He's talked about it before, but in his new column Ronald Bailey lays it out in full: The case against critics who accuse him of bias.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Herrick and His Balls | September 22, 2006, 5:26pm | #
What's wrong with being a whore?jf | September 22, 2006, 5:30pm | #
Just curious, but I noticed that a number of datasets use the year 1979 as the starting point to show trends. What is the significance of starting with that year?I suspect the answer has to do with some new satellite or something, just to (hopefully) preempt any claims that the data is being cherry-picked.
Lurker Kurt | September 22, 2006, 5:30pm | #
Ron,Has solar variability been ruled out as a cause or contributor to global warming?
jf | September 22, 2006, 5:33pm | #
Never mind, wikipedia gave me the answer I had suspected: it's when satellite measurements began.JN | September 22, 2006, 5:33pm | #
Isn't water vapor the number one greenhouse gas?If so, isn't dealing with carbon emmisions a huge waste of time?
Eric | September 22, 2006, 5:40pm | #
Nature 443, 161-166(14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
GILMORE | September 22, 2006, 5:44pm | #
So then not a whore, just virtuously wrongWhats the deal with this piece? Were people reallyclamoring for an explanation?
Lurker Kurt | September 22, 2006, 5:45pm | #
JN,IIRC, per volume, carbon dioxide has a greater greenhouse effect than an equivilant amount of water vapor so that a small increase in carbon dioxide will have a great increase in temperatures.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere and not only does it have a greenhouse effect but it also reflects solar energy away from the earth which would be an anti-greenhouse effect. The last I heard, water vapor wasnt' include in climate models, but this may no longer be true.
Russell | September 22, 2006, 6:13pm | #
Tis' a pity Ron had to go and author a CEI book subtitled 'Global Warming and other Eco-Myths', for verily, Exxon has laid a bunch of megabucks on that ornament to K Street.Ron now writes "perhaps I am just generally skeptical of end-of-the-world scenarios and believe, as Carl Sagan famously did, that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? "
Er, yes, but that money quote premiered as the run-up to foisting'nuclear winter ' onto Foreign Affairs as hard science.
A few years before Carl jumped the shark on Nightline, claiming the Kuwait Oil fires threatened a lethal Asian freeze, Ron's CEI boss-to-be Fred Smith asked me , as a critic of the famously ersatz doomsday machine "Do you want to be the next Carl Sagan?"
To which I replied "One is too many."
That was about a dozen CEI Warren Brooks Fellows ago.
Russell | September 22, 2006, 6:25pm | #
And by the way , I quit writing for TCS in March, upon discovering their Exxon subsidy coincided with their refusal to run pieces of mine critical of climate contrarians playing fast and loose with the scientific literature.TCS has just split from DCI , which I hope bosed well for a more reality than client oriented future .
Sam-Hec | September 22, 2006, 6:28pm | #
Luther,Water vapor is included in climate models. And it is more powerful than CO2, but imbalances precipitate within a week on average. Clouds are what is difficult to model properly.
http://tinyurl.com/o4jhn
And solar variability has been ruled out as a primary factor in the warming so far.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm
any more links and the server squirerels attack.
MainstreamMan | September 22, 2006, 6:28pm | #
Lurker Kurt,Here are some links with data and references.
Solar Forcing
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Solar
Water Vapor
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
Todd Fletcher | September 22, 2006, 7:10pm | #
Ron,I've always valued your reporting and books over the years. I only wish there were more scince reporters with your integrity.
* | September 22, 2006, 7:24pm | #
Whats the deal with this piece? Were people reallyclamoring for an explanation?Seriously. I found this piece very self-indulgent and unnecessary. If you report accurately and in good faith, you shouldn't have to issue feature length defenses of your work.
NoStar | September 22, 2006, 7:25pm | #
Ron,One day you will find out that the only mistake you made was when you decided you were wrong about human activity being the significant causal agent for global warming.
isildur | September 22, 2006, 8:39pm | #
There was a trend for a while -- and I hope to god it's over now -- towards calling Mr. Bailey a corporate shill in every single comments thread for his articles. It was tiring and irritating, and led to the disclosure statement he adds to nearly every post he makes on H&R.I think this piece is perfectly reasonable as a personal anectdote contradictory to the notion that everyone who doesn't agree with you *must* be paid off somehow.
joshua corning | September 22, 2006, 9:28pm | #
I think this piece is perfectly reasonable as a personal anectdote contradictory to the notion that everyone who doesn't agree with you *must* be paid off somehow.I disagree.
*comment paid for by The People who Disagree with Isildur Commitee.
Lou Skannen | September 22, 2006, 9:54pm | #
I'm stuck with the nagging suspicion that I'm being manipulated into fear and anxiety so that I won't complain too loudly when my daughter is selected to be one of the virgins sacrificed to the Global Thermostat God.joe | September 22, 2006, 10:20pm | #
Lou,I suspect it was a similar "naggist suspicion" about environmentalists that caused Bailey to devote more than a decade of his career to a dead end.
"Money follows ideas" in CEI-land. Yes, I imagine it does. After a while, I imagine it becomes difficult to even move.
Ron's escape from CEI-land deserves to be celebrated and I intended no aspersion on his sterling journalistic character, now that he is a journalist who double sources and fact checks everything except chronology - The RS is at best the 3rd oldest European scientific society, Rome's Academy of the Lynxes and the Florentine Accadmia di Cimento having been founded circa 1606 and 1628 respectively
Warren | September 23, 2006, 1:34am | #
That was the worst defense of past work I've ever read. It sounded for all the world like a teenager trying to explain to his girlfriend how she wound up pregnant. It is so lame that it actually convinced me that Ron is indeed a corporate shill deliberately misleading his readers. Though I suspect he is an exceptionally cheap whore.I hope Reason dumps him and gets a better ecoskeptic.
sam-hec | September 23, 2006, 4:57am | #
Any comparisons for us Warren?I mean...what is a 'good' example of a defense of past work on a controversial subject?
Russell | September 23, 2006, 5:26am | #
sam-hec:"I mean...what is a 'good' example of a defense of past work on a controversial subject?"
Washington's Farewell Address isn't too shabby.
Chris S. | September 23, 2006, 9:34am | #
A person who clings to his long-held scientific conclusions in the face of new evidence is not a scientist.As far as the pay-for-opinion aspect of this piece, I think Ron is responding to skeptical comments that have been sprinkled in this forum and elsewhere for at least a year. I, for one, laud him for his scientific honesty. I don't give a whit about the source of his funding.
Warren | September 23, 2006, 9:45am | #
Any comparisons for us Warren?Richard Feynman discussing his work on the atomic bomb springs to mind.
I've Googled a bit, looking for it, but it's a needle in a very large haystack. Basically he said:
I started working on the bomb because I was afraid of Hitler. Once I got started I never gave it another thought. After Germany was defeated, I never paused to think, "the reasons I started this are no longer valid".
You should have invested in Starbucks instead of Exxon: Better returns, less issues.
happyjuggler0 | September 23, 2006, 1:08pm | #
Nice post Ron.It is awfully hard to believe that the envirohystericalists actually believe what they calim to believe when they haven't been clamoring for us to replace all our energy plants with nuclear plants. We have the technology to go far beyond the measly 10% Kyoto reduction if we really wanted to...so why don't Greenpeace and all the other leftist antiLuddite loonies want nuke plants if we are on the verge of impending catastrophe.
Ron Bailey's scepticism has been warranted if for no other reason than that the "other" side has been, and continues to be, populated by a bunch of illogical twits.
joe | September 23, 2006, 1:28pm | #
Logical twits with a better capacity to understand reality than you, happyjuggler0.Between Iraqi WMDs and global warming, I'm getting pretty damn sick of people telling me that there's something wrong with my thought process because I figured out the truth years before they did.
Oh, poor put-upon Captain Exploding Lawnmower, the virtuous intertron warrior.
Neu Mejican | September 23, 2006, 1:54pm | #
Happyjuggler0I have voted Green for the last three election cycles. I see increased nuclear as an important potential piece of the solution to reduce greenhouse gases. There are currently many political problems with the nuclear solution as the primary means to reduce global greenhouse gases (see Iran). A move towards nuclear has been supported by many prominent green movement folks...including James Lovelock
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
The logical arguments against nuclear power involve the difficulties of dealing with the waste. They are not impossible to overcome, but it is hardly illogical to oppose nuclear power because of these difficulties. Particularly given the fact that these solutions will need to involve coherent government policy over very long time frames.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
kevrob | September 23, 2006, 6:32pm | #
So, how much of GW is anthropogenic? 5%? 20%? 99%? Activity at the margin is important in economic thinking. If human activity only makes a small contribution to the problem, large changes in our society won't ameliorate it much.Perhaps if the watermelons who dominate the environmental movement hadn't reflexively proposed statist solutions so often, we free marketers wouldn't have been so reluctant to trust them.
Kevin
Neu Mejican | September 23, 2006, 7:34pm | #
Kevrob,If you think of economics, a factor that pushes trends by even a small margin is important (economist are always looking at fractions of a %). The issue with human contribution is how it is skewing the system, not whether it is the main factor driving the system. Even a small skew in a a complex system can lead to dramatic consequences for the system overall.
By analogy, humans are the government to the climate's free market.
Chad | September 23, 2006, 7:40pm | #
Kevin, the current scientific consensus could be summarized as that there is a greater than 95% chance that GW is more than 50% anthropogenic, based on the language in the lastest IPCC report. I think this language is rather conservative. Indeed, the only other explanation with any evidence at all to support it (solar forcing - ie, more sunlight) has essentially been shot down, with the evidence showing that it has either not occured or only occured to a small degree that could not explain more than 20% of the observed GW in the "best" case. If solar forcing isn't causing it, what is? Magic fairies?I agree, Kevin, that the "watermelons" have cried wolf again and again, and there is no reason to trust them or every one of their proposed "solutions" to this problem. But this time, they got it right - this is a SERIOUS problem. I would estimate these odds:
5% - GW turns out to be BS
15% - Mild (1C or less) GW occurs by 2100. No major problems occur.
30% - Moderate warming occurs (1-2.5C). Causes a number of problems, some serious. Weather gets worse, seas rise, some extinctions and ecosystem upheaval.
35% - Major warming occurs (2.5-4C). Everything listed above happens, but is much worse. Expense is enormous, but civilization continues to advance slowly, despite local problems.
10% - Warming of 4-5C occurs. Even worse than above, with significant habitat destruction and social upheaval, migration, and starvation due to crop failures.
5% - Let's just say that the Bible is off by 100 years, the four horsemen come, and all hell breaks loose. Seriously, in the 5C or more case, we are talking about war, death, famine, ecosystem destruction, and mass extinctions. There is an interesting article at www.sciam.com right now that discusses how GW is the leading suspect for 4 of the 5 major extinctions that occured during the last 500 million years (the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs being the exception). Read that article. Then tell me how much you would be willing to pay to insure against an even 1% chance of something like that happening to your grandchildren.
Thanks for you time,
Chad - libertarian and scientist.
joe | September 23, 2006, 9:27pm | #
So you didn't believe the people who correctly described how global warming was happening because they were environmental hysterics and/or communists.Now tell the truth, Kevin. Part of the reason you knew they were environmental hysterics and/or communits is because of what they were saying about global warming, right?
Well that's just great. Congratulations.
Chad | September 23, 2006, 9:45pm | #
I doubt that, Joe. Environmentalism is a religion, and its followers are not that hard to spot. Last week, I attended a show by Walkin' Jim Stoltz, probably the most famous hiker in America and an obvious environmentalist. It was little different than attending church. While I agree with his spirit (I consider myself a conservationalist), he made many wildly innacurate claims and made many more without any hint as to a reasoning - he just took it on faith and assumed the audience would agree. The audience agreed with the rapt attention of those under a spell. Actually, it was WORSE in this respect than any church I have ever attended, and the fact that the audience was a university crowd and therefore mostly "educated" made it even more disturbing. The most scary thing is that Walkin' Jim visits schools to give lectures. I have no idea why we would ban a preacher but not ban this guy, outside of our misguided sense of the 1st amendment. Either both are religious or both aren't.Environmentalists are wrong on many things, and even when they get half the argument right, they get the rest wrong. Even though we agree that GW is a very serious problem, many of their proposed solutions are bunk. At the most fundamental level, I disagree on one major point. I believe that we should build the ideal world for humans (which, of course, will include animals to watch, forests to walk through, lakes to swim in, and mountains to climb). They are willing to sacrifice humans' well-being for the sake of nature. This, to me, is religion in its purest form.
joe | September 23, 2006, 9:49pm | #
"Environmentalism is a religion..."You can still say this, after you've been routed on global warming?
Someone's clinging to faith over reason, and it's no the greenies.
joe | September 23, 2006, 9:52pm | #
Of course there are irrational, faith-based environmentalits, as there are in any political or philosophical group.Your problem is your eagerness to stereotype all environmentalists as such, in order to deny inconvenient truths about the environment.
For you to continue to insist, after you've been so thoroughly routed on the most important environmental issue of our lifetimes, that environmentalists as a whole should not be taken seriously, just goes to show who is letting their faith get the better of them.
Russell | September 23, 2006, 11:10pm | #
Seems lost; vide Joe & chad , supraSplit the difference between Mike Crichton and Al Gore 's rhetoric of motives and you can lose sight of the science entirely
Chad | September 23, 2006, 11:39pm | #
Joe, I don't know how I have been routed. I have supported action on global warming for my entire adult life (I even wrote my senior thesis in high school on the topic, back in the early nineties, for Christ's sake).I do not take environmentalists seriously when they use non-fact-based arguments. When they start throwing around terms like "pristine", "pure" "natural" and even "sacred", they are not talking the language of science - they are being as religious as the most ardent right-wing fundamantalist.
To address Ron's main point. The corruption of science by money is 99.99% bunk. Only in the most egregious (and largely hypothetical) cases does a scientist's income depend on advocating specific positions. The same is true of journalists. It is childishness to think that people who disagree with you because they are corrupt - period. It demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding their argument, and only reflects your own ignorance.
O'Noyes | September 23, 2006, 11:41pm | #
I'll admit I was a long time skeptic of GW. I was a skeptic largely because I assumed too much conflation between the environmental vanguard, who *had* been wrong on a number of environmental issues before (running out of various resources - see the Juilian Simon/Paul Ehrlich bet - global cooling, predictions on famines, forests, etc.), and real climatologists doing the actual research. And I was also skeptic because the people pushing for global warming seemed to also embrace a largely statist approach to problem solving; given how disastrous statist problem solving has been in the past, I was little eager to welcome their view of global warming. As far as the latter goes, I would still doubt very much that the world would need to embrace a mostly statist response to GW, given it's largely failed ability to deal with problems in the past.But as far as the "rub your nose in it" argument goes by the GW crowd here, are you willing to admit that you (and/or the environmental vanguard) were wrong so many times in the past concerning a number of environmental issues? And given that record, you might be wrong again in the future? Demands for honesty and humility should work both ways. Or do you just plan to gleefully rub the former skeptic's face in the dirt the rest of your lives?
Chad | September 24, 2006, 12:45am | #
Kevin, I am a PhD chemist, mostly focusing on advanced materials and polymers. GW has been one of my pet issues for years, and I regularly read journals such as Science and Nature to keep up on any major developments on the matter, even though it does not directly relate to my work (though it might help us sell some of our products!).Kevin, of course the Earth will go on heating and cooling with or without us. But it heats and cools for a REASON, not by magic. Past climate change has been driven by both slow changes such as wobbles in the earth's orbit, the slow decline of the radioactivity in the earth's core, changes in solar output, or mass evolution in the biosphere, as well as abrupt changes triggered by events such as meteor impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. However, none of these things is happening now, as far as science can tell. If not the usual suspects, then what? Anthropogenic CO2 fits the data extremely well.
Actually, I find the idea of "expertise" on such an issue rather bogus. Being a scientist means knowing a heck of a lot about a tiny little sliver of knowledge - far smaller than the broad issues that GW covers, such as geology, climatology, demographics, technology, and economics. No one is an expert at all of these things, or frankly, more than one percent. We all have to trust other "experts" for at least 99% of the relevant data. The best one can hope for with respect to dealing with such a broad variety of topics is to be able to understand and communicate the findings of the secondary literture (editorial reviews in the major journals, reports from groups such as IPCC, etc). Unfortunately, few people get this far. Most get their information from third or fourth or even fifth-hand sources, and by that time, like in the telephone game we played as kids, the message is pretty much unrelated to what it started as. Bias (usually unintentional) makes it even worse.
Cain | September 24, 2006, 1:17am | #
Russell: I was joking, of course.[quote]But as far as the "rub your nose in it" argument goes by the GW crowd here, are you willing to admit that you (and/or the environmental vanguard) were wrong so many times in the past concerning a number of environmental issues? And given that record, you might be wrong again in the future? Demands for honesty and humility should work both ways. Or do you just plan to gleefully rub the former skeptic's face in the dirt the rest of your lives?[/quote]
Why do so many people posit this monolithic environmentalism movement? How many Greens were talking about global cooling? All I ever see on the matter is a 1975 editorial in NEWSWEEK. One of the contributors over at Realclimate.org reviewed the archives of the NYTIMES over the relevant period and found something like less than a dozen articles even remotely related to global cooling. As for the population bomb stuff, the hardcore left-wingers I read and converse with range in view from "unfortunate problem" to "liberal misanthropism." The Julian Simon stuff seems to serve as little more than an excuse for "anti-statists" to refuse to investigate problems any further; things will somehow magically work themselves out -- providing people don't try to propose any solutions outside the free market. Simon had been offered subsequent public bets on the environment, and he turned them down. Why bother grappling with data when you have a handy anecdote?
I recall reading an article by Jonah Golberg in which he said his "friend" Ronald Bailey was a utilitarian. Well, that's nice. At least Bailey is theoretically committed to an empirical moral philosophy rather than the "natural rights" ideologues one typically encounters in this part of the political universe.
Belief in the "Free Market" on this blog elsewhere seems closer to a religion than 99% of the self-described environmentalists I encounter. See Mike Mcmurtry's useful examination of market fundamentalism.
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2004/Global-Market-Doctrine26mar04.htm
Mark Bahner | September 24, 2006, 1:30am | #
Chad writes,"35% - Major warming occurs (2.5-4C). Everything listed above happens, but is much worse. Expense is enormous, but civilization continues to advance slowly, despite local problems.
10% - Warming of 4-5C occurs. Even worse than above, with significant habitat destruction and social upheaval, migration, and starvation due to crop failures.
5% - Let's just say that the Bible is off by 100 years, the four horsemen come, and all hell breaks loose. Seriously, in the 5C or more case, we are talking about war, death, famine, ecosystem destruction, and mass extinctions."
I put the odds of warming from 1990 to 2100 more like:
50% chance of warming less than 1.5 deg C,
95% chance of warming less than 2.5 deg C,
ジョー | September 24, 2006, 1:48am | #
"I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it."This 'tragedy of the commons' is not an inescapable fact of human nature; rather it is a reflection of basic values in our culture, and history. Native American cultures were rather adept at preserving shared resources, without any concept of land ownership. Whether or not their approach was generally better, or worse than ours is of course a completely subjective matter, but I think it is worth pointing out that the two options mentioned in the quote above are derivative, and contingent upon another set of variables. The reason that people pollute is more that they don't understand the broader implications of their actions.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand how, in this setting, private ownership promotes conservation in situations where there is no profit to be made from conservation...
...
Perhaps earmarking our tax dollars for specific projects, property upkeep, etc. would provide a some kind of alternative. It might add a sense of stewardship and responsibility, and provide a sense of involvement that is otherwise sorely lacking in the current large scale civic experience...
kevrob | September 24, 2006, 3:33am | #
???:The idea behind a property rights regime of "pollution control" is to make Owner X responsible for the externalities he imposes on Owner Y. Your polluting a stream would be actionable by those who own riparian rights, the owners of the fish therein (or the right to fish and/or take them), etc. Private owners have often shown themselves more jealous of defending themselves from pollution by their neighbors than governments have been of similar damage to public land.
A pure regulation regime might be justified where pollution occurs on private land without affecting anyone else's land or water, but I'd guess that situation is pretty rare, given how aquifers and air are no respecters of property lines.
I would also warn against a too romantic view of the eco-friendlyness of the pre-Columbian indigenous tribes of America. Had they much larger populations, some of their farming and hunting practices would have damaged their resources well enough. Shepard Krech's The Ecological Indian: Myth and History looks like a good place to start.
Kevin
fraublueger | September 24, 2006, 8:55am | #
The idea that Native Americans didn't have property rights is a myth. Many tribes marked utensils for ownership along with arrows - the latter would help to determine who got the first cut of the kill. Also, like all hunting societies they had the property rights' arrangements that made sense: hunting grounds of various tribes were considered the tribe's territory - other tribes or whites who intruded risked being killed over such intrusions; I'd consider that as having a fairly strong sense of ownership.Btw, I believe that was katakana for "Joe." Same or different or same but different "joe"?
Cain,
So I guess you are refusing to admit that Ehrlich and thousands of other greens were wrong about running out of various resources and that libertarians were actually right on that one. So it appears that humble pie is indeed supposed to work just one way here.
coolerthanthou | September 24, 2006, 10:34am | #
A lot of environmental predictions of catastrophe, with the exception of global warming, were pre-'internets'. So, that's part of the reason there's less information out there about some of those issues than about global warming. Be assured, if global cooling was the hot button topic of the day then it would have gotten a lot more press. As it was, I remember quite clearly these forecasts and the fear from the adults around me of what it could mean. It didn't last; nevertheless, it was an issue of consequence for at least a short time. Had the internet been around then, it would have been much bigger.I wonder when joe is coming back to repent, REPENT for being unable to understand what Chad wrote. I'm guessing, oh, carry the two, never.
D.A. Ridgely | September 24, 2006, 12:05pm | #
For you to continue to insist, after you've been so thoroughly routed on the most important environmental issue of our lifetimes, that environmentalists as a whole should not be taken seriously, just goes to show who is letting their faith get the better of them.Does the fable of the boy who cried "Wolf!" ring any bells, here?
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 12:34pm | #
"The corruption of science by money is 99.99% bunk. Only in the most egregious (and largely hypothetical) cases does a scientist's income depend on advocating specific positions."Chad wins the thread.
Pay attention folks, from both sides of the issue.
And please, please, please realize that Julian Simon is a crank who threw a lot of data at a strawman.
Worth reading
http://www.davidbrin.com/collapse.html
von Laue | September 24, 2006, 12:38pm | #
Are you drunk? What have I denied? Not AGW. I think, lemme see, I have never done that. Not that that matters to you.Chad basically agreed with everything you've ever said about the science and validity of AGW and you decided he had been "routed" on the science somehow, so I concluded that you can't read. Now, you're accusing me of harboring "denialist pride." erm?
I don't hate you. But you lose at reading comprehension, and you frequently behave like a prat. Is that a hateful statement? Maybe!
You're compounding fuckups, joe. Apologize to me, and Chad, now. I doubt you've got the grapes.
biologist | September 24, 2006, 12:40pm | #
Ron, kudos to you for your admission that you were wrong.However, no disrespect intended, I am curious as to your credentials as a science correspondent. Do you have a major or a minor in a science, in addition to your presumed journalism degree?
Mark Bahner | September 24, 2006, 12:50pm | #
"And please, please, please realize that Julian Simon is a crank who threw a lot of data at a strawman."Heh, heh, heh! Can you even state what was probably the central theme of Julian Simon's work?
Hint: He wrote two fat books alluding to it.
You'd think that the fact that joe and friends were completely wrong about this hurricane season would mute some of the crowing around here. Unfortunately, like some environut said, the only way to sell energy rationing is to focus exclusively on the doomsday scenario. Chad blames four mass extinctions on GW, but alas, not a one of them occurred during man. And, Chad, why even mention your career if it doesn't make you an expert?
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 1:10pm | #
Mark B,Did you bother to read the Brin before commenting?
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 1:18pm | #
"Chad blames four mass extinctions on GW, but alas, not a one of them occurred during man."And how is this important? Think it through...
Mark Bahner | September 24, 2006, 2:30pm | #
"Did you bother to read the Brin before commenting?"Yeah. Blah, blah, blah. He's a science FICTION writer.
Once again, can you even state the central theme of Julian Simon's work?
Also, based on David Brin's "work," can you predict:
1) World per-capita GDP through the remainder of this century?
2) What the price of oil, gold, copper and steel will be in, say, 2020?
P.S. David Brin writes, "There has to be something different from the common theme that we see in both Julian Simon's Calvinist belief in predestined success..."
What a bunch of nonsense. Why doesn't Brin point to where Julian Simon ever said success was "predestined?"
P.S. And this Brin poppycock is even worse, "And if they get this life style -- even in the modest fashion of the resource-miserly Dutch -- then environmental loads on this planet will grow enormously. If the Third World does it like today's spendthrift Americans, the loads would overwhelm an Earth twice its size."
Another clueless amateur.
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 2:57pm | #
Mark B."He's a science FICTION writer."
Yeah, but he is also a scientist...
http://www.davidbrin.com/biography.html#visit
Why are you so threatened by criticism of Julian Simon?
Julian Simon: "Here is my central assertion: Almost every economic and social change or trend points in a positive direction, as long as we view the matter over a reasonably long period of time."
Why do you assume I am unfamiliar with his work?
I am both familiar with and unimpressed by it.
Like I said, he spends a lot of time attacking a strawman, and soundly defeats it. So what?
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 3:01pm | #
Mark B.And by the way, read the whole quote again...
"There has to be something different from the common theme that we see in both Julian Simon's Calvinist belief in predestined success and Paul Ehrlich's puritanical rant of ecological Original Sin. Both positions are essentially mystical, zealously intransigent, and contemptuous of criticism."
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 3:26pm | #
And just for fun...Can you even state the central theme of David Brin's essay?
Mark Bahner | September 24, 2006, 5:10pm | #
"Why are you so threatened by criticism of Julian Simon?"I'm not threatened by legitimate criticism of Julian Simon. Some stuff he said was clearly wrong. His boast that *every* indicator of quality of the environment/life would improve over any decade-long period was clearly wrong.
You quote Julian Simon: "Here is my central assertion: Almost every economic and social change or trend points in a positive direction, as long as we view the matter over a reasonably long period of time."
No, that follows from the central finding of his research; as I said, he wrote two fat books about it. Hint: Initials are UR and UR2. To what was he referring?
"Can you even state the central theme of David Brin's essay?"
That "left" and "right" are both wrong. "Left" are too pessimistic, and irrationally oppose technology, particularly nuclear fission. The "right" is wrong to think that planning in the form of a few "Apollo programs" is not really needed to solve the world's problems.
Like I wrote before, why don't you take David Brin's "teachings" and tell me your predictions for:
1) World per-capita GDP through the remainder of this century?
2) What the price of oil, gold, copper and steel will be in, say, 2020?
kevrob | September 24, 2006, 6:56pm | #
joe, I have never been worried about fluridation. Do municipally owned, operated and/or franchised water monopolies bug me? Hell, yeah. That was a typical case of the problems the libertarian critique of centralization was developed to deal with. Those for fluride and against it struggle politically to control the outcome of the debate. Only one side can get its way. The distributed decision making of a non-government-planned system allows each actor to get his own choice.Don't paint my suspicion of the statist motives of some Greens as a "communist conspiracy." AFAIK, there is no Eco-mintern, giving orders to national green parties on how to best dupe free people into signing over their liberties for a mess of environmental pottage. A movement that can be said to include everyone from EPA bureaucrats to left-anarchist bioregionalists can't be so easily pigeonholed.
Kevin
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 7:33pm | #
Mark B.Why do feel the need to be so obtuse?
If there is a central theme of JS's work that you feel substantially differs from my (or actually his) wording, feel free to say it in the open. Don't pretend you are holding on to some mystery (you are not).
Again, I don't need to be schooled by you. I have read a good deal of JS's work (including Ultimate Resource 1&2). It is clear from your website that you have been impressed by his work on population and the environment. Great. I am not. I think it is mostly tangential to the discussion and how we should set the agenda moving forward. I am not so much disputing his major findings (at least not all of them), as the importance of them in the debate (hence the strawman comment).
And so I don't find your challenges (1 or 2) that interesting. And I certainly don't see how they are related either to the point of Brin's essay, or his scientific work.
I think you could be an important contributor to the debates on climate that go on here on H&R (I see that you are an environmental engineer), but you might try engaging people in discussion rather than trying to win as if this were a competition.
I made an assertion that you disagree with.
Tell me why and try to convince me otherwise. Hell even point me at some of your own work in a peer-reviewed journal, if it exists, I might take the time to read it.
But don't expect me to take you seriously when your starting point is that my assertion could only be made because I am ignorant.
Have a good one.
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 7:56pm | #
Another good essay...http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge81.html
excerpt:
EDGE: What background led you into studying risk?
GIDDENS: It's partly historical, because I stumbled on the idea that the notion of risk is a relatively recent one. That's a bit counter-intuitive, because you'd think life in the Middle Ages was more risky than it is now, which is true. The notion of risk has nothing to do with living in a risky world. It's much more to do with how you manage the world and how you manage future time in relation to the changes that we introduce into the world.
EDGE: How did the concept become part of our way of thinking, and when?
GIDDENS: Well, I just built it into my way of thinking, because I came to think of it as intruding into so many aspects of our lives in contemporary times — and by that I mean quite contemporary times. You can even date that a bit, because you can say that for hundreds of years human beings worried about the risks coming from the natural world; they worried about famines or floods or earthquakes or bad harvests. At some point, which is probably only in the last 50 or so years, we started, quite legitimately, worrying less about the risks that come from what nature can do to us, and worrying more about the risks of what we've done to nature. And I call that a transition between external risk and manufactured risk, or risk which stems from human creativity, scientific development and technology, and historical development. That's a big change That was a kind of point of analysis of what I would regard as a new situation.
EDGE: Regarding your ideas about the third way, how are governmental institutions affected — say in England?
GIDDENS: You could say the two main political philosophies of the post-war period have now essentially elapsed. And you could say they were kind of half theories. For about 30 years after the Second World War the dominant view on the whole, which was institutionalized in many countries, was of a beneficent state guided by some kind of view of the idea of managing a capitalist economy more effectively than it could manage itself by market forces. And that essentially failed, at least it failed in its more extreme versions, the Soviet Union obviously being that version. Then you had a period of reverse dominance of the idea that we can leave all that to markets; if the state can't solve our problems, markets can. That's also failed, electorally, and it failed structurally because you can't just leave the world to be run by the vagaries of market-based decisions.
You must restrict the role of the market in human life, and you must try and create a form of political thinking which is no longer half-theory. The first kind of theory was good on social justice but not much good on economic competition and development, and the second one was pretty good on competition but hopeless on social justice. I use the term third way to try to get a political philosophy which is different from these two previous philosophies but to me still preserves the values essentially of left-of-center viewpoint. That is, you want a society which is inclusive, where you don't simply accept expanding inequalities, where you recognize that vulnerable people need to be protected, and where you recognize also that the government has an active role to play in all of those things. That's essentially the definition of what a revised left-of-center or third way political philosophy is all about, and that's become a global thing...
Mark Bahner | September 24, 2006, 9:32pm | #
"If there is a central theme of JS's work that you feel substantially differs from my (or actually his) wording, feel free to say it in the open. Don't pretend you are holding on to some mystery (you are not)."Apparently I am, or you would have simply stated it. The central theme of Julian Simon's work is that (free) human minds are what create wealth.
Far from this being a "straw man" that Julian Simon "threw a lot of data at," it's a fundamental and important insight towards predicting the future (AND explaining the present and past).
I've used that insight, and the insights of Ray Kurzweil regarding progress in computer technology, to predict that per-capita GDP growth rates in the 21st century will increase, and increase dramatically:
http://www.longbets.org/194
In fact, I predict that by the year 2050 the world per capita GDP will approximately $100,000...and will be over $10 MILLION by 2100. If I'm right, this is something even Nobel laureate (in growth economics) Robert E. Lucas Jr. didn't even see...let alone any of the researchers associated with the IPCC.
"I made an assertion that you disagree with."
No you didn't. You completely disrepected Julian Simon's entire body of work.
Just what the hell have *you* ever done that makes you think you're entitled to say, "And please, please, please realize that Julian Simon is a crank who threw a lot of data at a strawman"? What research have you done? What important findings have you ever presented?
von Laue | September 24, 2006, 10:01pm | #
Waaaaah. I'm not thinking you should "take shit", I'm telling that you should apologize for being wrong. Which is one of your favorite games to play. Anything less would be, mmmm, how you say...dishonest.I know, in your mind, the only reason anyone would think you're a dick is because they hate science or think Al Gore is fat, or something. But pssst! check it out: Chad agreed with you about science, and I do too, and then you fucked up anyway, and called us "deniers" for absolutely no reason. Because you suck at the reading. Suck. Which is no sin, but your willful ignorance...
You know, this dumb-f'n'-luck theory of when you're right is accumulating evidence with every comprehension error and whiny I'm-a-martyr post you make.
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 10:05pm | #
Mark B."The central theme of Julian Simon's work is that (free) human minds are what create wealth."
Duh. I'd say "a central theme" not "the central theme," but... And the strawman here is that those in the environmental movement do not understand this.
"If I'm right, this is something even Nobel laureate (in growth economics) Robert E. Lucas Jr. didn't even see...let alone any of the researchers associated with the IPCC."
Good luck on that.
So, I am guessing since this is your citation, that none of this has been peer-reviewed yet. Let me know when it comes out in a peer reviewed forum.
"What research have you done? What important findings have you ever presented?"
My research is in a much different field (neurocognitive development and its relation to behavioral phenotypes).
"Just what the hell have *you* ever done that makes you think you're entitled to say, "And please, please, please realize that Julian Simon is a crank who threw a lot of data at a strawman"?"
Read his work and formed an opinion. And then read his work cited over and over and over again as if it provides a central, or even an important criticism of environmentalism or the conservation movement.
You'll love this.
As much as I respect Ray Kurzweil, he is out to lunch when he discusses the implications of developments in computer technology in regards to human intelligence. This is not because he doesn't know his technology, but because he seems to know little about brain science.
Neu Mejican | September 24, 2006, 10:26pm | #
And one more thing...ME: I made an assertion that you disagree with.
YOU: No you didn't. You completely disrepected Julian Simon's entire body of work.
And I did this by making an assertion
To be fair I haven't read any of his stuff on managerial economics, it may be brilliant. His work on research methodology is worth reading. My assertion was targeted at his work on the environment.
If you disagree with that assertion, I will listen to counter arguments. So far you have given me the human-minds-are-the-source-of-wealth-insight as a reason to respect JS. I don't really think he can take sole credit for that insight, but OK, you've read my reaction to that.
Is there any thing else I should know that will convince me that I am not giving JS his due?
ジョー | September 25, 2006, 1:14am | #
'The idea behind a property rights regime of "pollution control" is to make Owner X responsible for the externalities he imposes on Owner Y. Your polluting a stream would be actionable by those who own riparian rights, the owners of the fish therein... Kevin'I see. That perspective does make a lot of sense. However, it still doesn't address my concern - which is the problem that arises when the interests of a private owner further endanger an existing resource. It is open to debate whether or not a large forest serves us better in the timber yard or upon the Earth; but I prefer one in the latter state wherever possible. It may be that a more nuanced solution is necessary, perhaps certain resources (the aquifers you mention for example) are better suited to private ownership, while others are better suited to public regulation (I would still argue that forests generally fit this description); however I still find it a little bit difficult to fully support private ownership of such a vital resource, at least without a provision for a subsistence level supply to all those who rely on it.
It is hard to be succinct... caveats and conditions pop up on all sides...
I will take a look at the book if I get the chance. I read the publisher's weekly review as well as several of the customer reviews, and it strikes me as interesting, although all of the positive reviews, including the publisher's weekly review, seemed to give a thumbs up with reservations regarding thoroughness. I doubt that very many of their concepts would match up in close parallel to our own - ideas about property rights included. So perhaps the argument is a bit moot anyway; although they DID persist in this way, with their smallish populations, for at least 10,000 years.
"Many tribes marked utensils for ownership along with arrows - the latter would help to determine who got the first cut of the kill...fraublueger"
Is this really the same concept that we have for ownership? This is a very pragmatic and simple type of ownership which seems to have very little to do with the accumulation of wealth which, I would argue, is more central to our understanding of the same.
"Btw, I believe that was katakana for "Joe." Same or different or same but different "joe"?...fraublueger"
That's right. I've posted here a fair number of times as 'joe' (it happens to be my name too) but that sometimes get misconstrued as my putting words in the mouth of a regular... I live in Japan and live my life in Japanese, so why not the katakana version of my name!
ahab-ituate | September 25, 2006, 1:33am | #
People who demand groveling apologies for past errors but can never admit their own errors live in a narcissistic state of arrested development.But I could be wrong about that....
Russell | September 25, 2006, 3:08am | #
Mark: " I predict ...the world per capita GDP will be over $10 MILLION by 2100...this is something even Nobel laureate (in growth economics) Robert E. Lucas Jr. didn't even see...let alone any of the researchers associated with the IPCC."Were that the cornucopian case, and the world reduces its CO2 per $ of GDP tenfold while growing GDP by three orders of magnitude and halting poulation growth- a fairly rosey prospect ,human CO2 emission in the year of grace 2101 should roughly equal the total from the birth of Adam Smith through 2001.
That's pushing 300 ppm per year,and as the highest concentration most radiative forcing models have considered is a measly thousand , IPCC 2007 can't answer the obvous question as to temperature inflation - Mark has indeed gone off scale.
However, the famous CEI 'We Call It Life" TV spot suggests an interesting outcome- global warming should be a passe' topic by 2075. Hyperventilation should set in around 2085, and asphyxia a few million dollars per capita thereafter.
rob | September 25, 2006, 1:42pm | #
"I know, in your mind, the only reason anyone would think you're a dick is because they hate science or think Al Gore is fat, or something. But pssst! check it out: Chad agreed with you about science, and I do too, and then you fucked up anyway, and called us 'deniers' for absolutely no reason. Because you suck at the reading. Suck."Dude, I've been pointing this out to joe for a while now. This is a guy who, based on his reading of my politics, refers to me as a Republican... Which gets a belly laugh out of anyone who actually knows me, or reads what I post here, for that matter. Anyone who disagrees with him on one issue - regardless of that issue - must be part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
"I've taken too much crap for too many years FOR BEING FUCKING RIGHT to play nice. Maybe when I've given back a tenth of the crap I've put up with, but not yet." - joe
Dude, you are not solving the world's problems on this forum. Neither am I. None of us are. Get over yourself.
Or, if you really can't stand taking crap in this forum, just stop posting here. If you stop, so will the disagreements. (Frankly, I value those disagreements, even from you. But if it causes you straight-up ANGUISH, then stop bashing your head against the wall.)
If you keep posting to a forum where you KNOW very few people agree with you, you shouldn't be such a crybaby if you post something that other people take you to task for. It's not like someone who disagrees with you has the ability to actually cause you pain, man, but you're starting to act like you think you're Jesus on the cross, for pity's sake!
The best you can hope for in this forum is to test your beliefs and principles and discover whether they are as valid as you think they are.
Maybe you could then focus a little more of your energies on the real world - not the one in which you think that by debating people in this forum you are somehow helping to "fix the global warming problem/public transit problem/Iraq War etc."
And maybe you'd stop flipping out on people for no apparent reason, even when they agree with you!
Neu Mejican | September 25, 2006, 2:54pm | #
Mark B.Are you out there.
We really wanted to read your response.
Particularly to Russell...
Oh well.
Next time.
Mark Bahner | September 25, 2006, 5:49pm | #
I wrote, "The central theme of Julian Simon's work is that (free) human minds are what create wealth."Neu Mejican responded, "Duh. I'd say "a central theme" not "the central theme,"
So you figure “Ultimate Resource” and “Ultimate Resource II” were actually referring to petroleum? Or perhaps uranium?
Neu Mejican continues, “And the strawman here is that those in the environmental movement do not understand this.”
Aha! I think I see the problem!
See, I live on EARTH...so I thought you were talking about the environmental movement here on EARTH! I didn’t know you were talking about the environmental movement on Remulak, or Ork, or whatever planet it is you’re living on.
Have you ever read any of these books?
The Population Bomb
The End of Affluence
The Population Explosion
The Limits to Growth
Beyond the Limits
Limits to Growth: 30 years of Pseudoscience (sorry…that should be the title, but isn’t really)
Beyond Growth
Shovelling Fuel on a Runaway Train
etc., ad nauseum, and ad absurdum, and just plain ad dumb?
Have you ever attended a Sierra Club meeting? Ever read any of the World Resources Institute literature, including their annual Vital Signs and State of the World issues, or their monthly magazine?
I’ve done all those things, of which your planet obviously has none.
Without question, no statement about any group of people can be accurate about all people within that group. (For example, there were no doubt some decent people within the Nazi government in Germany, or Stalin’s or Pol Pot’s governments.)
But one thing is almost universally true about the environmental movement: they do NOT place a very significant value on the (free) human mind! Why in the world do you think that human “overpopulation” was--and still generally is--a nearly universal concern within the environmental movement?
Mark Bahner | September 25, 2006, 5:52pm | #
Neu Mejican concludes, regarding why he disrespects Julian Simon, “And then read his work cited over and over and over again as if it provides a central, or even an important criticism of environmentalism or the conservation movement.”Unbelievable. Again, we must be living on different planets. Here is merely a PARTIAL list of Julian Simon’s work that provided important and valid criticisms of environmentalism and the conservation movement:
1) He was virtually *alone* in responding to the environmental movement’s claim that more humans would lead to resource depletion, environmental degradation, and eventual economic ruin. (That concern has died down a BIT...but it's simply because Julian Simon was overwhelmingly proven right, and the environmental movement's predictions were overwhelmingly found not to come true.) (The environmental movement's predictions are a bit like like the old Russian joke: "It's a measure of Marx's incredible foresight that none of his predictions have yet come to pass.")
2) He accurately pointed out that even government-published reports (e.g., EPA reports on air and water quality) showed significant environmental progress, while the public impression-—strongly influenced by the environmental movement-—was one of continuing environmental decline.
3) He argued for economic freedom and property rights, which much of the environmental movement finds strongly suspect...or even rejects outright. (It wasn't until the collapse of the Eastern block and Soviet Union that the environmental nightmares caused by central planning and lack of property rights were fully exposed.)
4) He *correctly* identified that the *long term* trend in essentially all commodities is downward. (Even today, the environmental movement blathers on about the horrors that will come from "peak oil" and lack of fresh water. This is particularly true, the environmental movement says, if fresh water is allowed to become...horrors...a privately owned COMMODITY.)
So, Neu Mejican...when you pass by my solar system, why don't you stop by, and we'll talk about the environment and environtalism? I know something about both matters, since I do environmental engineering for a living.
Mark Bahner | September 25, 2006, 5:57pm | #
Oops. In case anyone wonders, I was referring to commodity prices, i.e.:Julian Simon *correctly* identified that the *long term* trend in essentially all commodity prices is downward.
Neu Mejican | September 25, 2006, 9:00pm | #
Mark B.There you go.
That was much better.
Not sure I agree with you yet, but there ya go.
"But one thing is almost universally true about the environmental movement: they do NOT place a very significant value on the (free) human mind! Why in the world do you think that human “overpopulation” was--and still generally is--a nearly universal concern within the environmental movement?"
There is that strawman again.
There is no reason to link the two positions.
You can believe that there are inherent risks in overpopulation (or more accurately increasing population in combination with a variety of other important factors, but we don't need to get into that, I am sure), AND STILL place value on human intelligence and its role in improving worldwide conditions for humans and the ecosystem.
Like I said Mark. Given your career, I hope to see you participating in the discussions about the environment that pop up here.
1) He was virtually *alone* in responding to the environmental movement’s claim that more humans would lead to resource depletion, environmental degradation, and eventual economic ruin.
Strawman #1: The claim is that more humans COULD lead to resource depletion without an appropriate response to the challenges that increasing population poses.
2) He accurately pointed out that even government-published reports (e.g., EPA reports on air and water quality) showed significant environmental progress, while the public impression-—strongly influenced by the environmental movement-—was one of continuing environmental decline.
Strawman #2: What is the cause for this environmental progress? Direct action to address the issues of concern.
3) He argued for economic freedom and property rights, which much of the environmental movement finds strongly suspect...or even rejects outright.
#3 not really a strawman, but tangential. Property rights are an issue that cuts both ways in environmental issues. It is not absolute even in libertarian philosophy given that property rights are derived rights (or secondary rights derived from primary rights) and therefore do not trump primary rights.
4) He *correctly* identified that the *long term* trend in essentially all commodities is downward. (Even today, the environmental movement blathers on about the horrors that will come from "peak oil" and lack of fresh water. This is particularly true, the environmental movement says, if fresh water is allowed to become...horrors...a privately owned COMMODITY.)
Again tangential. There are, again, legitimate issues surrounding the control of resources for profit that can be debated. JS position is on one extreme, you posit that the environmental movement is on the other... you mischaracterize the movement which is much more heterogeneous than that.
Do you have a response to Russell?
Neu Mejican | September 25, 2006, 9:13pm | #
"Julian Simon *correctly* identified that the *long term* trend in essentially all commodity prices is downward."And then went off the deep end to posit that this makes those resources infinite.
JS's main challenge is that he is attempting to prove the null hypothesis... no matter how much data you throw at it, there is always something you missed. In JS's case it is the fact that historical trends do not do a good job of predicting the future behavior of a massively complex adaptive system.
Mark Bahner | September 25, 2006, 11:02pm | #
Russell writes, “…and the world reduces its CO2 per $ of GDP tenfold while growing GDP by three orders of magnitude and halting poulation growth- a fairly rosey prospect ,human CO2 emission in the year of grace 2101 should roughly equal the total from the birth of Adam Smith through 2001.”And the point of your analysis is? That my predictions are silly, or that your analysis is silly?
How much do you think it will cost to produce a technology that can cut cut human emissions of CO2 to a rate such that there is NO increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
Well, in order to get to where there is *no* CO2 increase in the atmosphere, we'd either need to reduce emissions to about 2GtC/year, or increase the sinks such that sinks match emissions.
One way to reduce emissions by about 60-80 percent would be to develop a technology that essentially no one would object to, and that all the world could use for essentially all its energy needs. Fusion would be one example.
How much do you think it would cost to develop fusion to commercialization? Vince Page, a technology officer at GE, has analyzed various non-tokamak fusion technologies. He estimated the following costs to achieve “breakeven” fusion, the years required to achieve breakeven, and likelihoods for commercialization if breakeven could be achieved (see page 7):
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/page_fusion051.pdf#search=%22Vince%20Page%20desirable%20fusion%22
1) Koloc Spherical Plasma, 10 years, $25 million,
80%.
2) Field Reversed Configuration, 8 years, $75 million, 60%.
3) Plasma Focus, 6 years, $18 million, 80%.
The cost for all three COMBINED is an absolutely trivial $100 million. Let's say he's off by a factor of 100. That's $10 billion to achieve breakeven for the three. Let's further say it takes 1000 times MORE money to make them commercial. That's $10 TRILLION...or roughly 15-20% of the world GDP.
Well, when the world GDP is 1000 times bigger, that cost (which is ridiculously inflated...if it's even $100 billion, I'd be shocked) of $10 trillion is only 0.15 to 0.2 percent of world GDP.
Or let's do it another way. Roger Pielke Jr. has reported estimates of the cost to run ambient air CO2 scrubbers at $200 per tonne C. Since 1 ppm represents about 2 GtC, the cost to remove 1 ppm would be $400 billion. The cost to remove 300 ppm would therefore be $120 trillion per year.
Assuming 8 billion (hydrocarbon) people at $10,000,000 per person, that's a world GDP of $80 QUADRILLION per year. A cost of $120 trillion per year is trivial in comparison.
The REAL fact of the matter is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the year 2100 will be whatever human beings in 2100 want it to be. But of course, no one associated with the IPCC would ever say that.
P.S. If you--or YOU, Neu Mejican--really think my predictions of world GDP per capita are wrong, you should go to Long Bets #194, and give your own predictions in the Discussion. Here are my predictions (all in year 2000 dollars):
2000 = $7,200
2020 = $13,000
2040 = $31,000
2060 = $131,000
2080 = $1,000,000
2100 = $10,000,000
Danny K | September 26, 2006, 12:14am | #
Mr. Bailey:--congratulations on seeing the light on global warming!
--shame on you for using such a straw-man argument (no, I didn't think you were getting bags of money... neither did any one else)
--please keep us posted; it will be interesting to see if you are now a leper in the eyes of the libertarian network
midbrowcrisis | September 26, 2006, 1:44am | #
"Julian Simon *correctly* identified that the *long term* trend in essentially all commodity prices is downward.""And then went off the deep end to posit that this makes those resources infinite. "
I thought it wasn't those resources he was claiming were infinite but human ingenuity.
Neu Mejican | September 26, 2006, 10:21am | #
"The REAL fact of the matter is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the year 2100 will be whatever human beings in 2100 want it to be. But of course, no one associated with the IPCC would ever say that."With a bit more humility, that is the basic position of the environmental movement.
""And then went off the deep end to posit that this makes those resources infinite. "
I thought it wasn't those resources he was claiming were infinite but human ingenuity."
That is a more reasonable claim, but that is not his claim.
To be fair the primary criticism of his infinite resource hypothesis is that he mixes his definitions of finite and infinite. When he points to flaws in the theory that there are finite natural resources, he uses the mathematical definition of finite. When he discusses his view of them as infinite, he uses something else which he never clearly defines, but takes the time to say that he doesn't think a rigorous defintion of infinite is appropriate to his claim. Given that, what the hell is he claiming? Not much.
His claim boils down to "humans will find the resources they need." This is put up against "Environmentalists claim we will run out of specific resources." If he is claiming that our ingenuity will find solutions for/ replacements for resources we run out of, I don't think he would get much disagreement. But that is not his claim. He specifically claims that we will never run out of any specific resource. For this to be true, he either has a strange definition of "infinite" or a strange definition of "never."
Neu Mejican | September 26, 2006, 10:24am | #
"you should go to Long Bets #194"And join the 70% that bet against you?
What you should do is submit your prediction to an appropriate peer-reviewed forum. I believe the peer-review process would help you hone your predictions to something useful.
Mark Bahner | September 26, 2006, 10:00pm | #
I wrote, "The REAL fact of the matter is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the year 2100 will be whatever human beings in 2100 want it to be. But of course, no one associated with the IPCC would ever say that."Neu Mejican responds, "With a bit more humility, that is the basic position of the environmental movement."
No, that's not the basic position of the environmental movement at all. The IPCC Third Assessment Report says that without government intervention, the CO2 concentration in 2100 could be up to 1000 ppm, and the temperature rise as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius. That's complete nonsense, since even a rich individual in 2100 could personally finance the complete commercial development of fusion. Not to mention the fact that it would take a mere $240 trillion to get the CO2 concentration down by 600 ppm...and with a world GDP of 80 QUADRILLION, $240 trillion is peanuts.
"He (Julian Simon) specifically claims that we will never run out of any specific resource. For this to be true, he either has a strange definition of 'infinite' or a strange definition of 'never.'"
If you think he's wrong, why don't you name some resources you think we'll run out of?
I wrote, "you should go to Long Bets #194"
NM responds, "And join the 70% that bet against you?"
Well, you could do that. But even better would be if you posted your OWN predictions in the discussion section. Then we can look at my predictions and your predictions over the years, and decide who was closest to the real answer. Or is that too much like real science for you?
Russell | September 28, 2006, 3:24am | #
Much as Mr. Bahner dislikes the unreasonable power of mathematics , he is going to have to get used to it.Three modes of productive fusion for $100 millon ?
The first three to be abandoned had higher R&D costs in 1960 dollars. Remind me to short GE ifyour guy makes VP.
Not to be a spoilsport , but to avoid pushing the dystopic envelope backscenario in question, you have to deal with CO2 from now till 2040ish, during which the integral of your own GDP estimates is woefully smaller than the current dollar cost of the real cost ( sorry to put the order of magnitude back where it belongs) of real per $ CO2 capture in the fatest growing nations - i.e. China.Pleike's numbers pertain to thermal plants, not coal briquette woks in Xian or truck engines .
I suggest investing in a pocket calculator and a lifetime supply of soda-lime respirator cartridges