Originally Posted by The Rani

For example, India is starting to use the technology extensively, but not because of government pressure. They just don't have the resources to power the whole country with electricity, and as a result blackouts there have been a routine part of life.

Yeh. It's the same reason why there are three (count them!! Kievskoye shosse near Aleksandrovskaa, east side of the road; Tallinnskoye shosse just past Krasnoye Selo, northern side of the road; right midway between Kolpino and Yam-Izhora on some no-name road) wind-generator outfits just on the south side of the Petersburg/LenOblast border; safe to assume that on the northern side, where the wind is a bit stronger, there are more.
Why? Because the government-run power companies are notoriously poorly-run and underfunded in terms of infrastructure replacement and accommodating demand. For several decades, they have simply added consumers without really adding generating capacity. The result of which is that if you are in an area with power, you'll pay to license a certain number of kilowatts for your home, but you will also have fairly regular brown-outs as the 'stabilizers' that all of your neighbors have stuck into the wall behind their teevees and whatnot eat up the power before it even gets to you.
Particularly in the places where city water is not connected, this puts you at the serious risk of losing not just power, but also water (those wells don't pump themselves, after all). Which would suck.
So instead, it is becoming increasingly common to have one or more meter-diameter 1-kW (at the mean wind speeds on our side of the city) turbines up at the roofline and a bank of cells in the utility room. For less than a thousand bucks a pop (cells, installation, and warranty included), they run about the same as the cost to license a kW of city power and put you back in control of your destiny.

There are all sorts of paths to reducing fossil fuel dependence, but it probably will be the places where people haven't already grown complacent from living for decades of the government teat that do the ground-breaking. True fuel independence is, after all, independence.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Omigod, HC was right ... everything really IS based on religion!!!

Well, not exactly. Everything has a socio/cultural/worldviewish/religious component (for those of you playing the Ken Wilber home game, that's the Lower Left quadrant).

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is what I've been saying on this thread all along. But maybe Crichton is just another disgruntled and sarcastic libertarian, not to be taken seriously anyway?

Nice link, Justin. Thanks!

I'm really stoked I found it. Pretty much all the speeches on his site are worth reading.

And btw, he's no libertarian, as several of those speeches make clear.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Still chugging through this myself.

I find it quite amusing that Crichton, ardent defender of the status quo, has the chutzpah to compare himself to Galileo, standing in solidarity with Lomborg as the poor persecuted seekers of light. How very PoMo. In response, I reference my own post of a few weeks back, quoting Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Well, maybe "amusing" isn't the right word, given that he has the ear of the Boy King.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The issues from mining coal are localized and are actionable in torts. There already is a mechanism to deal with these issues. If coal really was unacceptable to the people living with it, it would stop being used.

Actually, coal's damaging health effects are widely geographically dispersed, especially its radioactive load. And as we generally agree, the tort system is very poorly equipped to address such types of harm.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There isn't a mechanism to deal with GW. If it is real, then we will get cooked like the proverbial frog in a pan of warming water.

That's a proverb, but it's actually false. Which just goes to show that frogs are smarter than people.

There is a lively discussion going on over at The Oil Drum about these issues, namely how people react psychologically to present and future costs, and the need for change. There are some detailed scientific studies about human discounting functions (i.e. exactly how much we weight future benefits versus current costs.) The implications are not pretty for the necessary policy changes related to either Peak Oil or Global Warming.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A heliocentric solar system presents no true logical challenge to Christian doctrine. God can still have a special plan for humanity involving the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ whether the earth or the sun is taken as the center. One may argue that this is also the case w/r/t evolution, although there are obviously Christians incapable of reasoning their way through that as yet.

The problem is that the steps needed to deal with global warming, as you have pointed out, involve government action. They may involve an increase in government authority. Even if they don't, at the least they require maintaining government authority somewhere around current levels, while changing the focus of government activity. Therefore, at worst they threaten what libertarians would consider further erosion of liberty, and at best they forestall what libertarians would consider progress and improvement.

These present a true logical challenge to libertarian ideals.

Libertarianism, is kind of the Marxism of our era, the some of the people who would be Marxists, Socialists or Technocrats in the 1930's are now Libertarians. I'm a conservative of a stripe which will emerge soon enough.

I am wary of a increase in government authority to combat a problem Global Warming, which I see the measures will decrease the standard of living, combat a problem whose extent is unknown and I suspect some scaring others it so they can push their agendas.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You offer an evidence-free, faith-based rejection of my contention that free people are capable of accounting for the consequences of their actions and choosing accordingly.

It's a logic-based rejection, actually, and while I didn't offer any evidence that doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It is. It's found in all of history. I can give you countless, to the point of banality, examples of people's failure to do that when the benefits/consequences are borne by everyone, while the costs are borne only by those who volunteer to bear them. I will do so if you insist, but I'm sure you're just as familiar with the phenomenon as I am.

Can you point to any example of people successfully dealing with that kind of situation without applying some kind of coercion, either the coercion of law, or that of social pressure?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I liked this passage myself:

"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

That passage goes a long way toward discrediting Crichton, actually. He claims to know what he's talking about, and yet doesn't appear to understand the difference between weather and climate? Or, even worse, does understand it but exploits the superficial connection between the two anyway?

Originally Posted by The Rani

But he's entirely right that in certain cases it gets taken over and used for other purposes, and in those cases it ceases to be science at all. Whether those purposes are political, as in environmental or war-related issues, or financial, as in the medical field, the result is that real "science" becomes non-existent, as everyone is "working" for one side or another and becomes inherently non-objective.

Can you give us any examples, other than global warming, in which you believe research funded by governments or by non-corporate grants, and carried out in a democracy, crosses the line you've drawn here?

What you've argued here is that science is inherently incapable of being objective and hence is useless. That seems a pretty broad conclusion to draw from the corruption of pharmaceutical companies.

By the way, I thought it amusing that he also pointed to Nazi Germany as an example of science misused for political purposes.

Hence the qualifier, above "carried out in a democracy." I doubt you're going to get any argument against the idea that some governments fund bogus research.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's a logic-based rejection, actually, and while I didn't offer any evidence that doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. It is. It's found in all of history.

Logic? Evidence? What the heck do these narcissistic Neanderthal rantings have with a Big Orgy?

Sheesh, we've got the equipment, folks, now let's just get it on... Kum-by-yah, My Gore, Kum-by-yah...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Can you point to any example of people successfully dealing with that kind of situation without applying some kind of coercion, either the coercion of law, or that of social pressure?

If you're going to treat social pressure as indistinguishable from the force of law (that is, shunning at the extreme as versus execution at the extreme) then no. I'm not terribly sure I could find an example of a mode of societal organization where people randomly choose to take upon themselves additional efforts without and benefits.

But that's not what I was saying could happen; nor is it what I believe you were saying was impossible. The whole 'what to do' AGW discussion is breaking down at the point where I say that social pressures are and have always been sufficient to cause society to move in a direction of personal responsibility for increasingly approaching all the consequences of one's actions (the gap between reality and the theoretical 'all' is a question of imperfect information, and reasonably can be hoped will asymptotically decrease as our ability to understand thing improves). You seem to be saying, in effect, "Not so; unless people are put at risk of being killed (or otherwise physically attacked) for nonconformism, there is no hope for a society to stand on responsibility-for-actions."

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... I don't know about you, but I am going to continue to drive and use my AC.

That's where cognitive dissonance meets the need for action. We all tend to think that way, even though we know we shouldn't. Let me modify my argument a bit to say that results count. If adding AGW to the argument-mix gets more people on board than it alienates, then add that arrow to the quiver.

Am I sounding like an overage Millie?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you're going to treat social pressure as indistinguishable from the force of law (that is, shunning at the extreme as versus execution at the extreme) then no.

OK. No, they're not indistinguishable. If they were, we would have no need for laws as a society became larger, more complex, and more impersonal. But they do serve the same purpose, which is coercing socially-desired behavior.

You seem to be saying, in effect, "Not so; unless people are put at risk of being killed (or otherwise physically attacked) for nonconformism, there is no hope for a society to stand on responsibility-for-actions."

I'm saing that, once a society reaches a size and a level of impersonality that people can say "I don't give a shit what you think about what I do," that is the case.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Prove that the anthropogenic component is the critical one in warming global climate, and libertarians will have their strongest Cause yet! Please, please prove it!

There is no proof in science, only theory. Science is not law.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is no proof in science, only theory. Science is not law.

Fine, Mister Pedantic

Demonstrate it, then.

Nevertheless, it would represent the most wide-ranging Tragedy of the Commons the world has ever seen. Hardly something that would vapor-lock the libertarian worldview...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fine, Mister Pedantic

Demonstrate it, then.

"Demonstrate" and "prove" are synonyms. What Mike was getting at is that at the level of theories as broad as AGW (or evolution, or universal gravitation, or quantum mechanics, or relativity), there is no possibility of neat and final demonstration or proof. All theories are "this is the best model we have of the data we currently possess, and from it we can predict X, Y, and Z." Then of course you check out whether X, Y, and Z happen. If they do, then the theory is upheld; if they don't, it's back to the drawing board. But even if they do, that doesn't mean the theory is PROVEN, because there are always more predictions that can be made that haven't been checked out yet. Newton's physics met a lot of tests before it was finally superceded by relativity and quantum mechanics. But it was never "proven," and in the end it turned out to be wrong.

The way you deep-six a broad scientific theory is to present a better theory, that explains more of the data, and from which you can make predictions that come true, which the old theory predicted would be false. But even then, you won't have "proven" your new theory. You'll only have proven that it's better than the old one.

Nevertheless, it would represent the most wide-ranging Tragedy of the Commons the world has ever seen. Hardly something that would vapor-lock the libertarian worldview...

Can you explain this? It seems to me that the Tragedy of the Commons is exactly where libertarianism, especially in the strong, near-anarchistic form you prefer, breaks down.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Can you explain this? It seems to me that the Tragedy of the Commons is exactly where libertarianism, especially in the strong, near-anarchistic form you prefer, breaks down.

What?

There's too much for me to do more than just point you in the right direction. Suffice to say that a perusal of the below links should demonstrate fairly well that "Tragedy of the Commons"-situations are superbly suited to libertarian redress (and, strictly speaking, even Hardin himself commented later that his thesis should have been titled the Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons; the first link below strikes that point). Disagree with the analyses you may (I should guess, will), but you can hardly say that the issue is a threat to libertarian philosophy; rather, it is one of the great opportunities for libertarianism to show itself as offering concrete benefits to the widest range of people. A 'recruiting tool', one could even call it who was so inclined.

A Plea for Public Property
The Free Rider as a Basis for Government Intervention
Common Property in Free-Market Anarchism

Always pleased to broaden horizons...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That is, after all, what we're broadly talking about when we talk about addressing AGW, correct? Causing society in general to be cognizant of the fact (presupposed for the purposes of discussion) that mowing their lawn is marginally contributing to mass property destruction in Tampa? And to modify their lawn-mowing accordingly to reduce the incidence of destruction?

Such cognizance is obviously not presupposed in the discussion of the reality of human-caused GW. Such cognizance will never occur in those whose faith traditions take precedence over facts and logic. Will a creationist ever become cognizant of evolution?

So chalking up skepticism on the science side to a philosophical inability to reconcile a heliocentric universe with the libertarian religion strikes me as somewhat... inaccurate.

Not at all. You never addressed the point.

Demonstrate (to libertarians) that the anthropogenic component is the critical one in warming global climate..

This may be impossible. Can one demonstrate evolution to creationists? So far you have given every indication that for you this issue is like evolution to creationists. You quote Cockburn presenting the warm soda analogy to discredit GW and Crichton who thinks limitations on weather forecasting should apply to climate forecasts as if weather and climate were the same thing. Both points are flatly wrong--and show that the person making them doesn't know what he is talking about. You present one clueless spokesman (Monckton, Cockburn, Crichton) after another. Your lack of substance (galactic topology) shows the weakness of your position. You have represented one possibly credible skeptic, with whom I am corresponding to see what his arguments are.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Such cognizance is obviously not presupposed in the discussion of the reality of human-caused GW. Such cognizance will never occur in those whose faith traditions take precedence over facts and logic. Will a creationist ever become cognizant of evolution?

First prize in the Shooting Right Past The Point Contest goes to the 'bert!

In fact, I'm not even terribly sure just where you ended up. Much less how you got there from my attempt to summarize the fundamental goal of any who might feel compelled to fight against AGW. Maybe is just as valid for this one...

Not at all. You never addressed the point.

Umm. Yes I did. The point Brian tried to make was that fighting AGW was fundamentally anti-libertarian, therefore libertarians were necessarily going to be philosophically opposed to any arguments tending to show that there actually was such a thing.

It's a bit unseemly of me to toot my own horn, but I kicked the point's ass.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Even grade school science teaches that hypothesis becomes theory, and theory becomes fact, after numerous tests that are verifiable and repeatable.

I don't know about grade school, but when I studied physics and psychology in college, it was made clear that no scientific theory is ever proven or ever becomes fact. Actually, "fact" exists at a much lower epistemic level. For example, it is a fact that the moon orbits the earth in a certain path at a certain speed. Einstein's (or Newton's) theory of gravitation accounts for this fact, among many other facts, but neither theory is itself fact. Newton's isn't even considered true any longer, although it was for a long time.

Nor does a hypothesis become a theory upon verification, it merely becomes a verified hypothesis. What distinguishes it from theory is its limited scope. Many hypotheses may contribute to the thinking that eventually becomes a theory, but none of them actually evolves into the theory. The theory is created by creative thinking of its own.

Evolution is not yet called a "fact," because they are constantly finding new evidence and theories have changed over time.

That's not true, either. Evolution IS a fact. The theory of evolution isn't a theory THAT evolution happens, but a theory about HOW it does, and like everything in science it is held tentatively and provisionally. It's not "true" and never will be, but it's the best theory we have to account for speciation. The current version is better than Darwin's original, but doubtless it will be replaced at some point by a better version still. But no matter how good it gets, it will always be a "theory."

So why not call it the Human-Induced Global Warming Theory, allow for the fact that more research needs to be done, and leave it at that?

As a question of pure academic science, that's exactly what we should do. But to the extent the theory accurately describes reality, there are implications about practical engineering and political steps that need to be taken NOW. So as a practical matter, we can't afford the conservatism that's inherent in good science.

Justin:

That's a bunch of material to go through. I'm going to get back to you on it. Perhaps, though, it would be better on another thread? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's a bit unseemly of me to toot my own horn, but I kicked the point's ass.

No you didn't. You have sidestepping all the issues. Tooting your horn makes no points.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The point Brian tried to make was that fighting AGW was fundamentally anti-libertarian, therefore libertarians were necessarily going to be philosophically opposed to any arguments tending to show that there actually was such a thing.

Actually, the point I was making was that libertarians were fundamentally inclined to THINK fighting AGW was anti-libertarian, i.e., that it would lead inexorably to bigger and badder gubmint, creating a motivation to reject the science. A subtle difference, but one that leaves open the option of showing that fighting AGW could be done without a net increase of government.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, the point I was making was that libertarians were fundamentally inclined to THINK fighting AGW was anti-libertarian, i.e., that it would lead inexorably to bigger and badder gubmint, creating a motivation to reject the science. A subtle difference, but one that leaves open the option of showing that fighting AGW could be done without a net increase of government.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, the argument I presented that fighting AGW is actually something for which libertarianism would be the most effective tool sort of wrecks your contention about the skepticism of a libertarian towards the AGW hypothesis being due to a fundamental politico-philosophical incompatibility.

Want to start the new thread? I'm fresh out of pithy topic-names at the moment...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No you didn't. You have sidestepping all the issues. Tooting your horn makes no points.

It was Brian's point, and he seems to have accepted that I connected with it.

Maybe you should go back and re-read?

Or maybe you're talking about a different point?