pay out much more than you’d make, but it would reduce the cost of emitting a bit.
Hmmm, common law, interesting concept. Was the EPA a creation of common law? I think it was more a creation of lobbying groups pushing the US Federal Government to create more regulations.
Do environmentalists regularly go to court demonstrating actual property damage? I think not, they always go for political avenues. Rachel Carson never needed to worry about any legal burden of proof, just write a book and get the readership jumping up and down enough to attract the attention of the politicians. It isn’t about common law, it’s a popularity and noise making competition.
What about acid rain? Surely someone was harmed by that right? Well in the Adirondack lakes acid was causing the trout to become scarce, so after 20 years of ever increasing strict regulations banning SO2 from the air, guess what? The effect on acidity was nothing at all. Instead, the NY government came up with the amazing fallback plan of dumping lime into the lakes from helicopters. Astoundingly, lime dumps were successful in neutralizing acidity where the EPA had failed.
But wait, they could have done those lime dumps in the first place, couldn’t they? There was no need to carry on with all those regulations. Maybe a common law court would have allowed such a direct and simple solution to this problem, who knows? Never got tested.
Of course, had the power companies suggested dumping lime in the lakes back in the 1990’s when the acid rain scare was at full force they would have been lambasted for such unnatural vandalism.
What about those polar bears? We all know global warming is killing polar bears. Well, you do wonder how many common law courts have been presented with evidence of property damage on this topic, but if by chance it ever happens I’d probably refer to Dr. Mitchell Taylor who points out polar bear numbers are not declining and there’s no reason to believe they are dying out.
But it all comes back to the popularity contest. Inner city coffee drinkers aren’t too interested in factual details, causes are much more exciting.
Hmmm, common law, interesting concept. Was the EPA a creation of common law?
I’m not a fan of the EPA. In fact, I’ve spent a good chunk of my professional career opposing them. If it were up to me EPA would have zero role in dealing with climate change.
But wait, they could have done those lime dumps in the first place, couldn’t they? There was no need to carry on with all those regulations. Maybe a common law court would have allowed such a direct and simple solution to this problem, who knows? Never got tested.
Right. The current system sucks. Instead of protecting people’s property or creating the price signals needed to reach the lowest cost solution, it either does nothing or it imposes a series of cumbersome regulations (which still often do nothing).
What about those polar bears?
I have to say, polar bears are not a major concern of mine. I care about human beings. However, my understanding is that the threat to polar bears is a long term thing, so whether the population has recently declined is not the issue. But again, I don’t really care that much.
Your characterisation of liming coming to the rescue after years of attempts to reduce emissions is a little wide of the mark. Sweden distributed 120,000 tonnes of lime to counter acid rain in 1977-79. Norway adds 30-50,000 tonnes to lakes and rivers annually. Liming is and has long been a mitigation for some of the harms of acid rain. In 1989 NY times reported on a scheme to lime lakes in the Adirondacks that began in 1983: ” that Band-Aid is being applied more often. In the last three years, Living Lakes has limed 28 lakes. It is preparing to lime 10 more this year, and has helped support a number of research projects, including Dr. Bradt’s. The organization is supported by the utility and coal industries as well as by some environmental groups.”
So the power industries did suggest dumping lime back in the 1980’s, and it sure did get tested.
Back in 1989: “A few years ago, liming was criticized in the United States as representing an attempt by the utility and coal industries to avoid having to invest in devices to control acid rain. ”There might be some people who still view it as that,” said Dr. Brocksen. ”If they do, they’re incorrect.” Liming, he said, is ”something that’s got to be done no matter what happens, and it’s something that can be done now.”
According to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels in USA have dropped 65% since 1976. The pond to which you refer was said to be “Once thought to be a lost cause, the reclaiming of waters like Bear Pond is now worth the effort because battles to control industrial emissions have been fought and won.”
From the EPA “Liming tends to be expensive, has to be done repeatedly to keep the water from returning to its acidic condition, and is considered a short-term remedy in only specific areas, rather than an effort to reduce or prevent pollution. Furthermore, it does not solve the broader problems of changes in soil chemistry and forest health in the watershed…”
There is evidence that lakes, although they do better when limed than left acidic, may not get back their previous level of productivity due in part to metal addition from the lime. From David G. Angeler and Willem Goedkoop (2010, J. App Ecology)
“Therefore, the potential of liming seems limited to partial remediation of acidification impacts, rather than serving as an integral ecological restoration tool that favours the longterm recovery of desired ecosystem structural and functional aspects.”
Overall, liming is a partial mitigation and not a long term substitute for reducing acid rain at source.
It makes perfect sense. If you are going to neutralise acidic compounds present in flue gas, it is probably going to be much cheaper to do it in the stack, where they are concentrated, than to do it after they have spread out over millions of square kilometers. That or remove them before burning, or just select fuels with less sulphur in the first place.
“I should be able to get paid for all the farmers who can grow better crops with a bit of additional CO2.”
The beauty is that this included in the proposed carbon tax! Without this effect the tax would be much higher.
If the emission of CO2 had only positive externalities, then there would be a case for subsidising the activity. In the existing system, a tax credit may be a good way to go. Sadly the science says this is not the case.
Your method for pricing externalities is not the one actually used.
“If the only way you have to deal with sea level rise caused by global warming is to pretend it can’t happen, the you are basically admiting defeat. ”
Facepalm:
<a href="The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
“Some kinds of pollutants are toxic at very low levels. Others are naturally dissipated.”
And since the river is wide open to contamination from all sorts of pollutants, you’re not going to drink directly from the river, are you?
Actually, you will because, again, you’re NOT that concerned about pollutants that you apply the Precautionary Principle to your own life – only others’.
“Suppose your next door neighbor is planning on setting off a nuke on his property. Is stopping him a violation of his property rights?”
I’ve actually been wanting an opportunity to address this challenge in a different form.
Before I get to yours, let me briefly state the challenge to libertarians I had in mind (Walter Block attempted to defend against it, but I think he failed).
The challenge goes: A is holding B as a shield against C. In order for either of the innocents, B or C, to survive, one of them has to kill the other. Who has the right to do so?
The challenge is meant to show the supposed inconsistency in the Non Agression Principle.
Walter Block granted the challenge’s premise that, for the libertarian, it was one person’s property right versus another’s.
We can see that this is not necessary by removing from B and C the knowledge that the other is a threat to their lives, and still having one of them die as a result of the other exercising his property rights.
So, even if people die as a result, each person has a right to use their property as they see fit, so long as they don’t intend to violate the rights of others. Motive is everything.
The proper reply recognizes that unless the intent is to violate anothers’ rights, then the challenge does not pit one person’s rights against another. It also recognizes that both B and C have a right to defend themselves.
The conclusion should be that both B and C have a right to defend themselves from each other, and that whoever survives cannot be said to have violated the others’ rights.
Further, Person A cannot be blamed for eithers’ death.
So, to answer your question, you have a right to defend your life, using your own resources, against your neighbor who is going to set off a nuke on his property.
But, so long as your neighbor doesn’t have the intent on violating anyone’s property rights, it must also be said that, yes, he has every right to set off a nuke on his own property.
Same with your “bird farm” scenario.
“Suppose I blow up some explosives on my property and a resulting Avalanche crushes your house. I don’t get to claim “hey, it wasn’t the explosion that hurt you, it was the rocks!””
Actually, you do. There was no intent to crush your house.
Don’t live at the base of snowy mountains or in the middle of forests, if you’re concerned about that risk. You do not have the right to tell others what to do with their own property.
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
Not really. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, for example, scientific papers predicting warming outnumbered papers predicting cooling by more than six to one. Watts has complied a list of maybe 50 news articles over the course of an entire decade about the possibility of cooling. You could probably find a comparable number of articles about cooling published in the last decade. By contrast, hundreds of thousands of news articles about global warming have been writing during the same period.
And since the river is wide open to contamination from all sorts of pollutants, you’re not going to drink directly from the river, are you?
Well sure, if you dump a bunch of pollutants into water, people are probably not going to drink it.
So, to answer your question, you have a right to defend your life, using your own resources, against your neighbor who is going to set off a nuke on his property.
But, so long as your neighbor doesn’t have the intent on violating anyone’s property rights, it must also be said that, yes, he has every right to set off a nuke on his own property.
Okay, so by that logic there is nothing wrong with using force to limit people’s carbon emissions (even if those people aren’t violating others’ rights per se by emitting).
“Watts has complied a list of maybe 50 news articles over the course of an entire decade about the possibility of cooling. You could probably find a comparable number of articles about cooling published in the last decade. By contrast, hundreds of thousands of news articles about global warming have been writing during the same period.”
Leonard Nimoy, 1978 (In Search Of: The Coming Ice Age): “Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.”
From the comments section:
Here’s the article being referenced, from where the Watts article comes:
1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
And here’s a list of the emphasized sources:
BBC
Chicago Tribune
Fortune Magazine
Isaac Asimov
Los Angeles Times
Newsweek (Magazine)
New Scientist (Magazine)
Popular Science (Magazine)
Science News (Magazine)
Time Magazine
The Boston Globe
The New York Times
The Washington Post
U.S. News & World Report
It’s possible even pobable that in 10,000 years the Erath will enter another ice age but it’s warming for the next century.
Conspicuously absent from that list are scientific bodies or scientists.
Last year the news media ran hundreds of stories about how we were all going to die from Ebola. The fact that Mr. Spock once narrated a documentary about global cooling does not impress me.
The fact that Mr. Spock once narrated a documentary about global cooling does not impress me.
I don’t care if we disagree about AGW and policy responses, but let’s not be flippant with the Vulcan who did so much for humanity.
“Conspicuously absent from that list are scientific bodies or scientists.”
Oh, you mean “climate experts”? Those who believed the next Ice Age was on its way?
[Time stamped]
In Search Of… The Coming Ice Age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M#t=6m20s
Dr. Gifford Miller: “One of the questions I’m frequently asked is, ‘When will this present warm interval end?’ And the best answer to that, probably, is that it has, in fact, already ended, and it ended 3,000 years ago, right here on Baffin Island.”
Nimoy: “Dr. Gifford Miller is a Glaciologist from the University of Colorado. He has been studying the climate and glaciers of Baffin Island for the past six years.”
Miller: “For the last 3,000 years, the summer temperatures have been getting colder, and the amount of precipitation – rainfall and snowfall – has decreased so that the conditions have been drier and colder and, at the same time, the glaciers have expanded.
“In the most recent expansion which occured between 300 years ago and the turn of the present century, the glaciers attained their most extensive positions that they had during the last 8,000 years.”
And the same Dr. Gifford Miller is mentioned as being the Principle Investigator on a then upcoming 2013 investigation of Baffin Island’s DISAPPEARING ice:
Disappearing ice Paleoclimate investigations on Baffin Island, Arctic Canada Research Projects INSTAAR CU-Boulder
[www]http://instaar.colorado.edu/research/projects/baffin-island-2013-field-season/
An Ice Age has been going on for the last 3000 years? Scary.
Again, you can find a handful of folks today who claim that we are on the verge of a new Ice Age. But would anyone claim that we are in the midst of a Great Global Cooling Scare comparable to the concern over global warming today.
I mean, is the argument that a scientist once said something wrong in the 1970s, therefore we can dismiss everything scientists say? Seriously?
You can find some folks today who say we are headed into a new Ice Age. That hardly means we are in the midst of a Great Global Cooling Scare.
I mean, is the argument really that because a scientist once said something wrong in the 1970s we can safely dismiss everything scientists say? Seriously?
“I mean, is the argument really that because a scientist once said something wrong in the 1970s we can safely dismiss everything scientists say? Seriously?”
Dismissing an example as “a scientist” is pedantic.
When scientists claim that we need to “act now” for Global Warming in the same way that we were told we needed to back then – with price controls and a global governance of the means of production – yeah, we can dismiss them as Commie propagandists.
The argument that most scientists have concluded based on the evidence that man is adding a positive amount of global mean temperature to the Earth’s atmosphere never was an argument that the best way to deal with it is though states controlling industry.
The argument that most scientists have concluded based on the evidence that man is adding a positive amount of global mean temperature to the Earth’s atmosphere never was an argument that the best way to deal with it is though states controlling industry.
When scientists claim that we need to “act now” for Global Warming in the same way that we were told we needed to back then – with price controls and a global governance of the means of production – yeah, we can dismiss them as Commie propagandists.
If you want to dismiss scientists who advocate price controls and global governance, that’s fine. But that’s not all or even most of them.
It would be nice if this one could be put to bed once and for all. There were 68 scientific papers published about climate change in the 1970’s. Those predicting warming out-numbered those predicting cooling by 6.2 to 1, as Josiah said.
Since then there have been thousands of papers, and the ratio in favour of warming has vastly increased.
The picture in the 1970’s looked *nothing* like today.
Very, very clearly, the scientific position looked nothing like today, so what is the argument supposed to be? That the media position looked the same? That cannot be true, since we have just demonstrated that media articles about cooling did not reflect the scientific publications, whereas those about warming accurately reflect the scientific position.
So what are we left with? The flimsy remnants of the argument is that the media sometimes exaggerates or sensationalises stories. Hardly big news, and it says nothing about the climate debate.
I think the lesson is to be wary of media as a source – always look beyond the newspapers.
This is a stupid and ill-informed argument, and it would be good if it never appeared again so we don’t have to keep trotting out the same refutation.
“The picture in the 1970’s looked *nothing* like today.”
Funny how the media drew the same conclusion then as they do today: that we need Communism to solve the weather.
The picture looks, today, EXACTLY like it did then. The goal is the same.
OK, you think the only thing that was the same then as now was that the media thinks we need communism to solve every problem. Fair enough if you think that, but using global cooling as an example is no more relevant than using poverty in Karachi. It may or may not reflect on the media, but has nothing to do with the climate.
Viewing the media as a monolithic entity with sinister goals sounds like a conspiracy theory.
“Fair enough if you think that, but using global cooling as an example is no more relevant than using poverty in Karachi. It may or may not reflect on the media, but has nothing to do with the climate.”
U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
“(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
“A survey completed last year by Dr Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968”
– reported in Newsweek April 28, 1975 p64.
Presumably you don’t count NOAA as a scientific body, understandable reaction but officially they are still supposed to be doing science.
The narrator, is just that, a narrator. On that show he interviewed Dr. Steven Schneider who (after getting over his initial excitement about cooling) later joined the IPCC as a lead author and got all excited about warming. That’s the point… not who the narrator was, but who was actually in the show.
There were a number of other scientists in the same show, talking about ice cores and cores taken from lake beds. You can watch it online, they give their names and organizations, as well as where they got their measurements from.
“To gain a perspective on these divergent views, Science News interviewed C. C. Wallen, chief of the Special Environmental Applications Division, World Meteorological Organization, at the WMO headquarters in Geneva. The cooling trend observed since 1940 is real enough, he says, but not enough is known about the underlying causes to justify any sort of extrapolation. Particularly dangerous would be any attempt to generalize from even shorter-term experience, like the bad weather in 1972 and following years, to prognosticate any future weather patterns. On the other hand, the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the “very extraordinary period of warmth” that preceded it. Even this mild diagnosis can have “fantastic implications” for present-day humanity, Wallen says.”
– John H. Douglas, Science News Vol. 107, Thu, 25 Sep 1975
Gosh, “Special Environmental Applications Division, World Meteorological Organization” … they must know a little bit about science, do you think?
The same article also quoted cited “National Academy of Sciences report on global climate change (SN: 1/25/75, p. 52),” … hmmm National Academy, would have to be scientists. Everyone knows you can’t have a National Academy without scientists.
“We are past the best of the interglacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago. […] Ever since then we have been on a downhill float regarding temperature. There maybe a few upward fluctuations from time to time but these are more than offset by the general downward trend..”
– Professor Hubert Lamb (East Anglia University) interviewed by the Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972.
Hmmm, East Anglia University, does that have anything to do with climate science? There’s something vaguely familiar about the name. Might be worth searching.
“The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth’s recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality. “
– Time Magazine, Monday, Nov. 13, 1972 “Science: Another Ice Age?”
So who is this Cesare Emiliani guy anyway? Hmmm, seems he is listed as “the founder of paleoceanography”, that definitely sounds a whole lot like science. Yup, science.
There’s plenty more of these, check WUWT list page.
“Hubert Lamb… Might be worth searching.”
Following your suggestion, I found that, he said:
“It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight cooling of world climate for some years to come, e.g. from volcanic or solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”
“Well sure, if you dump a bunch of pollutants into water, people are probably not going to drink it.”
And since you don’t know when dangerous pollutants will enter the water, due to either man-made or natural causes, it is your responsibility to filter the water you choose to drink, not others’ responsibility to ensure that others can drink directly from it.
“Okay, so by that logic there is nothing wrong with using force to limit people’s carbon emissions (even if those people aren’t violating others’ rights per se by emitting).”
If the carbon dioxide harms you as a direct result of emissions, then yes. Be sure to not exhale while you’re defending yourself.
If it is not a direct threat, then no. In that case, your neighbor has a right to use defensive force against you.
And since you don’t know when dangerous pollutants will enter the water, due to either man-made or natural causes, it is your responsibility to filter the water you choose to drink, not others’ responsibility to ensure that others can drink directly from it.
Again, different pollutants require different types of treatments. If you are just worried about bacteria you can boil the water. For other stuff you need complicated treatment and filtration plants, that cost a ton of money to build. If you think that as long as birds poop in the river it doesn’t matter if you pour toxic sludge in it too then you are woefully uninformed.
If the carbon dioxide harms you as a direct result of emissions, then yes.
Why does it matter if it’s “direct” or not? That just seems like an ad hoc attempt to weasel out of admitting defeat.
“If you think that as long as birds poop in the river it doesn’t matter if you pour toxic sludge in it too then you are woefully uninformed.”
It depends on who owns the property.
If it matters to you, then you pay for your own cleanup.
No one is obligated to maintain a river on your behalf.
If it costs too much for you, personally, to fund a complicated treatment plant, then you’re SOL – go buy some from somebody that could afford to make water drinkable.
“Why does it matter if it’s “direct” or not? That just seems like an ad hoc attempt to weasel out of admitting defeat.”
Because anything can be considered an indirect effect, especially when Progressives abuse people’s ignorance of language.
That is a fundamental problem, cause and effect can get ridiculously nebulous.
I think there’s actually an established legal principle (don’t quote me in court without a second opinion though). If the causal chain is too remote from the original action then legally no responsibility can be assigned. For example:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1549136.html
Consider something like the harm caused when the Maldives sank under the rising sea. Hmmm, wait a moment, that never happened.
Well OK, consider the harm caused by flooding by Hurricane Sandy. Did your hot shower the year before cause that hurricane? Well obviously not directly, but maybe by some indirect chain it increased the probability of cat-5 hurricanes. Oh woopse, just a minute, the last few years have been an all time record length of time gone without a major hurricane hitting the USA, and Sandy was only a cat-1 when it hit and doesn’t even count as a major hurricane by the normal measure.
So maybe somehow your CO2 caused Sandy to hit New York when it might have hit somewhere else, but that’s the nature of these things, they can hit anywhere and sooner or later they will do.
Of course snow and ice also cause their share of damage (more people freeze to death in a bad winter than die of exhaustion in a hot summer), but global warming now gets blamed for snow and ice (even after snowfalls were supposed to be a thing of the past, and the ski industry is supposed to be all bankrupt by now).
By the time you try to figure out what that CO2 really did (other than everything bad that ever happens) you are talking about extremely remote causal chains.
“That is a fundamental problem, cause and effect can get ridiculously nebulous.”
This is true, but we must accept that things have more than one cause.
Many accidents for example are the result of a combination of factors coinciding at one time and place. A simple example would be a faulty valve and a faulty gauge. If either were working, there would be no accident. Only with both failing do we get an accident. We cannot say there was just one cause.
These diverse causal chains are why policy may be a better way to go than courtrooms.
Perhaps this is what MF was getting at with the class action comment.
Say we know that putting testosterone in the water supply will result in an increase in the murder rate. We could not say for any individual murder that the cause was the testosterone. The overwhelming majority of people still would not commit or suffer murder. Nonetheless, all those additional murders (committed by people acting in the Misean sense) are a real harm.
Say testosterone got into the water supply as a by-product of the energy generation industry. Did your hot shower last week cause Mavis Grunge to be murdered? Well, obviously not directly, but by some indirect chain it increased the probability of murders.
Nevertheless, a victim’s family would have a very hard time proving that their loss was the result of the testosterone and not one of those murders that would have happened anyway.
If working on balance of probabilities, any individual action would fail, and there would be nothing to inhibit the power companies adding testosterone. However, some sort of class action could in principle succeed, the power companies would have to pay compensation to murder victims according to some formula, such that the total paid equalled the total harm. This would provide the correct incentive for the power company to add just the right amount of testosterone.
In the absence of the courts facilitating such a transfer, regulation would be the next best thing. A tax on testosterone release set at the same level as the damage caused would as a first approximation provide the same incentive for the power companies to release just the right amount of testosterone.
Things would get trickier if the pollutant was a mutagen that only revealed itself after 3 generations. Anyone ingesting it would have one in three grandchildren born with only one leg.
How would the courts deal with this scenario?
“These diverse causal chains are why policy may be a better way to go than courtrooms.”
The point is to hold the specific rights violator accountable to the specific victim.
If you don’t do this, then you’re likely creating more victims.
So, policy would miss the point, and comes with the unintended consequences Austrians keep talking about, which somehow get blamed on the free market.
Measure twice, cut once.
Guest, I am still not clear what you are saying. In my hypothetical case I am pretty sure you think that there would be no action possible to reduce the addition of testosterone. I am not sure if you think that is how it should be, rather than it being an insurmountable failure due to unintended consequences. Even if the costs were high and the fix were cheap, there should be no mechanism for victims to either get compensated as long as the specific victim cannot demonstrate a specific emitter as causing their specific harm.