PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2007, 03:02 PM
I think their [Greens] environmental policy is as sound as their other policies.

Exactly. See The Great Media Swindle About Global Warming (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/10/the-great-media-swindle-about-global-warming/).

The Greens are the likely recipients of former Democrat votes as the latter party disappears from politics.

pax
12-07-2007, 09:29 PM
Exactly. See The Great Media Swindle About Global Warming (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/10/the-great-media-swindle-about-global-warming/).

Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response) when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.

Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 11:18 AM
Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response) when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.

Doesn't seem 'misrepresented' in the factual matters, such as gases being less soluble in warm water than cold. The main point was that alGore's An Inconvenient Truth superimposed graphs of CO2 trends v temperature trends, to assert that the CO2 caused the temperature rise. But The Great Global Warming Swindle showed that even according to alGore's data, the temperature rose before the CO2 increase, so cause and effect, if any, should be reversed. The film proposed that the rise in temp caused decrease in CO2 solubility resulting in release from the ocean, as Wunsch said would happen.


Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?

Why is alGore's name, and that of aging rockers, the name that always comes up when global warming is alleged to be the greatest threat we face. Why should we even take them seriously when they jetset around the world, spewing out greenhouse gases, to tell us to drive less? And why should the average homeowner cut down on energy when alGore's house uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year.

Yes, if someone told you that you need to go on a diet to lose weight, the truth of that statement is independent of his own weight. But would you listen if he was a 130-kg glutton with a huge round gut who gorged on rich foods? No, you would demand that he leads by example (cf. he should take the log out of his own eye before removing the speck in yours).

An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".

Aaron Guthrie
13-07-2007, 11:50 AM
Here is some critique from aussie scientists- THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE - SCIENTISTS RESPOND (http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php)

Also, anyone in Canberra might be interested in going to this Debunking 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (http://billboard.anu.edu.au/event_view.asp?id=16396) at the ANU. It is today from 1:00 PM till 2:30 PM.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 12:19 PM
If you want to see both sides present their case, as opposed to the alarmists' case unopposed that the anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37)want you to see, see Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20938). The debate was on the proposition "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis".


A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.

Miguel
13-07-2007, 01:13 PM
A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.
So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists, the audience poll is (in a scientific context) meaningless. The results of the post-debate poll just mean that the speakers who supported the proposition were more sophisticated orators than the speakers who opposed it.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 01:16 PM
So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists, the audience poll is (in a scientific context) meaningless. The results of the post-debate poll just mean that the speakers who supported the proposition were more sophisticated orators than the speakers who opposed it.

Nice excuses. :P I'm not saying that a debate is the best way to decide matters. But it does show that "debate is over" shouters are wrong, and why they want to quash dissent.

pax
13-07-2007, 02:47 PM
An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".

90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.

Now I am not defending Al Gore - and I cannot attest to the substance of his film since I haven't actually seen it. It may well be just as polemic and one-sided as "Swindle", but that doesn't make "Swindle" gospel truth. I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 03:28 PM
90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.

Rubbish yourself. It was the evidence to the contrary of the one-sided global warming alarmism that the media constantly indoctrinate us in.


I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.

Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.

Basil
13-07-2007, 03:49 PM
So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists...
OK, working with that premise, no doubt you agree it goes both ways.

It follows that you have no count for the dribbling, marching, alarmist non-climate scientists sucking up the balls and headlines on the 6 o'clock news as well. Not to mention their regurgitating and perpetuating the same dribble to their kids at bedtime and to their colleagues at the water cooler.

Everybody carry on.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 03:56 PM
See also The ABC bias swindle (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6111):


I’m sceptical about the supposed effect man’s behaviour has on the Earth’s climate. To hold such a view is to contradict the orthodoxy of our time. Indeed, in a recent article in The Age Peter Christoff likened such scepticism to Holocaust denial."

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2007, 04:23 PM
My comments originally posted in another forum, with one word translated to this board's lingo:


Durkin's excuses for some of the con jobs in his presentation were very slippery indeed. I found the doco patchy at best (although it did make some comments about environmentalism that I did agree with) but it might prove effective in bolstering the views of those looking for reasons to doubt. I'm sure Durkin's doing pretty nicely out of it all, although he did come across as pretty fragile in the grilling.

I strongly agreed with Michael Duffy's point in his first soundbite. Any polemicist filmmaker who is not themselves a specialist could have been made to look dodgy in pretty much the same way - some more than others but the same treatment applied to the presentations of an Al Gore or a Michael Moore would yield very similar results. What it might not yield would be discussion following it in which strong arguments would be made that the filmmaker was not merely dodgy but also generally point-blank wrong.

There was one sequence in the grilling that I found appallingly weak. That was when a scientist (sheesh!) responding to the argument about low proportions of CO2 used Ebola as a counterexample. A small quantity of Ebola is only harmful because it can rapidly reproduce itself into a massively larger quantity of the same - CO2 is not the same so it was an abysmal example.

Karoly was very good at responding to relevant questions quickly but also a bit brash, leaving himself open by claiming absolute certainty at one point.

The audience members interviewed were mostly dingbats and [geese].

One way in which I found the whole debate helpful was the extent to which it emphasised the pressures that industry is under (be these from politicians, public perception or commercial interests) to get its act together. I am tempted from this to draw an optimistic conclusion that anyone worrying themselves silly on a personal level about this is being, well, silly because much of the problem will be taken care of through those sorts of impacts on industry irrespective of the personal actions of citizens. However while I suspect that this is true, I also strongly suspect that the costs of it will be passed on to the consumer and that controlling climate change will be yet another force used by the rich to keep the poor poor, both within the West and from the West to the maybe-not-so-developing world.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 05:17 PM
However while I suspect that this is true, I also strongly suspect that the costs of it will be passed on to the consumer and that controlling climate change will be yet another force used by the rich to keep the poor poor, both within the West and from the West to the maybe-not-so-developing world.

That's for sure! It's sickening to watch these self-righteous ultra-rich aging rockers with collections of luxury cars and sunglasses advocating more foreign aid (which Thomas Sowell calls "foreign hindrance" (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=560)), or jetsetting and living in energy-guzzling mansions while advocating restrictions of the energy usage of us plebs.

And while we in the west can have the benefits of cheap, reliable power, but you overpopulated third worlders must not. You'll have to stick to polluting wood fires and choose between refrigerating vaccines and lighting the hospital rooms.

Axiom
13-07-2007, 06:48 PM
man is so gullible and maleable.................remember the ice age scare in the 1970s?!

Miguel
13-07-2007, 06:58 PM
I'm not saying that a debate is the best way to decide matters.
Agreed.


But it does show that "debate is over" shouters are wrong, and why they want to quash dissent.
If a debate is scientific (amongst scientists on a scientific topic), then an audience of laypeople is unqualified to judge the debate. Hence a popular judgement is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the debated proposition (i.e., it's fallacious to claim that a scientific debate is (un)decided based upon a popular judgement, or the results of a popular debate).


OK, working with that premise, no doubt you agree it goes both ways.
Sure. The validity of scientific theories is established through peer-reviewed research, not public opinion.


It follows that you have no count for the dribbling, marching, alarmist non-climate scientists sucking up the balls and headlines on the 6 o'clock news as well. Not to mention their regurgitating and perpetuating the same dribble to their kids at bedtime and to their colleagues at the water cooler.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, other than some generalised appeal to ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html).

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2007, 08:34 PM
man is so gullible and maleable.................remember the ice age scare in the 1970s?!
If I remember correctly it was also due to CO2, but for some different reasons

Basil
13-07-2007, 09:02 PM
Sure. The validity of scientific theories is established through peer-reviewed research, not public opinion.
Excellent. That was the ball game in my post. Now on to my dribble ...


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
I suffer a propensity for dribbling. I also get excited on matters when the great unwashed start marching! My dribble, which certainly wasn't succinct (it rarely is - DJ is the man for succinctness), attempted to drive home the point that not only was the reverse true (alarmists also being unqualified), but that the casual causeways of misinformation (water cooler, dinner table and commercial 6 o'clock news) are flooding the minds of the uninitiated.

Situation entirely normal. Everybody carry on.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 11:40 PM
man is so gullible and maleable.................remember the ice age scare in the 1970s?!

Yeah, including by some of the same people who are now pushing global warming alarmism! This includes Stephen Schneider: Greenhouse superstar (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm), who admitted:


“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

30 years ago, he was trying to scare us about the looming ice age! Yet the ABC crowd deferred to him several times.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 11:46 PM
If a debate is scientific (amongst scientists on a scientific topic), then an audience of laypeople is unqualified to judge the debate.

Right, so we sheeple should just accept the opinion of the Anointed, and pay the carbon taxes and live in caves. Likewise, we need to ignore the jetsetting of the same Anointed as they tell us to cut down on cars, and just believe their forecasts of the temperature of the next 100 years when they can't forecast next week's temperature.


Sure. The validity of scientific theories is established through peer-reviewed research, not public opinion.

:lol: Depends who the peers are. I've pointed out before that peer research is over-rated. Robert Higgs, a scientist with many years experience as a researcher, university professor and peer reviewer, had this to say in Peer review, publication in top journals, scientific consensus, and so forth (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/38532.html)(emphasis added):


‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot.

‘Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another. In some sciences these mistakes are largely weeded out in the course of time; in others they persist for extended periods; and in some sciences, such as economics, actual scientific retrogression may continue for generations under the misguided belief that it is really progress.

’At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken.’

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2007, 11:53 PM
I strongly agreed with Michael Duffy's point in his first soundbite. Any polemicist filmmaker who is not themselves a specialist could have been made to look dodgy in pretty much the same way — some more than others but the same treatment applied to the presentations of an Al Gore or a Michael Moore would yield very similar results. What it might not yield would be discussion following it in which strong arguments would be made that the filmmaker was not merely dodgy but also generally point-blank wrong.
True enough. It wouldn't be hard for me, as an expert in infrared spectroscopy, to make Gore look silly by asking him a simple question about IR absorption. Moore is just a fat slob making millions by pretending to be an ordinary working class guy, lying about what a paradise Saddam's Iraq and Castro's Cuba are/were.

Miguel
14-07-2007, 01:37 AM
Right, so we sheeple should just accept the opinion of the Anointed, and pay the carbon taxes and live in caves. Likewise, we need to ignore the jetsetting of the same Anointed as they tell us to cut down on cars, and just believe their forecasts of the temperature of the next 100 years when they can't forecast next week's temperature.
No one can be an expert on every subject, so sometimes we necessarily have to defer to a credible authority. When geodesists say that the diameter of the earth is 12,756.274 kilometres [1], or chemists say that the rat LD50 for caffeine is 192 mg/kg [2], I trust them, even though I don't have the expertise to verify their results. Of course, if you wish to be more proactive, you could invest the necessary time and effort to become an expert yourself, or you could run in the next election with the intent of affecting policy making decisions. Lesser mortals, like me, will just have to content themselves with deferring to an authority and giving their preference to a particular candidate at the next election. Pooh-poohing the "Anointed" might be cathartic, but doesn't really solve any problems.


[P]eer research is over-rated.
I'm aware that the peer-review process has problems, but it does work (albeit imperfectly). So until it's either improved or replaced by a superior process, we just have to acknowledge the problems and do the best we can.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971850.htm
[2] http://www.physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/CA/caffeine.html

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 02:23 AM
No one can be an expert on every subject, so sometimes we necessarily have to defer to a credible authority.

What experts? Climatologists like Richard Lindzen of MIT or paleontologists like Flummery and politicians like alGore?

Actually, the behaviour of the global warming alarmists has done as much to turn me off their cause as the skeptics. In particular, when one side shouts "the debate is over", and even proposes Nuremberg-like trials for their opponents (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/), it is almost always because they fear real debate.


When geodesists say that the diameter of the earth is 12,756.274 kilometres [1], or chemists say that the rat LD50 for caffeine is 192 mg/kg [2], I trust them,

I wouldn't trust a chemist. I am a Ph.D. chemist and this is not in my purview.


Pooh-poohing the "Anointed" might be cathartic, but doesn't really solve any problems.

It is good to show where they are coming from, those who wish to run our lives (the term comes from the economist and author Dr Thomas Sowell, in his excellent book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37)). Yet no one knows enough to predict the temperature next Sunday, let alone next century.

Nor are have most of these "experts" weighed up the costs of their burdens on us (not on themselves of course). Fact is, wealth is a better antidote to environmental problems than impoverishing us as many greenies would like:


During the first decade of the 20th century more than 8,000 Americans died in hurricanes. During the last ten years there have been only 100 hurricane-related deaths. How does one explain this decline despite a doubling of the population? “Improvements in communications, transportation, weather tracking, emergency management, rescue operations, and relief capabilities have made it possible to reduce dramatically the human price exacted by even the worst hurricanes in the most populated areas. Purposeful private and governmental actions,” Eberstadt continues [ref.], “can now substantially cut the toll from other natural disasters as well, even in the poorest nations.” [The Failures and Fallacies of Foreign Aid (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=560)]

Another example is the Netherlands' way of coping with high sea levels relative to the land: dykes.


I'm aware that the peer-review process has problems, but it does work (albeit imperfectly). So until it's either improved or replaced by a superior process, we just have to acknowledge the problems and do the best we can.

Not when one of the problems is that it can protect an entrenched paradigm from criticisms, as pointed out. Global warming alarmism is a paradigm, and much research money depends on supporting this.

Aaron Guthrie
14-07-2007, 07:01 AM
What experts? Climatologists like Richard Lindzen of MIT or paleontologists like Flummery and politicians like alGore?How about a report on the general position of the science, produced by a collection of scientists, such as produced by the IPCC?

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 10:50 AM
How about a report on the general position of the science, produced by a collection of scientists, such as produced by the IPCC?
:lol: That was a heavy politicized document produced under the auspices of the grossly corrupt thugocracy called the UN, and many of the scientists involved have repudiated it. Hurricane expert Christopher Landsea resigned, saying that he regarded the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" when it came to a link of AGW to hurricances. Also, somehow the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice were decreed never to have happened. See also:

IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors:
Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists
1 June 2001 (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069).


"Scientists are human beings," Lindzen concluded, "subject to normal instincts and weaknesses." They respond to incentives just like everyone else. "Current government funding creates incentives to behave poorly by maintaining the relevance of the subject," he said, noting that on some issues financial support for science depends on "alarming the world."

Desmond
14-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Jono, do you believe the universe is 6,000 years old?

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 11:23 AM
Boris, my views are amply clear in my book Refuting Compromise, or failing that, the articles I've written listed in my bio (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547/).

Desmond
14-07-2007, 11:34 AM
I'll take this quote from that linka s my answer:

In 2006, he co-authored 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History with Don Batten, as a concise reference guide for Christians, including pastors and theologians, why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.

The reason I asked is because I was going to point out that the Earth has been warming and cooling since its inception some 4 billion years ago quite independently of human activity, but I suppose you don't belive any of that anyway.

Desmond
14-07-2007, 11:36 AM
Come to think of it, do your beliefs make room for any climate change whatsoever?

santalum
14-07-2007, 11:37 AM
Excellent. That was the ball game in my post. Now on to my dribble ...


I suffer a propensity for dribbling. I also get excited on matters when the great unwashed start marching! My dribble, which certainly wasn't succinct (it rarely is - DJ is the man for succinctness), attempted to drive home the point that not only was the reverse true (alarmists also being unqualified), but that the casual causeways of misinformation (water cooler, dinner table and commercial 6 o'clock news) are flooding the minds of the uninitiated.

Situation entirely normal. Everybody carry on.
(water cooler, dinner table and commercial 6 o'clock news) Gunner you neglected to add to this list the biased left wing views of the ABC, Channel 9 may well be morally bankrupt but in it's own way the ABC is little better, I guess their one redeeming feature is consistency.
As far as the Swindle is concerned I'm yet to be convinced by either side, though I must admit I'm leaning slightly toward the argument presented by Martin Durkin and his intrepid little band.:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 11:44 AM
(water cooler, dinner table and commercial 6 o'clock news) Gunner you neglected to add to this list the biased left wing views of the ABC, Channel 9 may well be morally bankrupt but in its own way the ABC is little better, I guess their one redeeming feature is consistency.

A major difference is that taxpayers are not forced to fund Channel 9.


As far as the Swindle is concerned I'm yet to be convinced by either side, though I must admit I'm leaning slightly toward the argument presented by Martin Durkin and his intrepid little band.:hmm:

If nothing else, it is a refreshing change from the constant unchallenged alarmism.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 11:58 AM
I'll take this quote from that linka s my answer:

I would qualify by asking, "according to what clocks?" since time is not constant everywhere. See my answer to George L re distant starlight (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=156052&postcount=156).


The reason I asked is because I was going to point out that the Earth has been warming and cooling since its inception some 4 billion years ago quite independently of human activity, but I suppose you don't belive any of that anyway.

It's a fair point—even without the timescale, it's clear that the climate has changed without any input from man. There are example within fairly recent written human history <<6000 years ago, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F06%2Fnclim06. xml); as well as the Ice Age on which I've written (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/274). And it is reasonable to take Gore's graph on CO2 v Temp and show that even on the timescale he accepts, the graph shows that CO2 increase lags the temperature rise. It's fair to use an opponent's own assumptions against him this way. It's also amusing to point out that one of CMI's bitterest opponents, Ian Plimer (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280), has become an ardent AGW skeptic for the reasons you point out. (http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0412_aussie.shtml)

pax
14-07-2007, 12:06 PM
Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.

It is not necessary for one to be certain of an adverse outcome in order for mitigating actions to be justified. Just ask anyone involved in risk analysis.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2007, 12:27 PM
It is not necessary for one to be certain of an adverse outcome in order for mitigating actions to be justified. Just ask anyone involved in risk analysis.
Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.

I totally agreed with the point made by one of the sceptically-inclined on the panel about the vacuity of the "precautionary principle". (Actually there is not one single "precautionary principle" but many different versions of the same concept, most of which are about equally useless.)

The main problem with precautionary principles is self-contradiction. In environmental debates they are frequently applied to two different things: (i) impacts on the natural environment (ii) impacts on human health. But preventing some kind of profitable industrial activity on account of the potential of (i) or (ii) causes loss of profits for the industrialist, which has the potential to reduce their potential to provide employment. Unemployment is a proven health risk, so just as such precautionary principles can be used to argue that developments should not be approved when it is not known whether they may cause harm, so it can also be used to argue that developments should not be rejected when it is not known whether their rejection will cause harm. As such the principle, in many practical situations, is self-contradictory and useless. It should be dispensed with entirely and replaced with a concept of realistic balancing of potential costs and benefits (not just economic). Obviously there are some cases where it is not possible to balance costs and benefits because the values involved are incommensurable (for instance, is a development that provides 20,000 jobs worthwhile if the cost is the extinction of a species?) but these will just have to be thrashed out in the political sphere.

Considerations of cost and benefit need to be considered - eg it is not worth forcefully imposing solutions that bankrupt struggling countries for the sake of making western ones marginally more prosperous, although no doubt this will happen anyway. Similarly within the West I'm especially concerned about how the cost of remediation measures is going to be distributed, because it could be the case that the poor will be slugged through increased costs of just about everything while large companies continue to enjoy massive bulk energy discounts.

I am a bit puzzled about Kyoto. I haven't looked into it closely but Howard Government rhetoric seems to be both that committing to meet the targets would be incredibly expensive and that we are more or less meeting them anyway.

My overall view (although it is an inexpert one in all areas except the potential impacts of global warming on the survival or otherwise of species) is that global warming is occurring, is primarily human-driven but will not have anything like the dire consequences being forecast in the more alarmist predictions.

Aaron Guthrie
14-07-2007, 02:14 PM
:lol: That was a heavy politicized documentWhich document? They have produced many. I was referring to the 2007 report.

As regards the politics, so what? Should I just respond to any anti human involved global warming argument by pointing out the financial and political motivation of their side?

That 2 scientists of the many involved criticized the 2001 report isn't a great surprise. Again, so what? You got a better study?

pax
14-07-2007, 02:28 PM
Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.
If you believe the government, then we will meet our Kyoto obligations anyway, so the cost of signing the protocol would have been precisely zero.

Axiom
14-07-2007, 03:16 PM
Globalists Love Global Warming

Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government


A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam , which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.


In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government , Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker .

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial , are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2007, 05:00 PM
That 2 scientists of the many involved criticized the 2001 report isn't a great surprise. Again, so what? You got a better study?

That sort of thing came up a fair bit in the stuff on the ABC - scientists alleging that their names had been left on reports when in fact they had been involved in the process and heavily critical of it.

It is a tricky issue because a person who contributes work to a process deserves an authorship credit, but at the same time, a work should not be represented as the views of a co-author who doesn't agree with it.

Clearly at the first sign from an individual that they want their name removed, it should be done. A name more or less indeed makes very little difference but fighting over it is stupid politics from the bodies responsible.

Axiom
14-07-2007, 06:12 PM
Remember Global Cooling?

Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict.


By Jerry Adler
Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET Oct. 23, 2006

Oct. 23, 2006 - In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Aaron Guthrie
14-07-2007, 09:56 PM
That sort of thing came up a fair bit in the stuff on the ABC - scientists alleging that their names had been left on reports when in fact they had been involved in the process and heavily critical of it.

It is a tricky issue because a person who contributes work to a process deserves an authorship credit, but at the same time, a work should not be represented as the views of a co-author who doesn't agree with it.

Clearly at the first sign from an individual that they want their name removed, it should be done. A name more or less indeed makes very little difference but fighting over it is stupid politics from the bodies responsible.But does this significantly discredit the (2001) report?

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2007, 01:25 PM
If you believe the government, then we will meet our Kyoto obligations anyway, so the cost of signing the protocol would have been precisely zero.
I am not obliged to defend government pronouncements. And the cost would not be zero, but signing up for yet another program under the auspices of the corrupt UN thugocracy. But it is most interesting that the US and Au, who have not signed Kyoto, have done more to meet its aims than many of its signatories. Not really surprising, because the free market is far more environmentally friendly than a centrally planned / socialist economy has ever been.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2007, 04:49 PM
But does this significantly discredit the (2001) report?

No, having a very small proportion of authors drop out of a report doesn't significantly discredit it in isolation. Which makes it all the more surprising when getting one's name removed is made difficult.

Bereaved
15-07-2007, 10:28 PM
this is on topic

http://www.xkcd.com/c164.html

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 10:20 AM
Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-zealots-stifling-scientific-debate/2007/07/11/1183833595634.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

by Ian Plimer (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280)of all people!
The Age, 12 July 2007:


... Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators.

...

Groups like BAMOS and the IPCC deny, minimise or ignore significant recent climate changes that gave us the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present. Populations and the economy thrived. Previous coolings led to famine, depopulation and social disruption. History shows that it is dangerous to ignore history. ...

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 10:28 AM
Fear of a global 'coldening' (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22069080-5001031,00.html)Tim Blair
The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2007:


LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

...

But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone. In 2005, Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault helpfully explained: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." [Where's Popper when you need him? ;)]

...

[T]his year Queensland has gone frosty. Townsville's June was its coldest since 1940; June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning on record.

Basil
16-07-2007, 11:16 AM
Jono, please stop belittling the Hippies :lol:

Axiom
16-07-2007, 12:35 PM
We have all seen the advertisement attempting to tug at our heart strings witnessing a poor polar bear struggling from one melting ice chunk to another.
Polar bears however naturally and routinely swim great distances of up to 200 miles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ

Ian Murray
16-07-2007, 09:56 PM
We have all seen the advertisement attempting to tug at our heart strings witnessing a poor polar bear struggling from one melting ice chunk to another.
Polar bears however naturally and routinely swim great distances of up to 200 miles!

Regardless of tabloid journalism, scientific evidence is that the icecaps are diminishing. NASA satellite analysis: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

Axiom
16-07-2007, 10:09 PM
Regardless of tabloid journalism, scientific evidence is that the icecaps are diminishing. NASA satellite analysis: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
ian, no one is disputing global warming as fact, i dispute i)that it is man made and ii)the facts pertaining to said polar bear advertisement,as per my original statement.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2007, 10:23 PM
Regardless of tabloid journalism, scientific evidence is that the icecaps are diminishing. NASA satellite analysis: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
Icecaps are shrinking on Mars too (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp). Maybe alGore and his aging rocker pals have flown too many jets on Mars as well :lol:

Axiom
16-07-2007, 10:48 PM
Icecaps are shrinking on Mars too (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp). Maybe alGore and his aging rocker pals have flown too many jets on Mars as well :lol:
Nice to be on the same side of the fence on this one jono ;)
I commend you on your debating skills,and wholly support your position on this matter.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2007, 09:55 AM
ian, no one is disputing global warming as fact, i dispute i)that it is man made and ii)the facts pertaining to said polar bear advertisement,as per my original statement.
And I also dispute that iii) actions proposed by global warmist lobby would do any good.
Well defined and protected property rights do 90% (if not more) of environment protection job.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 10:34 AM
And I also dispute that iii) actions proposed by global warmist lobby would do any good.

Or that it's clear that wealth + warmth + extra plant food AKA CO2 taken in combination will be worse than less wealth + coolness that the modern Greenies want. Poverty is a known life risk whereas wealth has enabled better responses to natural disasters, so loss of life is sharply reduced.


Well defined and protected property rights do 90% (if not more) of environment protection job.

For sure. Communist regimes have been an environmental disaster. And property rights protect endangered species: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr Robert Murphy asks:


Pop quiz: What's the difference between bald eagles, white rhinos, and giant pandas on one hand, versus talking parrots, dairy cows, and thoroughbred horses on the other? Answer #1: All the former are endangered species, while the latter are in plentiful supply. Answer #2: It is illegal to trade in the former, while the latter are bought and sold on the open market.

He explains that when there are secure property rights, the owners of these animals have every incentive to ensure their continued existence. But when the government or "the public" owns something, in reality no-one owns it. So the African despots have no incentive to stop poaching, because they don't benefit personally.

Compare Wollemi Pines now available to all Australians - Dinosaur tree set free (http://nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/dec_media_060330_01): this is an astute policy: saving a tree that was supposed to have gone extinct millions of years ago (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1750/) by allowing private ownership.

Desmond
17-07-2007, 12:35 PM
Nice to be on the same side of the fence on this one jono ;)
I commend you on your debating skills,and wholly support your position on this matter.Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Basil
17-07-2007, 12:50 PM
Bugger being afraid. Run!

Axiom
17-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
as afraid and manipulated as the man-made GW proponents, you mean?:eek:

pax
17-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Pop quiz: What's the difference between bald eagles, white rhinos, and giant pandas on one hand, versus talking parrots, dairy cows, and thoroughbred horses on the other? Answer #1: All the former are endangered species, while the latter are in plentiful supply. Answer #2: It is illegal to trade in the former, while the latter are bought and sold on the open market.

You must be joking. You're going to just trust poachers to preserve species rather than just wipe out one and move on to the next?

One of your examples is rather bad, since the protection of the bald eagle has just led to it's removal from the endangered list (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/28/bald.eagle.delisting/) for the first time.

Desmond
17-07-2007, 01:36 PM
as afraid and manipulated as the man-made GW proponents, you mean?:eek:Yes Axiom, that's right dear. *pats top of Ax's head*

pax
17-07-2007, 01:43 PM
Icecaps are shrinking on Mars too (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp). Maybe alGore and his aging rocker pals have flown too many jets on Mars as well :lol:

From TFA:

"The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says."

Axiom
17-07-2007, 01:46 PM
Yes Axiom, that's right dear. *pats top of Ax's head*
Back in the *** days we had names for people like this, no its not "left gatekeeper", they are names that cannot be repeated here.
Suffice to say, they involve a budgerigar,a can of salmon,a wind sock,an eggplant and a combine harvester.

Basil
17-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Back in my days, we had a solution for dribblers. It involved simply a gun! ;)

Axiom
17-07-2007, 02:05 PM
And whilst the brainwashed masses soak up the propaganda,they are conveniently distracted from the really dangerous environmental issues like POLLUTION !,ie. the millions of tons of toxic waste poured into the seas,waters and air ,and the vanishing rainforests(you know the earth's lungs! - the ones that use the CO2 to produce OXYGEN!) .

It wont matter if the earth reaches critical over heating,as we will have choked ourselves on pollution long before that.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 03:43 PM
"The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says."
Just shows how the AGW alarmists will explain away contrary data that might reduce their ability to regulate our lives more.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 03:48 PM
You must be joking. You're going to just trust poachers to preserve species rather than just wipe out one and move on to the next?

Nope, because the owners of animals and plants have a monetary incentive to protect them from extinction. That's why Wollemi pines are likely to have no trouble surviving.


One of your examples is rather bad, since the protection of the bald eagle has just led to it's removal from the endangered list (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/28/bald.eagle.delisting/) for the first time.

OK, so I am a couple of weeks out of date with one of the many "endangered" species. And how do you know it was government policies that protected this one species? This is typical of the government-knows-best elitist crowd and their allies in the Leftmedia: exaggerate the successes, and in response to failures advocate even more money thrown at the same failed policies!

That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells. But the ban has cost millions of human lives to malaria, which suits some of the ecofascists who think the world is overpopulated anyway.

pax
17-07-2007, 08:54 PM
That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells. But the ban has cost millions of human lives to malaria, which suits some of the ecofascists who think the world is overpopulated anyway.

DDT is used extensively in Africa, where the harmful effects are often thought to be outweighed by the necessity of controlling malaria. Where is your evidence that DDT bans has cost millions of lives?

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2007, 08:59 PM
And property rights protect endangered species:

Marketable, easily-bred "flagship species", sure, but many of the thousands of threatened species out there do not appear to be marketable in any significant way. (If anyone thinks otherwise and would like to splash out half a million dollars to try to buy some land in South Hobart and hopefully save a drab little 2.5 millimetre wide snail, I'd be very interested to hear from them!)


And property rights protect endangered species: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr Robert Murphy asks:

Pop quiz: What's the difference between bald eagles, white rhinos, and giant pandas on one hand, versus talking parrots, dairy cows, and thoroughbred horses on the other? Answer #1: All the former are endangered species, while the latter are in plentiful supply. Answer #2: It is illegal to trade in the former, while the latter are bought and sold on the open market.

Correlation is not causation. It can be at least as easily argued that the latter are bought and sold on the open market because they are too secure to be possibly imperilled by such a process, while the former are not available for trade because of the potential risks to the species of inept attempts to profit from them.

Spix's Macaw is a useful illustrative case. It's apparently extinct in the wild with two-thirds of the several dozen captive specimens being kept in one private collection. But while that private collection is now critical to keeping the species alive and hopefully someday reintroducing it, trapping for private collections is one of the factors that wiped the bird out of the wild environment in the first place.

By the way, if we're discussing threatened species it is always useful to distinguish between a threatened species and an endangered species. The two terms are not synonymous and the latter denotes a much higher level of risk. The Bald Eagle was removed from Endangered status in 1995 but remained listed as threatened.


That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells.

Ironically the bald eagle is one of the species in which banning of DDT has been most strongly argued to be linked to population recovery. I find this quite credible as if persecution and habitat loss were the only causes of decline, it would be very surprising if the species' population multiplied by >20 in only 40 years.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2007, 11:56 PM
DDT is used extensively in Africa, where the harmful effects are often thought to be outweighed by the necessity of controlling malaria.

The people in Africa don't tend to agree with relatively disease-free Western environmentalists imposing bans. See for example Why don’t they value human life? (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_don%E2%80%99t_they_value_ human_life&ns=FionaKobusingye&dt=05/26/2007&page=1) and Bring Back DDT (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19659) and Malaria is often deadly, and even when not, it is crippling, but the environmentalists, like most leftists, aren't the ones who suffer from the policies they impose on others.

Any harmful effects are from overuse, not from spraying inner walls of huts. As far as direct harm to humans, soldiers were regularly dusted with the stuff, which virtually eradicated typhus.


Where is your evidence that DDT bans has cost millions of lives?

See above. Where is your evidence that DDT has taken a single human life?

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 12:41 AM
Correlation is not causation.
Would apply to Pax's example too.


It can be at least as easily argued that the latter are bought and sold on the open market because they are too secure to be possibly imperilled by such a process, while the former are not available for trade because of the potential risks to the species of inept attempts to profit from them.
It could be, but whether soundly is another matter. Hardly anything is more inept than government.


Ironically the bald eagle is one of the species in which banning of DDT has been most strongly argued to be linked to population recovery. I find this quite credible as if persecution and habitat loss were the only causes of decline, it would be very surprising if the species' population multiplied by >20 in only 40 years.
Interesting. So much for the "Silent Spring" idea, where it was supposed to be a world without songbirds thanx to DDT. Ronald Bailey agrees in DDT, Eggshells, and Me: Cracking open the facts on birds and banned pesticides (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34742.html), but says:


Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision.

Probably why he says he's been accused of being both a dupe of the Greenies and corporate stooge. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 01:27 AM
Would apply to Pax's example too.

Which example?


It could be, but whether soundly is another matter. Hardly anything is more inept than government.

In the specific area of conservation management governments have been responsible over time for both incredible failures and remarkable successes, but species that make it on to threatened species lists and become protected by well-resourced governments practically never go extinct unless they were already basket cases.

Under the heading of inept private attempts to profit I should have explicitly included those privateers who are actually all too good at making money, but have a very short-term focus about doing so. The sort who would rather kill a rhino for its horn than catch it and try to breed more, for example. That's one attitude you won't generally encounter from governments - at least, not anymore.


Interesting. So much for the "Silent Spring" idea, where it was supposed to be a world without songbirds thanx to DDT.

Probably the start of the modern environmentalist tradition of exaggeration and dire forecasts right there. Thanks for the link to the Bailey article, which has the feel of a reasonable summary; I have heard of his Ecoscam book but haven't read it.

paulb
18-07-2007, 03:44 AM
You must be joking. You're going to just trust poachers to preserve species rather than just wipe out one and move on to the next?

One of your examples is rather bad, since the protection of the bald eagle has just led to it's removal from the endangered list (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/28/bald.eagle.delisting/) for the first time.

Agree. It's amazing what magical powers the right wingers ascribe to capitalism.

On a related matter, I remember as a young reporter reporting on the greenhouse effect many years ago, and the business lobby or their fellow travellers relentlessly ridiculing the whole notion. Now, belatedly, after wasting a decade or so, they finally admit the phenomenon but, of course, it's not our fault, which is code for, let's do nothing about it.

I must admit that I'm glad I'm 41 rather than 4, because I have almost zero faith in the capacity of people to act co-operatively and intelligently on the scale needed to solve a problem like this. The rate at which people lap up crap like the ABC documentary shows this. As my old man used to warn me: bullshit makes the world go round.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Agree. It's amazing what magical powers the right wingers ascribe to capitalism.

Nothing magic about having produced the most prosperous economies of all time. Rather, left-wingers ascribe magic to the powers of governments to plan economies, despite the evidence that while captalism results in unequal wealth, socialism results in equal poverty. Mises pointed out long ago that no group of elites could possibly have all the information that millions of free buyers or sellers could have, with information on scarcity and cost of production automatically conveyed by prices [Economic calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (http://www.mises.org/econcalc/econcalc.pdf)].


On a related matter, I remember as a young reporter reporting on the greenhouse effect many years ago, and the business lobby or their fellow travellers relentlessly ridiculing the whole notion.

The fallacy here, as pointed out before on this board, is equating capitalism or the free market with the business lobby. But free market advocates from Adam Smith on have had nothing good to say about big business, which is often only too happy to interefere with the free market to suit itself.


Now, belatedly, after wasting a decade or so,

In the 70s, they might have wasted a decade or so deciding whether urgent means were needed to stop global cooling ....


they finally admit the phenomenon but, of course, it's not our fault, which is code for, let's do nothing about it.

Or, let's not rush into economically crippling measures that may have little climatic benefit and even less benefit to humanity. Especially when some of the loudest screamers about global warming refuse to lead by example, e.g. alGore with his jetsetting lifestyle and home that uses 20 times more energy than the average, Madonna telling the audience to jump up and down to demonstrate their feelings about global warming, before she returns to her mansion and fleet of private jets ...


I must admit that I'm glad I'm 41 rather than 4, because I have almost zero faith in the capacity of people to act co-operatively and intelligently on the scale needed to solve a problem like this.

Me neither. And I have even less faith in the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37)knowing what's best for the rest of us. That's why I prefer genuine free market to government coercion.

Ian Murray
18-07-2007, 02:25 PM
ian, no one is disputing global warming as fact, i dispute that it is man made
Hi Ax

I wish I had the spare time you and other BBers have to debate such issues.

Surely you can't dispute the obvious facts:
1. Primarily through burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing
2. These activities are man-made
3. CO2 traps heat and causes surface temperatures to rise

The perfect example is Venus, with a virtually-pure CO2 atmosphere and surface temperature higher than the daylight side of Mercury

There may be other factors involved, but that's no justification for ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away

It is noteworthy that California (the world's sixth-largest economy) has already legislated for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050. It is heartening that our next federal government is at least targeting a 60% reduction by 2050.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 02:29 PM
The perfect example is Venus, with a virtually-pure CO2 atmosphere and surface temperature higher than the daylight side of Mercury

Yeah, all those blasted SUVs and jetsetting leftists on Venus ...


It is noteworthy that California (the world's sixth-largest economy) has already legislated for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050.
Oh, very easy to enforce something >40 years in the future. Of course, by this time the alarmists will be braying about the coming ice age again.

pax
18-07-2007, 03:07 PM
Yeah, all those blasted SUVs and jetsetting leftists on Venus ...

Of course, in Jono's universe it's only lefties who fly in jets and drive SUVs...

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 03:24 PM
Of course, in Jono's universe it's only lefties who fly in jets and drive SUVs...
Nope, in the real world, many of the shrillest global warming alarmists are limousine lefties who jet-set everywhere to preach at us, sometimes in their own private jets, then return to their energy-guzzling mansions.

pax
18-07-2007, 03:32 PM
Nope, in the real world, many of the shrillest global warming alarmists are limousine lefties who jet-set everywhere to preach at us, sometimes in their own private jets, then return to their energy-guzzling mansions.

Those of them that are actually serious (Gore for example) purchase carbon offsets to bring their net carbon production to zero.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 04:33 PM
Those of them that are actually serious (Gore for example) purchase carbon offsets to bring their net carbon production to zero.

Sure, but if they were more serious they could cut their own emissions further, still purchase the offsets and cancel out several of those they're complaining about. Gore, for one, could easily afford to do this.

pax
18-07-2007, 04:39 PM
Sure, but if they were more serious they could cut their own emissions further, still purchase the offsets and cancel out several of those they're complaining about. Gore, for one, could easily afford to do this.

The way Jono blathers on, you'd think Al Gore was personally responsible for 90% of the world's CO2 production.. (90% of the hot air maybe ;) )

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 11:05 PM
Those of them that are actually serious (Gore for example) purchase carbon offsets to bring their net carbon production to zero.

:lol: Yeah, right, Gore buys these carbon indulgences through a company he owns (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528), Generation Investment Management, which stands to benefit him hugely from all the gullible greenies who want to clear their consciences with similar indulgences.


Sure, but if they were more serious they could cut their own emissions further, still purchase the offsets and cancel out several of those they're complaining about. Gore, for one, could easily afford to do this.

Steven Milroy points out in Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,257958,00.html):


But it’s the carbon offset purchases through which Gore really validates application of the $300-man epithet to him. His company buys the offsets for their employees. There’s no cost to him. He benefits politically — and perhaps financially, as well — from them. He then advocates that the rest of us who cannot so easily offset are carbon production suffer myriad personal sacrifices.

While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset.

“Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you — and only you.

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2007, 12:31 AM
Jono, have you read PJ O'Rourke's "All The Trouble In The World"? It is so blistering on Gore and environmentalism that I have been unable to take Gore seriously ever since. And that was in the mid-90s.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 12:55 AM
Jono, have you read PJ O'Rourke's "All The Trouble In The World"? It is so blistering on Gore and environmentalism that I have been unable to take Gore seriously ever since. And that was in the mid-90s.
No I haven't, Kevin. I'll check it out, so thanx for the recommendation.

Looking online, I found some sample quotes from PJO'R (http://www.ldb.org/rourke.htm), including from that book:


"Malthus,", says Vice President Al Gore in Earth in the Balance, "was right in predicting that the population would grow geometrically." Al, as the father of four children, should know.

Axiom
19-07-2007, 01:08 AM
"Malthus,", says Vice President Al Gore in Earth in the Balance, "was right in predicting that the population would grow geometrically." Al, as the father of four children, should know.
just wait for the promotion of the 'one child policy' from the likes of these unspeakable hypocrites

pax
19-07-2007, 09:47 AM
:lol: Yeah, right, Gore buys these carbon indulgences through a company he owns (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528), Generation Investment Management, which stands to benefit him hugely from all the gullible greenies who want to clear their consciences with similar indulgences.

You like to throw around pejorative names like "indulgences", don't you?

A decent carbon trading system is a real mechanism that can make a real difference to the net worldwide CO2 production. Purchasing carbon offsets for emissions is a real, concrete way of reducing your net carbon output - it's not just for show.

Of course the whole thing will work much better if the whole world agrees to a single system instead of fifty, and there needs to be a price on carbon emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 12:36 PM
You like to throw around pejorative names like "indulgences", don't you?
Yep! Because that is what it is. I can sin/give off CO2 as long as I pay an indulgence to the RC Church/Gore's company.


A decent carbon trading system is a real mechanism that can make a real difference to the net worldwide CO2 production. Purchasing carbon offsets for emissions is a real, concrete way of reducing your net carbon output - it's not just for show.
How gullible can you get?! :wall: Gore doesn't purchase anything, his company does, and stands to gain from this new indulgence racket.

Meanwhile, it's poorer people who suffer, while rich people can pay their indulgences and wallow in luxury. :evil:

pax
19-07-2007, 01:40 PM
Yep! Because that is what it is. I can sin/give off CO2 as long as I pay an indulgence to the RC Church/Gore's company.

100 tonnes of CO2 emission plus 100 tonnes of CO2 sink means net emissions of zero. I don't think the same can be said for sin, or is it ok for me to kill you as long as I save someone else's life?

pax
19-07-2007, 01:43 PM
How gullible can you get?! Gore doesn't purchase anything, his company does, and stands to gain from this new indulgence racket.

You make it sound as if they are selling pieces of paper. The money actually goes somewhere - it is invested in renewable technology and carbon sinks. It is creating a real economic incentive for low-carbon technology..

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 02:35 PM
You make it sound as if they are selling pieces of paper. The money actually goes somewhere.
Sure, if Gore paying Gore, and his gullible thralls paying Gore, count.:P

Meanwhile, the indulgences mean that Gore and his rich aging rockers can indulge their jet fleets, hot pools while we plebs must have one-minute showers and cycle to work.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 03:07 PM
“For the brave few who stuck with all 174 hours of Live Al, there was something oddly touching about seeing rock gazillionaires who’d flown in by private jet tell Joe Schmoe all the stuff he doesn’t need. Your own car? A washer and dryer? Ha! Why can’t you take the bus and beat your underwear on the rocks down by the river with the native women all morning long?”

santalum
21-07-2007, 04:28 PM
“For the brave few who stuck with all 174 hours of Live Al, there was something oddly touching about seeing rock gazillionaires who’d flown in by private jet tell Joe Schmoe all the stuff he doesn’t need. Your own car? A washer and dryer? Ha! Why can’t you take the bus and beat your underwear on the rocks down by the river with the native women all morning long?”
Holy cow Jono, do you realy believe all of the stuff that you sprout or are you in fact the consumate shit stirrer/devils advocate:hmm: checked your profile, your picture does not exactly indicate you are one of the proletariat, but then appearances can be deceptive.
Am thoroughly enjoying this thread from the side lines:clap: but doubt I have the sharpness of wit and political knowledge/scepticism to contribute.

pax
21-07-2007, 09:44 PM
Holy cow Jono, do you realy believe all of the stuff that you sprout or are you in fact the consumate shit stirrer/devils advocate:hmm: checked your profile, your picture does not exactly indicate you are one of the proletariat, but then appearances can be deceptive.
Am thoroughly enjoying this thread from the side lines:clap: but doubt I have the sharpness of wit and political knowledge/scepticism to contribute.

Jono has a rather special incentive to believe in a grand worldwide conspiracy of scientists, so his view is not that surprising..

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2007, 12:04 AM
Jono has a rather special incentive to believe in a grand worldwide conspiracy of scientists, so his view is not that surprising..
Nope, not necessarily a conspiracy, but a common worldview of the Anointed (http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript229.html), who think they should be running other people's lives.

Evidently Pax sees nothing wrong with ecohypocrites like alGore and aging rockers who fly everywhere on their private jets telling us to get rid of our cars.

Axiom
22-07-2007, 10:55 AM
Nope, not necessarily a conspiracy, but a common worldview of the Anointed (http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript229.html), who think they should be running other people's lives.

Evidently Pax sees nothing wrong with ecohypocrites like alGore and aging rockers who fly everywhere on their private jets telling us to get rid of our cars.
jono, if the brainwashed mind controlled minions were told by gore et al to walk barefoot,eat rocks,and stick bamboo shoots up their nose,half would do so.

pax
22-07-2007, 03:45 PM
Nope, not necessarily a conspiracy, but a common worldview of the Anointed (http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript229.html), who think they should be running other people's lives.

We've all seen the link Jono, give it a rest already.

Bottom line is that Jono depends on the view that 99.99% of scientists are either engaged in massive conspiracies to conceal the truth, or are so incompetent that they don't understand the truth on subjects such as the age of the earth and evolution. If nobody bought into that view, Jono wouldn't have a job.



Evidently Pax sees nothing wrong with ecohypocrites like alGore and aging rockers who fly everywhere on their private jets telling us to get rid of our cars.

Nobody has told me to get rid of my car. Who's been knocking on your door?

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2007, 04:54 PM
Bottom line is that Jono depends on the view that 99.99% of scientists are either engaged in massive conspiracies to conceal the truth, or are so incompetent that they don't understand the truth on subjects such as the age of the earth and evolution.

Where does 99.99% come from?

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2007, 07:23 PM
We've all seen the link Jono, give it a rest already.
No you haven't, because this was a different link. :P


Bottom line is that Jono depends on the view that 99.99% of scientists are either engaged in massive conspiracies to conceal the truth, or are so incompetent that they don't understand the truth on subjects such as the age of the earth and evolution. If nobody bought into that view, Jono wouldn't have a job.
Or they have a different worldview ... or in the case of global warming alarmism, a chance to control more of our lives. As for my job, mine doesn't depend on money coerced from taxpayers. Conversely, many alarmists would have no job unless they could concoct more chicken little stories to keep government funds rolling in.


Nobody has told me to get rid of my car. Who's been knocking on your door?
No, just get rid of SUVs, use bicycles instead, walk, use public transport so your schedule is determined by government not yourself ... meanwhile the leading alarmists don't practise what they preach.

pax
22-07-2007, 08:58 PM
No, just get rid of SUVs, use bicycles instead, walk, use public transport so your schedule is determined by government not yourself ... meanwhile the leading alarmists don't practise what they preach.

All good advice. I thoroughly recommend cycling as a mode of transport where feasible.

On the other hand the right-wing annointed (Bolt, Akerman, Devine, Albrechtson etc ad nauseum) spring to the opinion columns in support of SUVs, more money spent on roads, opposition to water-efficient toilets, energy efficient lightbulbs, cycling and any and all cyclists. They pooh-pooh climate change and anybody who suggests it is really happening, quote Bob Carter ad-nauseum to "prove" that it isn't, they spring onto any juicy tidbits of Al Gore or other environmental activists engaging in any activity that might be interpreted as hypocritical (for example the false reports that Al Gore's daughter served an endangered fish at her wedding).

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2007, 11:30 PM
All good advice. I thoroughly recommend cycling as a mode of transport where feasible.

On the other hand the right-wing annointed ...
Oh, but they are not anointed, in the sense that they think people generally know best how to spend their own time and money, unlike the Anointed who think that elites know best.


(Bolt, Akerman, Devine, Albrechtson etc ad nauseum) spring to the opinion columns in support of SUVs,
Or rather, points out that it's hypocritical to criticise SUVs while flying in private jets.


more money spent on roads,
Yes, because buses tear them up so much more than cars!


opposition to water-efficient toilets, energy efficient lightbulbs,
Are you following that moron Turnbull in wanting to ban incandescent bulbs? Never mind that it is a drop in the ocean as far as affecting the world's temperature is concerned, but very important to the Anointed who love to be SEEN doing something and "caring".


cycling and any and all cyclists.
Who opposes cyclists? I am one.

They pooh-pooh climate change
Who disputes that climate is changing? It has changed all the time, e.g. the Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today and was a time of prosperity. And it's cold in Brisbane at the moment; I can't remember the last time we had such a cold spell here!


and anybody who suggests it is really happening, quote Bob Carter ad-nauseum to "prove" that it isn't,
Yeah, much better to use the "precautionary principle" to silence any dissent.


they spring onto any juicy tidbits of Al Gore or other environmental activists engaging in any activity that might be interpreted as hypocritical (for example the false reports that Al Gore's daughter served an endangered fish at her wedding).
I'm not interested in false reports, but the bleeding obvious, like Gore living in an energy-guzzling mansion and his rock star allies with their private jets. Evidently Pax sees nothing hypocritical about that, just that the benighted "interpret" it as hypocritical.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 01:01 AM
Up against the warming zealots
Martin Durkin says his British documentary rejecting the idea of human-caused global warming has survived last week's roasting by the ABC
The Australian, 21 July 2007
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7583,00.html


WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head.

So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.

The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why.

First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. ....

The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive.

The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my film with red glowing eyes.

Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it.

God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2007, 01:56 AM
I'd be interested in his response (if any) to the point about the three-year average being higher now than in 1998.

The sections of his article Jono quoted come across to me like the sort of bilge Matthew Sweeney produces (not suggesting Matthew is a global warming sceptic at all, just that it is the same kind of aggressive fight-the-power mentality, combined with unconvincing victimhood assertions, and with a huge preponderance of assertion over evidence).

The full article has some interesting, if no better supported, characterisations of the alarmist camp. Incidentally, I think he does himself quite a disservice by referring to the alarmist camp as "the global warming camp." After all, there's a difference between those who believe global warming is real while on some level questioning the causation, the extent or the impact proposed by the alarmists, and the alarmists themselves. (My own, generally inexpert position is that I accept the reality and the causation but question both the projected extent and the impacts pushed by the alarmists. I do have expertise relevant to some of the claimed impacts.)

The panel section at the end of the film would be well worth examining empirically to determine whether bias was or was not displayed in terms of who got the last say on various sub-issues.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 09:27 AM
The sections of his article Jono quoted come across to me like the sort of bilge Matthew Sweeney produces (not suggesting Matthew is a global warming sceptic at all, just that it is the same kind of aggressive fight-the-power mentality, combined with unconvincing victimhood assertions, and with a huge preponderance of assertion over evidence).
Maybe, but the ABC didn't have an equally critical panel over alGore's film or send an aggressive interviewer over to talk to him ... The fact that only the AGW-skeptic position was subjected to such criticism, and the disclaimer that this is "controversial", shows a huge lack of even-handedness.


The full article has some interesting, if no better supported, characterisations of the alarmist camp. Incidentally, I think he does himself quite a disservice by referring to the alarmist camp as "the global warming camp." After all, there's a difference between those who believe global warming is real while on some level questioning the causation, the extent or the impact proposed by the alarmists, and the alarmists themselves. (My own, generally inexpert position is that I accept the reality and the causation but question both the projected extent and the impacts pushed by the alarmists. I do have expertise relevant to some of the claimed impacts.)
There is indeed a difference, but many really do conflate these issues. E.g. "global warming is the biggest danger humanity faces," and the urge for governments to do something about it now before it is too late. Some of the alarmist camp really have advocated decertifying weather announcers for denying either the warming or the impacts (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm), or even having Nuremberg-like trials for AGW sceptics (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36962.html).

pax
23-07-2007, 09:54 AM
Oh, but they are not anointed, in the sense that they think people generally know best how to spend their own time and money, unlike the Anointed who think that elites know best.


You've got to be joking. The right wing pundit crowd are so smug in their certainty of their own correctness on any and every topic it's completely sickening.



Or rather, points out that it's hypocritical to criticise SUVs while flying in private jets.

To be honest, I don't care if they are hypocrites. If they are correct then everybody should be doing something about it. I am far more interested in what scientists such as Professor Karoly than "champions" such as Al Gore. But the champions have their place, as more people listen to them than to the scientists.



Yes, because buses tear them up so much more than cars!

Per passenger? Not even close. I bet you'd like to close the bus lanes too?



Are you following that moron Turnbull in wanting to ban incandescent bulbs? Never mind that it is a drop in the ocean as far as affecting the world's temperature is concerned, but very important to the Anointed who love to be SEEN doing something and "caring".

No, I think Turnbull's suggestion is a poorly thought through piece of populism. There is no point suggesting bans on incandescents until there are suitable replacements for every size and fitting of light globe.



Who opposes cyclists? I am one.

Good for you. You'd prefer to see them all in their own cars and clogging up the roads further would you?



Who disputes that climate is changing? It has changed all the time, e.g. the Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today and was a time of prosperity. And it's cold in Brisbane at the moment; I can't remember the last time we had such a cold spell here!

The weather is not the same as the climate. This goes just as well for those who say "it's hot this month - it must be climate change".

Nobody disputes the fact that there are influences other than human on climate. Does the fact the medieval warm period exists mean that human behaviour is not causing the current warm period?!? Durkin conveniently omitted to mention that the correlation between temperature and solar activity stops in the last ten years - while the global temperatures continue to climb. Do you think there might be other factors at play?



Yeah, much better to use the "precautionary principle" to silence any dissent.

There is nothing wrong with the precautionary principle, as long as it is applied as a reasoned balancing of the probabilities of adverse outcomes and the severity of their consequences.


I'm not interested in false reports, but the bleeding obvious, like Gore living in an energy-guzzling mansion and his rock star allies with their private jets. Evidently Pax sees nothing hypocritical about that, just that the benighted "interpret" it as hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 10:47 AM
You've got to be joking. The right wing pundit crowd are so smug in their certainty of their own correctness on any and every topic it's completely sickening.
Nope, champions of the free market generally think that people should make their own decisions about what to buy, where and when to travel, who to work for or to hire ... Elitists can't stand the benighted making their own decisions, so seek the force of the law or government bureaucracy to make them act as the elites know best.

In one paper by Andrew Kulikovsky, he summarizes:


Unlike socialism, capitalist economies are primarily concerned with the creation of wealth rather than its redistribution. The means of production is privately owned and governments are only called upon to protect private property rights and to restrain coercion and fraud. This provides all people with the opportunity to participate in the free and peaceful exchange of goods and services without fraud, theft or coercion. [Emphasis in original]


To be honest, I don't care if they are hypocrites. If they are correct then everybody should be doing something about it.
Let them lead by example then!


I am far more interested in what scientists such as Professor Karoly than "champions" such as Al Gore.
I'm interested in the scientists such as Richard Lindzen of MIT.


But the champions have their place, as more people listen to them than to the scientists.
Hypocritical champions tend to harm their own cause, but Pax is oblivious to that. And there is a real problem if the champions are what people listen to. News flash: being a failed presidential candidate or aging rocker with a private jet does NOT make one an expert on climate science.


Per passenger? Not even close. I bet you'd like to close the bus lanes too?
No, but an article in the Bulletin suggested that Brisbane would be better to charge cars for entry into the city rather than spend more on public transport. One of his arguments was the way buses wreck the roads, and another is that public transport often serves people who would otherwise walk or cycle, rather than drive.


No, I think Turnbull's suggestion is a poorly thought through piece of populism. There is no point suggesting bans on incandescents until there are suitable replacements for every size and fitting of light globe.
Agreed.


The weather is not the same as the climate. This goes just as well for those who say "it's hot this month - it must be climate change".
Yes, works both ways doesn't it!


There is nothing wrong with the precautionary principle, as long as it is applied as a reasoned balancing of the probabilities of adverse outcomes and the severity of their consequences.
Exactly the point!

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2007, 10:56 AM
Who opposes cyclists? I am one.
Good for you. You'd prefer to see them all in their own cars and clogging up the roads further would you?

Me, and presumably Jono as well, would like them to make their own decision, not to tell them whether to use a car or a bicycle.

That shows a staggering difference in our approach, as Pax immediately assumed Jono wanted to prescribe something to the cyclists.

The biggest question is not whether climate is changing (which probably is) or even whether it's caused by human activity (which most likely is not), but whether we should all dance to the tune of the self-appointed experts that know better what's best for us

pax
23-07-2007, 12:36 PM
That shows a staggering difference in our approach, as Pax immediately assumed Jono wanted to prescribe something to the cyclists.

No, I'm just responding to his presumption that I am telling people whether to cycle or not. I think cycling is a great option if it suits where you live and where you work. It's not for everybody, clearly.



The biggest question is not whether climate is changing (which probably is) or even whether it's caused by human activity (which most likely is not), but whether we should all dance to the tune of the self-appointed experts that know better what's best for us

Surely you must agree that human activity is, at the very least a contributing factor as to the state of the climate?

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 01:10 PM
No, I'm just responding to his presumption that I am telling people whether to cycle or not. I think cycling is a great option if it suits where you live and where you work. It's not for everybody, clearly.
Some of the alarmists you like are not as liberal-minded (in the classic sense of the word) as you, evidently.


Surely you must agree that human activity is, at the very least a contributing factor as to the state of the climate?
Yeah, I'm freezing in Brisbane—all your fault! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Surely you must agree that human activity is, at the very least a contributing factor as to the state of the climate?
I don't agree. I don't disagree either.
Human activity has an effect on environment. Climate is a part of environment and could be affected by human activity. However, the nature and significance of this effect is in question. I certainly do not support simplistic views of global warming alarmist, who often demonstrate luck of any scientific knowledge.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 02:04 PM
Marx Would Have Loved Kyoto
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/12/2007
www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256176286615104&secure=1


... Harper [Canadian PM had] described the Kyoto Protocol as 'a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.' He voiced his support for the 'campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord,' an agreement he said was 'based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.'

He was right on all counts.

Agreeing with him are 60 leading scientists who in April wrote Harper an open letter, published in the Canadian Financial Post, asking him to keep his pledge to review Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

'Global climate,' said the scientists, 'changes all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'

'If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.'

They add that 'activists (attempt) to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.'

Kyoto committed Canada to cutting emissions of greenhouse gases by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. Emissions are about 35% above the target and continue to rise. It's a nearly impossible job. The European Union, which made similar pledges, has failed to meet its targets. Its CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the heretical U.S. since Kyoto. [Note this, supporters of ecohypocrites!]

The simple reality is that no nation can continue to grow economically without its emissions growing. It is also true that Kyoto is a recipe for global poverty. The annual loss for the U.S., according to the U.N.'s own figures, could be as high as 1.96% of GDP.

Today's $1.3 trillion economy would take a $260 billion hit every year — totaling more than $11 trillion by 2050.

...

Kyoto would punish the rich capitalist countries that foster innovation and growth with taxes and regulation, but let poorer countries, largely dictatorships or socialist economies that soak up foreign aid like a sponge, continue to pollute to catch up.

The left has always proclaimed that poor countries are poor only because the capitalist West has exploited them, just as they proclaim the capitalist West has exploited Earth. Kyoto is the lefties' and greenies' payback.

Karl Marx once said the goal of communism was a system that extracted from each according to his ability to give to each according to his need. Come to think of it, Kyoto says the same thing.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2007, 02:39 PM
I am not talking of everyone concerned with the environment, but of the most prominent part of the green movement that also get the biggest coverage in mass media.


CASE 1
The greens are very concerned with increased level of CO2
The greens often campaign against nuclear power stations.
At the same time I don't recall them making any noise about coal power station.

Yet the amount of CO2 produced by coal power station cannot even be compared with CO2 of nuclear power stations (because of latter being almost nonexistent). Coal power station have a much higher radiation. Other pollution, compare to nuclear station, is also tremendous. The risk of modern, properly designed nuclear power station is minimal. Radioactive waste, while a problem, pale in significance compare to the waste produced by coal mining and burning.

The only advantage of coal is that it's cheaper. That factor is often disregarded (and even frowned upon) by greens.

And yet they campaign against nuclear power station and silent about coal burning.

CASE 2
Greens advocate hydrogen or electricity car. I don't know what is the source of hydrogen. If it's from electrolysis, it can be likened to electricity engine.
Given that most of electricity is produced by coal burning, it will be more detrimental to environment. If you add the impact of chemicals needed for batteries in case of electricity engine, the difference is even bigger.
Yet the common perception is that petrol burning car more harmful to environment.

pax
23-07-2007, 03:06 PM
CASE 2
Greens advocate hydrogen or electricity car. I don't know what is the source of hydrogen. If it's from electrolysis, it can be likened to electricity engine.
Given that most of electricity is produced by coal burning, it will be more detrimental to environment. If you add the impact of chemicals needed for batteries in case of electricity engine, the difference is even bigger.
Yet the common perception is that petrol burning car more harmful to environment.

Internal combustion engines are one of the most inefficient means of converting energy. Hybrid cars, electric cars and hydrogen cars all use far less carbon, even accounting for the transportation of fuel. I'm nor sure of the exact figures, but hybrid, electric and Hydrogen are all improvements on IC.

The other point to consider is that electricity can be generated using Wind, Solar or other renewable means. One of the most useful things about Hydrogen, is that electrolysis of Hydrogen can be used to balance loads. In other words - hydrogen production can be matched to times of high energy availability or low demand, enabling a higher percentage of renewable energy to be employed in the grid.

Aaron Guthrie
23-07-2007, 03:13 PM
None of us has a great deal of authority in this matter. Al Gore doesn't, the Greens don't. So I reject any criticism of them as irrelevant (and as the attacks seem to be ad hominem in nature they would seem to be irrelevant anyway).

So I hereby invoke appeal to authority in the guise of the 2007 IPCC report. In terms of an appeal to authority this must take the cake, I refute you thus.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 03:41 PM
None of us has a great deal of authority in this matter. Al Gore doesn't, the Greens don't. So I reject any criticism of them as irrelevant
As long as they are promoted, then they are fair game for criticism.


(and as the attacks seem to be ad hominem in nature they would seem to be irrelevant anyway).
Nope, I've explained the circumstantial ad hominem before. If AGW is so bad, let them live as if they believe it before they impose regulations upon us.


So I hereby invoke appeal to authority in the guise of the 2007 IPCC report. In terms of an appeal to authority this must take the cake, I refute you thus.
already answered IPCC, which is a politicized document under the auspices of the massively corrupt thugocracy, the UN.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 04:13 PM
Internal combustion engines are one of the most inefficient means of converting energy.
More efficient than solar cells actually. IC have an efficiency of ~20–30%, and the hybrid cars gain some efficiency by running at an optimal RPM, e.g. Prius 37%. There is a proposal that a split cycle system with very high compression ratio (http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/the_technology.html)could increase IC efficiency to >40%, cf. the ordinary Otto cycle where two revolutions are required for every power stroke. Commercial solar cells are about 14-16% efficient, while the best ones are ~40% but are way too expensive for mass usage. Actually, fuel cells are very efficient, and can be >100% by the way it's defined (ΔG/ΔH), but they have yet to be made practical for production of large amounts of power.


Hybrid cars, electric cars and hydrogen cars all use far less carbon, even accounting for the transportation of fuel. I'm nor sure of the exact figures, but hybrid, electric and Hydrogen are all improvements on IC.
Hydrogen has a low energy value, and would be more dangerous to store, either as compressed gas or a liquid cold enough to freeze the air on the pipes. There are bound to be more accidents, and if they are acceptable to the Green/Left, then they are actually trading "blood for oil"!


The other point to consider is that electricity can be generated using Wind, Solar or other renewable means.
Which are very expensive and inefficient ways to generate power.


One of the most useful things about Hydrogen, is that electrolysis of Hydrogen can be used to balance loads.
Presumably the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen.


In other words - hydrogen production can be matched to times of high energy availability or low demand, enabling a higher percentage of renewable energy to be employed in the grid.
Needs quantitative assessment. All these ideas sound nice qualitatively, but doing the hard maths and physics of how much wind or solar power is needed is another matter.

It would also be a financial disaster for the government to get involved. The best innovations have come from the private sector.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 04:20 PM
Yet the amount of CO2 produced by coal power station cannot even be compared with CO2 of nuclear power stations (because of latter being almost nonexistent). Coal power station have a much higher radiation. Other pollution, compare to nuclear station, is also tremendous. The risk of modern, properly designed nuclear power station is minimal. Radioactive waste, while a problem, pale in significance compare to the waste produced by coal mining and burning.
Indeed, the Greens selectively point to the Stern Report and to Europe for inspiration, wilfully forgetting that the Stern Report supported nuclear power and many "green" countries use it.


If you add the impact of chemicals needed for batteries in case of electricity engine, the difference is even bigger.
Yet the common perception is that petrol burning car more harmful to environment.
That is an important point. The metals for the batteries must be mined (and we know how much the Greenies love mining :P), and the toxic metal wastes from used batteries must be disposed of.

Aaron Guthrie
23-07-2007, 04:31 PM
As long as they are promoted, then they are fair game for criticism.Such criticism does not establish anything about their claims. They are not the originator of the science, which is the relevant thing to criticise.
Nope, I've explained the circumstantial ad hominem before. If AGW is so bad, let them live as if they believe it before they impose regulations upon us.You may establish hipocracy, but you do not establish that their claims are false.
already answered IPCC, which is a politicized document under the auspices of the massively corrupt thugocracy, the UN.The authority of the document comes from the great many (e.g. the working group 1 report has over 100 contributors Annexes to IPCC WG1 AR4 (Reporthttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Annexes.pdf)) relevant scientists involved in the project.

pax
23-07-2007, 05:00 PM
More efficient than solar cells actually. IC have an efficiency of ~20–30%, and the hybrid cars gain some efficiency by running at an optimal RPM, e.g. Prius 37%.

What has the efficiency of solar cells got to do with it?



Which are very expensive and inefficient ways to generate power.
Only if you regard it as being completely free to pollute the atmosphere and dig stuff out of the ground.



Needs quantitative assessment. All these ideas sound nice qualitatively, but doing the hard maths and physics of how much wind or solar power is needed is another matter.

It is an indisputable fact that if you can schedule loads (such as electrolysis) you can improve grid balance and improve non-baseload ratios.



It would also be a financial disaster for the government to get involved. The best innovations have come from the private sector.

If the government doesn't get involved, it won't happen. The government is perfectly entitled to get involved to the tune of saying it is no longer free to release as much stuff into the atmosphere as you want. The government is perfectly entitled to get involved by supporting fledgling technologies that may not be a commercial proposition for a number of years yet (including clean coal and nuclear).

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 05:55 PM
Such criticism does not establish anything about their claims.
It establishes a lot about their credibility, or lack thereof. See Post #3 on this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=160854&postcount=3).


They are not the originator of the science, which is the relevant thing to criticise.
If they spout forth, then they are fair game for criticism. Even more when they impose their rules on the rest of us.


You may establish hipocracy, but you do not establish that their claims are false.
Again, all said before. But I'll say it again: before you impose controls on my lifestyle, impose them on your own first!


The authority of the document comes from the great many (e.g. the working group 1 report has over 100 contributors Annexes to IPCC WG1 AR4 (Reporthttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Annexes.pdf)) relevant scientists involved in the project.
Again, a politically selected group.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 06:05 PM
What has the efficiency of solar cells got to do with it?
It has everything to do with your claim, "Internal combustion engines are one of the most inefficient means of converting energy."


Only if you regard it as being completely free to pollute the atmosphere and dig stuff out of the ground.
A typical leftist Anointed One, prone to categorical statements. Real life always involves trade-offs. For one thing, Henry Ford probably eliminated more pollution than anyone else in history by inventing the mass-produced car. Before that, everywhere was polluted by horse crap which bred disease-carrying flies. For another thing, the most efficient solar cells use toxic elements like arsenic (for gallium arsenide GaAs).


It is an indisputable fact that if you can schedule loads (such as electrolysis) you can improve grid balance and improve non-baseload ratios.
Indesputable to whom? One electrical power engineer told me that wind power can often be electrical pollution on the gird.


If the government doesn't get involved, it won't happen.
Rubbish. Most of the innovations we enjoy have nothing to do with the government.


The government is perfectly entitled to get involved to the tune of saying it is no longer free to release as much stuff into the atmosphere as you want. The government is perfectly entitled to get involved by supporting fledgling technologies that may not be a commercial proposition for a number of years yet (including clean coal and nuclear).
All this will mean is propping up inefficiency and political favoritism, not what is best for the consumer (Remember him? Leftists tend not to).

Aaron Guthrie
23-07-2007, 06:20 PM
Again, a politically selected group.So we have the IPCC report, with a huge number of scientists contributing. You claim (without support) that these scientists were picked for political reasons. Even if we assume so, well, so what? It is still representative of these scientists views. What was the motivation of these scientists? Now show me the report which is as professionally prepared by a comparable number of scientists that work in the relevant fields which supports your view. Can you? Or is it just the ad hominem (claims of political motivation and assertions of a thugracy)?

Furthermore tell me why, if your line of defence is pointing out possible motivations, I cannot just reject every source of yours in the same way.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 06:55 PM
So we have the IPCC report, with a huge number of scientists contributing.
And we have criticism of AGW alarmism by real meteorology experts like Richard Lindzen of MIT. So why trust anything tainted by UN corruption, esp. if it means impositions on our lifestyles?

Axiom
23-07-2007, 06:57 PM
Rubbish. Most of the innovations we enjoy have nothing to do with the government.
not only that ,do you know which entiity is responsible for the most deaths in modern history? no not disease or war, but government!
an evil neccesity i hear you say, well hear this ! - so are REVOLUTIONS!

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 07:19 PM
not only that ,do you know which entiity is responsible for the most deaths in modern history? no not disease or war, but government!

This claim is supported by the book Death By Government by R.J. Rummel (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM), New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Conclusion: 169,202,000 murdered by government, including 61,911,000 by the former favorite country of the Left, the Soviet Gulag State.

BTW, I am not an anarchist; we do need limited government to protect private property rights, defend citizens from crime, and to restrain coercion and fraud. This provides the foundation for everyone to participate in the free and peaceful exchange of goods and services without fraud, theft or coercion, necessary for a prosperous country.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2007, 11:36 PM
Maybe, but the ABC didn't have an equally critical panel over alGore's film

Has the ABC screened Gore's film? I can't remember them doing so, but perhaps I blinked one day and missed it.

The ABC has a history of airing contentious docos but doing so in a panicky fashion. Some time ago they screened "Guru Busters", a program dealing with fake miracle men in India and the work of rationalist movements to expose them. This program came with a massive disclaimer, although I forget the exact content of it. I made a formal complaint to the ABC about their use of the disclaimer and the ABC wrote back and admitted that they should have screened the program without the disclaimer.

Aaron Guthrie
24-07-2007, 05:01 AM
And we have criticism of AGW alarmism by real meteorology experts like Richard Lindzen of MIT.So far I count your mention of 2 people that were critical of the 2001 IPCC report. This does little (if anything) to discredit a report prepared by a great many more than 2 scientists. Then we have the 2007 report, again backed by a great many scientists who seem not to have been scared off by the criticism of 2 people.
So why trust anything tainted by UN corruption, esp. if it means impositions on our lifestyles?I am trusting the scientists on the committees that prepared the report. I am picking sides based on the weight of scientific opinion.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 08:56 AM
So far I count your mention of 2 people that were critical of the 2001 IPCC report. This does little (if anything) to discredit a report prepared by a great many more than 2 scientists. Then we have the 2007 report, again backed by a great many scientists who seem not to have been scared off by the criticism of 2 people. I am trusting the scientists on the committees that prepared the report. I am picking sides based on the weight of scientific opinion.
Truth is not decided by majority vote, even though global warming alarmists think that science is based on consensus. It is especially problematic in such a politicized document like anything produce by the Thugocracy. It is also absurd to ignore well attested history like the Medieval Warm Period and the poorer Little Ice Age. But it would not help their agenda to admit that warming, even if they are right about its occurrence and cause, might be a good thing.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 09:20 AM
“In London last week, the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have ‘one child less’ because the United Kingdom’s ‘high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.’ ‘Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet,’ says Professor John Guillebaud. ‘We’re nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands... We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers—in other words, human beings, in the UK as well as abroad.’ As the professor sees it, having fewer children is ‘the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.’ The best thing we can do for our children is not to have them.”
—Mark Steyn

pax
24-07-2007, 09:57 AM
It has everything to do with your claim, "Internal combustion engines are one of the most inefficient means of converting energy."

It's a meaningless comparison. I was merely pointing out that internal combustion produces far more CO2 than the equivalent energy stored in batteries or fuel cells where the electricity was produced by grid power (whether coal fired or renewable).



Indesputable to whom? One electrical power engineer told me that wind power can often be electrical pollution on the gird.

Indisputable to me. I am not an expert on every topic that we discuss, but with a degree in Electrical Engineering, as a former Western Power scholar in Power Engineering, and having worked at Western Power researching battery and wind turbine technology for the Esperance wind farm, I feel well qualified to comment on this particular matter.

Your power engineer friend is correct in a sense, but you have taken a glib sound byte without actually discussing it's real meaning.

Wind turbines do add noise to a power grid from the point of view that the power produced is not continuous, and cannot easily be matched to the load.

A small percentage of wind power can be added to a grid with no discernable consequence to the stability of the grid as long as there is sufficient "running reserve" which can be brought online to cover unexpected demand. As of 15 years ago, it was well understood that around 15% of a grid's overall load could be supplied by wind power without undue consequences for stability. That percentage is somewhat higher today (probably closer to 25%) with turbines that are much more efficient in low wind conditions.

Electrolysis to produce Hydrogen is one way of solving the load balancing problem. If hydrogen is required for automotive fuel, this can be produced 100% by wind power with no load balancing problems whatsoever. If you want to incorporate wind power into a grid at percentages higher than would be comfortable directly (say above 25%), then you can use peak wind production to electrolyse water to produce Hydrogen which can be burnt on-site to provide running reserve at times of low wind production.

It is also possible to do this kind of load balancing using battery technology, but it is harder to store the volume of energy required and most battery technologies depend on fairly toxic chemicals.

In Australia, of course, none of this load balancing is required since the proportion of wind power in the grid is far, far below the percentages where stability becomes an issue.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 11:05 AM
It's a meaningless comparison. I was merely pointing out that internal combustion produces far more CO2 than the equivalent energy stored in batteries or fuel cells where the electricity was produced by grid power (whether coal fired or renewable).
Then you were misusing the term "efficiency". This has a specific meaning: energy output/energy input. It is not the right word to use in connection with CO2 output, and an engineer like you must know this.


Indisputable to me. I am not an expert on every topic that we discuss, but with a degree in Electrical Engineering, as a former Western Power scholar in Power Engineering, and having worked at Western Power researching battery and wind turbine technology for the Esperance wind farm, I feel well qualified to comment on this particular matter.
I saw the Esperance wind farm in 2000. It seems to me that this demonstrates the impractability of large-scale wind power. Esperance has a fairly low population density and a lot of vacant windswept land. How can this be scaled up to provide enough power in densely populated urban areas?


Your power engineer friend is correct in a sense, but you have taken a glib sound byte without actually discussing it's real meaning.
Oh no, my sound bite was just a summary of an extensive discussion. BTW, I grew up in Windy Wellington (although was born in this country) which has a lone wind turbine on one of the high hills, and this is what started the conversation. With that background, I didn't have any presumption that wind power was bad.


Wind turbines do add noise to a power grid from the point of view that the power produced is not continuous, and cannot easily be matched to the load.
Yeah.


A small percentage of wind power can be added to a grid with no discernable consequence to the stability of the grid as long as there is sufficient "running reserve" which can be brought online to cover unexpected demand. As of 15 years ago, it was well understood that around 15% of a grid's overall load could be supplied by wind power without undue consequences for stability. That percentage is somewhat higher today (probably closer to 25%) with turbines that are much more efficient in low wind conditions.
Not too bad.


Electrolysis to produce Hydrogen is one way of solving the load balancing problem. If hydrogen is required for automotive fuel,
And chemistry will always be a problem, because the ΔHf (H20) is only -285.8 kJ/mol, while that ΔHf (CO2) = -393.7 kJ/mol: i.e. these are the heats of combustion for the reactions H2 + 1/2O2 → H2O and C + O2 → CO2. Hydrogen just cannot have the energy density of hydrocarbons.


this can be produced 100% by wind power with no load balancing problems whatsoever. If you want to incorporate wind power into a grid at percentages higher than would be comfortable directly (say above 25%), then you can use peak wind production to electrolyse water to produce Hydrogen which can be burnt on-site to provide running reserve at times of low wind production.
This adds to the inefficiency, because electrolysis of H2O and burning H2 are nowhere near 100% efficient.


It is also possible to do this kind of load balancing using battery technology, but it is harder to store the volume of energy required and most battery technologies depend on fairly toxic chemicals.
That is a problem with hydrocarbon-electric hybrid cars then, right? ;)


In Australia, of course, none of this load balancing is required since the proportion of wind power in the grid is far, far below the percentages where stability becomes an issue.
But that is self-defeating. I.e. it shows that wind power can never provide a very high percentage of the power a city needs. Yet it is highly expensive.

pax
24-07-2007, 11:38 AM
Then you were misusing the term "efficiency". This has a specific meaning: energy output/energy input. It is not the right word to use in connection with CO2 output, and an engineer like you must know this.


I was comparing the efficiency of Oil->automotive power compared to Coal->automotive power, which is virtually equivalent to the relative CO2 load.



I saw the Esperance wind farm in 2000. It seems to me that this demonstrates the impractability of large-scale wind power. Esperance has a fairly low population density and a lot of vacant windswept land. How can this be scaled up to provide enough power in densely populated urban areas?


Why does it demonstrate that?



And chemistry will always be a problem, because the ΔHf (H20) is only -285.8 kJ/mol, while that ΔHf (CO2) = -393.7 kJ/mol: i.e. these are the heats of combustion for the reactions H2 + 1/2O2 → H2O and C + O2 → CO2. Hydrogen just cannot have the energy density of hydrocarbons.


Since the molar mass of CO2 is more than double the molar mass of H20, your figures actually suggest that the energy density of Hydrogen is higher! But of course both of these numbers are meaningless unless you know the storage density of H2 compared with petrol.

Even if the stored energy density of Hydrogen is lower, it isn't a deal breaker unless it is lower by orders of magnitude.



This adds to the inefficiency, because electrolysis of H2O and burning H2 are nowhere near 100% efficient.

True, but this is only necessary to balance loads - so it is only required for a portion of the load, and only when the penetration is high.



That is a problem with hydrocarbon-electric hybrid cars then, right? ;)
Yes, but a much smaller problem since the quantities required are much lower.



But that is self-defeating. I.e. it shows that wind power can never provide a very high percentage of the power a city needs. Yet it is highly expensive.

Wind power cannot provide a very high proportion of the power a grid needs without load balancing measures. A grid might be as large as a country or a continent, or it might be as small as a small town. Wind power can provide orders of magnitude more power than it currently in Australia without any stability problems whatsoever. Would you dismiss the entire technology because it cannot replace all of the coal stations overnight?

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 12:51 PM
I was comparing the efficiency of Oil->automotive power compared to Coal->automotive power, which is virtually equivalent to the relative CO2 load.
Didn't look that way. Are you suggesting coal-fired cars?


Why does it demonstrate that?
I told you: Esperance seems esp. favorable for wind power, but still, they generate only 22% of Esperance's electricity, and Esperance has a population of only 12,500 people (http://www.horizonpower.com.au/environment/renewable_energy/wind/wind_nine_mile.html). How will this power major cities in non-windy areas?


Since the molar mass of CO2 is more than double the molar mass of H20, your figures actually suggest that the energy density of Hydrogen is higher! But of course both of these numbers are meaningless unless you know the storage density of H2 compared with petrol.
From a self-professed hydrogen enthusiast (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html) (who also advocates nuclear powe as the best source for producing H2):


"Hydrogen is the lightest of the elements with an atomic weight of 1.0. Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter, whereas water has a density of 1.0 g/cc and gasoline about 0.75 g/cc. These facts give hydrogen both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it stores approximately 2.6 times the energy per unit mass as gasoline, and the disadvantage is that it needs about 4 times the volume for a given amount of energy. A 15 gallon automobile gasoline tank contains 90 pounds of gasoline. The corresponding hydrogen tank would be 60 gallons, but the hydrogen would weigh only 34 pounds. ...

"Hydrogen can be used as a fuel directly in an internal combustion engine not much different from the engines used with gasoline. The problem is that while hydrogen supplies three times the energy per pound of gasoline it has only one tenth the density when the hydrogen is in a liquid form and very much less when it is stored as a compressed gas. This means that hydrogen fuel tanks must be large."


Wind power cannot provide a very high proportion of the power a grid needs without load balancing measures. A grid might be as large as a country or a continent, or it might be as small as a small town.
So why not tell us the area that would needed to power a city of 100,000, say? Given that the turbines must be spaced at a distance of at least three times the rotor diameter, a lot of land would be required.


Wind power can provide orders of magnitude more power than it currently in Australia without any stability problems whatsoever. Would you dismiss the entire technology because it cannot replace all of the coal stations overnight?
No, I leave categorical solutions to the Anointed. I've already explained that we have only trade-offs. So some wind power might be warranted.

I prefer hydro-electric power, widespread in NZ. But even this non-polluting way of generating electricity is not green enough for many environmentalists. Some have even said that the great Snowy River scheme would have been opposed today.

Axiom
24-07-2007, 01:12 PM
“In London last week, the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have ‘one child less’ because the United Kingdom’s ‘high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.’ ‘Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet,’ says Professor John Guillebaud. ‘We’re nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands... We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers—in other words, human beings, in the UK as well as abroad.’ As the professor sees it, having fewer children is ‘the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.’ The best thing we can do for our children is not to have them.”
—Mark Steyn
One Child policy ala China is coming.
Jono, i would be very interested as to your view re the history of Eugenics from francis galton,malthus to mein kampf to prof. pianka to its current manifestations 'population control', 'sustainability' and 'eco-management'.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 01:24 PM
Internal combustion engines are one of the most inefficient means of converting energy. Hybrid cars, electric cars and hydrogen cars all use far less carbon, even accounting for the transportation of fuel. I'm nor sure of the exact figures, but hybrid, electric and Hydrogen are all improvements on IC.

You missed the point. Producing the electricity by burning coal is less efficient then burning petrol and pollutes more.


The other point to consider is that electricity can be generated using Wind, Solar or other renewable means. One of the most useful things about Hydrogen, is that electrolysis of Hydrogen can be used to balance loads. In other words - hydrogen production can be matched to times of high energy availability or low demand, enabling a higher percentage of renewable energy to be employed in the grid.
Wind is hardly practical. Solar might be an alternative, but you have to consider the surface below the thermo-elements which is going to sustain a damage. The surface around the coal mine and coal power plant sustain even higher damage, but the area could be smaller.

So far, nuclear power remains to be most environmentally friendly.

pax
24-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Didn't look that way. Are you suggesting coal-fired cars?

Where do you think the electricity for electric/hybrid cars comes from?



I told you: Esperance seems esp. favorable for wind power, but still, they generate only 22% of Esperance's electricity, and Esperance has a population of only 12,500 people (http://www.horizonpower.com.au/environment/renewable_energy/wind/wind_nine_mile.html). How will this power major cities in non-windy areas?

22% with relatively little load balancing is pretty good - it's a lot higher than the average over the country (less than 2%). I have never suggested that wind power will reach high penetrations anywhere anytime soon, but 2% is pathetic.



From a self-professed hydrogen enthusiast (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html) (who also advocates nuclear powe as the best source for producing H2):


So a hydrogen powered car requires a big fuel tank? Like I say - not a deal breaker.


So why not tell us the area that would needed to power a city of 100,000, say? Given that the turbines must be spaced at a distance of at least three times the rotor diameter, a lot of land would be required.


Assuming ten turbines per square km, you could install turbine capacity equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation in approximately 1000 square kilometres, or roughly 0.015% of Australia's area. Of course this is purely theoretical as the load balancing problem comes in well before you get to 100%. The land use issue is relatively small except for the NIMBY problem (which is an issue for any electricity generation - Nuclear most of all).

The best place to put turbines is offshore - it gets around the political problems, there is a lot of wind and you can install more and larger turbines.



No, I leave categorical solutions to the Anointed. I've already explained that we have only trade-offs. So some wind power might be warranted.

I've never argued for more than that. Once again, Jono, you seem to be arguing a hypothetical debate against a non-existent opponent.



I prefer hydro-electric power, widespread in NZ. But even this non-polluting way of generating electricity is not green enough for many environmentalists. Some have even said that the great Snowy River scheme would have been opposed today.

Hydro is pretty widespread in Australia, too. 18% of installed electricity generation capacity (when the snowy isn't running dry that is).

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 01:41 PM
I prefer hydro-electric power, widespread in NZ. But even this non-polluting way of generating electricity is not green enough for many environmentalists. Some have even said that the great Snowy River scheme would have been opposed today.

The environmental impact depends on the area flooded. Mountain river with high degree of inclination would require very little area to be flooded, thus causing almost no damage.
More "calm" rivers, when partition by turbine, would flood big area. BTW, the rotting of the trees flooded will produce huge amount of greenhouse gas (don't remember which one).
Given that a lot of suitable rivers are already user for hydro-power, this option is limited.

Spiny Norman
24-07-2007, 02:54 PM
Jono, i would be very interested as to your view re the history of Eugenics ...
Heavens to Murgatroyd! ... INCOMING!!!

Axiom
24-07-2007, 02:59 PM
Heavens to Murgatroyd! ... INCOMING!!!
yes this 'religion' of the elite , doesnt recieve a great deal of media attention.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 03:07 PM
Where do you think the electricity for electric/hybrid cars comes from?
Regenerative braking. (Note, this is in your favour: do I have to make all your best points for you? ;))


22% with relatively little load balancing is pretty good - it's a lot higher than the average over the country (less than 2%).
Sure it's good, but how about 22% of Brisbane ...


I have never suggested that wind power will reach high penetrations anywhere anytime soon, but 2% is pathetic.
You might be right, but this will be known for sure once we know the cost ?


Assuming ten turbines per square km, you could install turbine capacity equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation in approximately 1000 square kilometres,
Really? Seems low given that Esperance's population of 12,500 is only 22% served by the windfarm, and Australia has 20 million people.


or roughly 0.015% of Australia's area.
That's a lot of expense. What suitable areas are near major cities?


Of course this is purely theoretical as the load balancing problem comes in well before you get to 100%. The land use issue is relatively small except for the NIMBY problem (which is an issue for any electricity generation - Nuclear most of all).
Yeah, look at the supposedly green inheritance welfare leftists, the Kennedys, who whinged at an offshore windfarm because it would spoil their precious view. Once again, we see green hypocrisy at work: "imposition on thee, not on me!" not that it seems to bother you.


The best place to put turbines is offshore - it gets around the political problems, there is a lot of wind and you can install more and larger turbines.
True, but also much more expensive.


I've never argued for more than that. Once again, Jono, you seem to be arguing a hypothetical debate against a non-existent opponent.
You can talk, always mis-characterizing my positions as categorical.


Hydro is pretty widespread in Australia, too. 18% of installed electricity generation capacity (when the snowy isn't running dry that is).

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 03:36 PM
One Child policy ala China is coming.
Jono, i would be very interested as to your view re the history of Eugenics from francis galton,malthus to mein kampf to prof. pianka to its current manifestations 'population control', 'sustainability' and 'eco-management'.
Interesting you should ask ;) We have articles on Galton (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4506/), Darwin's (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085/) first cousin and the founder of eugenics, how this influenced Mein Kampf (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1892), Pianka (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4246)and his Australian equivalent John Reid (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853/) who wouldn't mind if much of humanity died off or were killed by disease. And I note that Population Bombaster Paul R. Ehrlich is still a darling of the Anointed despite the abject failure of most of his predictions (http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103).

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 03:41 PM
From We're Doomed Again: Paul Ehrlich has never been right. Why does anyone still listen to him?

BY RONALD BAILEY
Opinion Journal
20 May 2004
www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103


Of course, there are environmental problems, although not the global warming the authors fear. (Satellite data now suggest that such warming will be mild over the next century—about a degree Celsius.) But the depletion of fisheries and tropical forests is real enough. Alas, the Ehrlichs and most of their ecological confreres miss the central reason for it: the tragedy of the commons, where nobody owns a resource—forest, fish, water--and thus no one has a reason to protect it. By contrast, enclosing the commons, by assigning owners, internalizes costs and benefits, and allows markets to determine the value of any given resource. With characteristic wrongheadedness, they advocate instead eroding property rights, thus enlarging the commons and tending to make environmental problems worse.

In 1971, Mr. Ehrlich told Look magazine: "When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972." What is Greek for "this is ridiculous"?

Axiom
24-07-2007, 03:48 PM
Interesting you should ask ;) We have articles on Galton (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4506/), Darwin's (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085/) first cousin and the founder of eugenics, how this influenced Mein Kampf (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1892), Pianka (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4246)and his Australian equivalent John Reid (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853/) who wouldn't mind if much of humanity died off or were killed by disease. And I note that Population Bombaster Paul R. Ehrlich is still a darling of the Anointed despite the abject failure of most of his predictions (http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103).
Thankyou Jono, also too for your earlier reference re murdering govts.

Where's the Eugenics documentary on tv ??
i mean, it is just a bit relevant to our lives on this planet is it not?!
Prince Phillip head of WWF, wants to be reborn as a human-exterminating virus!

Jono, are you familiar with the Georgia Guidestones?

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 04:58 PM
From The "Hockeystick": The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade (http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/HockeyStickScandal.shtml)
By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.
25 February 2007


The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN organization formed within the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). This should sound alarms for those familiar with the politics of some of the power brokers within the UN itself. Many are decidedly anti-capitalist and anti-American. For example, consider the statement of Maurice Strong made at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: "Isn't the ONLY hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" At the time Strong was a UN policy maker and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. He has had the ear of the UN Secretary General for years.

About every 5 years the IPCC has issued assessments of the global climate. The Fourth Assessment is due out in several months while a Summary for Policy Makers is now released. This in itself is a very strange way to handle the release of what should be a straight forward scientific document. These documents should have been released simultaneously. Given the UN's history and agendas, one now suspects that political revisions are taking place.

Remarkably, the IPCC in this Fourth Assessment is backing away from its early climate predictions. According to Peter du Pont, while Al Gore and his alarmist movie circle the globe with predictions of 20 foot sea level rises, the IPCC has halved it earlier predictions of sea level rise for this century from 36 inches to 17 inches, in the next 100 years. 100 year predictions of nearly anything are ludicrous. They can also be fun because they produce big numbers and scary numbers. That 17 inch increase in sea level may still be too large.

Climatologist Robert Balling points out that the sea level as been rising about 1.5 mm/yr for the last 8000 years; some say as much as 20,000 years. If this rate of increase were to continue for 100 years more, it would amount to about 6 inches. Given the Dutch ingenuity with holding back the sea, I think we can adjust for a 6 inch rise. A 6 inch high "tidal wave" dribbling into Lower Manhattan suddenly isn't so scary, either. We can also marvel at the roaring successes of Al Gore's fantasies, which are void of such mundane scientific evidence.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 06:38 PM
I prefer hydro-electric power, widespread in NZ. But even this non-polluting way of generating electricity is not green enough for many environmentalists.

It's often not green enough for this non-environmentalist either. Hydro-electric power sites must be chosen with great care and researched if the risk of species loss is to be reduced, especially if the ecosystem thus affected is distinctive (eg Lake Pedder, the damming of which caused the near-extinction of one fish species, and the possible extinction of at least two invertebrates.)


Paul Ehrlich has never been right. Why does anyone still listen to him?

Indeed. Ehrlich is a prize dill and the Ehrlich-Simon bet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet) is still one of my favourites of the many embarrassments his brand of eco-alarmism has endured.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2007, 03:08 AM
The environmental impact depends on the area flooded. Mountain river with high degree of inclination would require very little area to be flooded, thus causing almost no damage.
More "calm" rivers, when partition by turbine, would flood big area. BTW, the rotting of the trees flooded will produce huge amount of greenhouse gas (don't remember which one).
Given that a lot of suitable rivers are already user for hydro-power, this option is limited.


It's often not green enough for this non-environmentalist either. Hydro-electric power sites must be chosen with great care and researched if the risk of species loss is to be reduced, especially if the ecosystem thus affected is distinctive (eg Lake Pedder, the damming of which caused the near-extinction of one fish species, and the possible extinction of at least two invertebrates.)
Fair enough, both. Hydro-power seems to work very well in NZ with its mountains and rivers, enough to produce 65% of its electricity, but that doesn't mean it's ideal for Oz. The largest is the Manapouri station (850 MW), taking advantage of the natural 185 m head between Lake Manapouri and sea level.

Aaron Guthrie
25-07-2007, 10:19 AM
Truth is not decided by majority vote, even though global warming alarmists think that science is based on consensus. For the non-expert, appealing to the majority opinion of experts is the best chance at getting the truth.
It is especially problematic in such a politicized document like anything produce by the Thugocracy.We have gone over this ground many times and established our respective positions well enough, so I will leave this comment alone.
It is also absurd to ignore well attested history like the Medieval Warm Period and the poorer Little Ice Age.What would be absurd is if one non-expert took the word of another non-expert that the majority of scientists are ignoring relevant evidence, and then proceeded to debate him on this point.
But it would not help their agenda to admit that warming, even if they are right about its occurrence and cause, might be a good thing.And it would also not help your agenda to "admit" that you are wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2007, 10:56 AM
What would be absurd is if one non-expert took the word of another non-expert that the majority of scientists are ignoring relevant evidence, and then proceeded to debate him on this point.
Tough. The UN thugocracy basically decreed that the MPW and LIA didn't happen despite the records of history, not science, and pushed the badly flawed "hockey stick".

santalum
26-07-2007, 08:47 PM
Tough. The UN thugocracy basically decreed that the MPW and LIA didn't happen despite the records of history, not science, and pushed the badly flawed "hockey stick".
thugocracy! what a cumbersome and unfortunate word, used 7 times in the course of this thread, maybe you're competing with Kevin Rudd and his infamous (when it comes to) precursor, keep up the good work and you just might pip him on this one.:clap:
And acronyms, the disease of the modern society, littered throughout this thread like fly specks on an outhouse wall, I've found they are used constantly by those who seek to impress their superiors and peers and totally baffle subordinates, perhaps they simply give us an insight into the minds of people who invent terminology that make the use of acronyms necessary in the first place.
Oh, and as to the thread, what about climatic redistribution, or is this also a plot cooked up by the thugocracy, there I said it.:doh: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2007, 09:35 PM
thugocracy! what a cumbersome and unfortunate word, used 7 times in the course of this thread, maybe you're competing with Kevin Rudd and his infamous (when it comes to) precursor, keep up the good work and you just might pip him on this one.:clap:

I find it an unusual choice of word because in my own experience the UN is generally too ineffectual, waffly, useless and slow to act to qualify for thug status. Ditto for those within it.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2007, 09:39 PM
thugocracy! what a cumbersome and unfortunate word, used 7 times in the course of this thread,
Perfectly describes an organization where the majority of delegates represent thuggish despots. But who's counting? :P


And acronyms, the disease of the modern society, littered throughout this thread like fly specks on an outhouse wall, I've found they are used constantly by those who seek to impress their superiors and peers and totally baffle subordinates, perhaps they simply give us an insight into the minds of people who invent terminology that make the use of acronyms necessary in the first place.
Saves writing out Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. I hope you never use ATMs at the ANZ or NAB, in case you forget your PIN. :P


Oh, and as to the thread, what about climatic redistribution, or is this also a plot cooked up by the thugocracy, there I said it.:doh: :lol:
What about it? The UN is always trying to encroach on the sovereignty of individual countries, but not the countries that need encroachment because they are ruled by murderous dictators.

Axiom
26-07-2007, 09:50 PM
Perfectly describes an organization where the majority of delegates represent thuggish despots. But who's counting? :P


Saves writing out Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. I hope you never use ATMs at the ANZ or NAB, in case you forget your PIN. :P


What about it? The UN is always trying to encroach on the sovereignty of individual countries, but not the countries that need encroachment because they are ruled by murderous dictators.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2007, 11:46 AM
I find it an unusual choice of word because in my own experience the UN is generally too ineffectual, waffly, useless and slow to act to qualify for thug status. Ditto for those within it.
The word just means it's ruled by thugs. Seems apt when liberal democracies are a minority. And for thugocracies within thugocracies, look at their Human Rights Commission which long has such human rights paradises as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Liyba and Sudan. See Human Rights Under Assault (http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.2899515/k.80F7/Human_Rights_Under_Assault.htm).

The UN was a long time led by Kofi Annan, whose actions enabled the horrific genocide in Rwanda. When he was Head of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in 1994 Commander of the UN troops in Rwanda, Roméo Dallaire, urgently warned him of imminent danger of massacres. Instead of reinforcing, Annan refused to intervene (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4621/rwanda1.html). More recently, the Oil for Food scandal and UN troops committing rape in Congo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article405213.ece) happened under his watch.

But while the UN ignores despots in its ranks, they constantly point the finger at the US and Israel. Abba Eban, who had been Israeli ambassador to the UN, quipped, "if Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

Spiny Norman
27-07-2007, 01:42 PM
Abba Eban, who had been Israeli ambassador to the UN, quipped, "if Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."
The sad thing about that is that its probably true ... :doh: (true, as in "its probably would pass by that sort of margin", not true as in "Israel is responsible for a flat earth"!).

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2007, 09:09 PM
The word just means it's ruled by thugs. Seems apt when liberal democracies are a minority.

That's true but thugs don't necessarily send thugs to act on their behalf at the UN. They usually send wafflebags, partly to get rid of them. The wafflebags may themselves be illiberal, but that doesn't mean they will actually do anything significant on the world stage.

Also not all the UN is one-nation-state-one-value, eg the Security Council where certain nations have a veto. How many of those five nations are thugocracies could be fertile ground for discussion. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 11:01 AM
New Scientist 8 July 2006 pointed out yet another problem for windfarms. The best place for them is on rolling hills beside the sea, but they are also the best conditions for peat bogs. A good example is Derrybrien in Galway county, Ireland, the site of a 71-turbine windfarm.

Yet peat bogs store three times as much carbon as tropical rainforests. If this land is used for windfarms, much of this carbon would be oxidized and thus return to the atmosphere. So even given their own premise of global warming, windfarms are not so green.

pax
31-07-2007, 11:12 AM
New Scientist 8 July 2006 pointed out yet another problem for windfarms. The best place for them is on rolling hills beside the sea, but they are also the best conditions for peat bogs. A good example is Derrybrien in Galway county, Ireland, the site of a 71-turbine windfarm.

Yet peat bogs store three times as much carbon as tropical rainforests. If this land is used for windfarms, much of this carbon would be oxidized and thus return to the atmosphere. So even given their own premise of global warming, windfarms are not so green.

This is an incredible stretch, even for you Jono. While the issue you mention might be a consideration for the siting of some windfarms in some parts of the world, it does not have any bearing on the viability of windfarms in general. Or does the wind only blow over peat bogs?

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 11:27 AM
This is an incredible stretch, even for you Jono. While the issue you mention might be a consideration for the siting of some windfarms in some parts of the world, it does not have any bearing on the viability of windfarms in general. Or does the wind only blow over peat bogs?
It's just what I said: the best areas for windfarms also tend to be the best for peat bogs. Not always; Wellington, NZ and its surrounding areas like Pencarrow Head would be good for some wind turbines, but will they be worth it?

Aaron Guthrie
31-07-2007, 11:47 AM
Won't somebody think of the Whiskey?

pax
31-07-2007, 12:05 PM
It's just what I said: the best areas for windfarms also tend to be the best for peat bogs. Not always; Wellington, NZ and its surrounding areas like Pencarrow Head would be good for some wind turbines, but will they be worth it?

In Ireland, perhaps.. How many peat bogs are there in Australia? Let me put it this way: there is a lot more wind out there than peat.

Spiny Norman
31-07-2007, 03:31 PM
The thing that has always surprised me about wind farms is the visual pollution. Now I know people rabbit on about parrots flying into the turbines and all that nonsense, but really, any self-respecting parrot that cannot avoid large, slowly-rotating turbines deserves to be weeded out of the population. Think of it as human-enhanced natural selection.

But the visual pollution of these things. Fair dinkum, they are a blight on our countryside. Just drive down near Warragul, or out on the Western Highway west of Ballarat on the way to Adelaide. These things "stink up" the countryside as bad as a flipping pulp mill.

How any self-respecting greenie can promote them is completely beyond me.

/rant

Aaron Guthrie
31-07-2007, 03:34 PM
The thing that has always surprised me about wind farms is the visual pollution.I think they look cool.

pax
01-08-2007, 04:22 PM
There is the germ of a brilliant idea here to solve the load balancing problem:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/08/01/100138830/index.htm

Suppose you have a carbon sensitive and a time sensitive energy market. That is, energy from renewable sources can be purchased specifically, not only that, but it is priced in such a way that it is cheaper to buy during peak production times (or low load times) and more expensive to buy during low production times (or high load times).

Then there is an incentive for people or businesses to make money by storing energy when it is cheap and supplying it when it is expensive. The article suggests a use of old electric car batteries for load balancing (when the batteries are no longer efficient enough for automotive use, but still have a useful capacity). I think the article suggests this mainly for use in buildings which supply their own renewable (probably solar) energy, but in the right market conditions it could go a lot further.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2007, 05:04 PM
There is the germ of a brilliant idea here to solve the load balancing problem:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/08/01/100138830/index.htm.
Not bad. Shows what the free market can achieve for the environment.

Speaking of the old external combustion Sterling engine (invented by Reverend Robert Sterling in 1816), a few years ago, New Scientist had an article about using one in the home to generate both heat and electrity.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2007, 05:05 PM
Not bad. Shows what the free market can achieve for the environment.

Speaking of the old external combustion Sterling engine (invented by Reverend Robert Sterling in 1816), a few years ago, New Scientist had an article about using one in the home to generate both heat and electrity.

What does it use a fuel?

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2007, 05:16 PM
What does it use a fuel?
Anything that produces heat. IIRC, the New Scientist article was talking about using fuel to heat both the hot water and drive a Sterling engine to generate electricity. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_engine

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2007, 09:41 PM
Zimbabwe to head UN environment body (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21717611-5005961,00.html).

If there was nothing else at all wrong with the UN, e.g. its support for despots and massive oil-for-food corruption, the above would be enough to discredit any report coming from this body.

And just to remind the lefties here: that tyrant Mugabe's socialist policies turned the former breadbasket of Africa to a basketcase.

pax
02-08-2007, 11:01 PM
And just to remind the lefties here: that tyrant Mugabe's socialist policies turned the former breadbasket of Africa to a basketcase.

Mugabe's policies have very little to do with socialism, and everything to do with despotism..

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2007, 12:29 AM
Mugabe's policies have very little to do with socialism, and everything to do with despotism..
Amazing how often these go together. See Betrayal: Why Socialism Failed in Africa (http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/Betrayal.asp)by George B. N. Ayittey

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2007, 09:13 AM
Mugabe's policies have very little to do with socialism, and everything to do with despotism..
Denying of the property rights is a cornerstone of socialism, as well as Mugabe policies that led to starvation.

Basil
03-08-2007, 09:36 AM
Denying of the property rights is a cornerstone of socialism, as well as Mugabe policies that led to starvation.
Igor, denying of property rights to select groups smacks entirely of socialism. It is the (almost) ultimate vulgarity of our lot's extremism.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2007, 12:31 PM
The socialist aim of redistributing wealth is incompatible with private property rights. It is also no accident that the wealthiest people in socialist economies are often not those who produce for the most people, as with free economies, but the leaders with the power to confiscate wealth.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2007, 12:33 PM
Climate Change: Globalist Hot Air? IV (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=26945) by Jayme Evan:


Ironically, it was noted that Reverend Al's palatial Tennessee mansion consumed 10 times the energy of the average American household.

When confronted with this bald hypocrisy, Gore had all the answers. Why, while his mansion consumed 10 times the energy, he proclaimed that it was "carbon neutral". Through the use of carbon "offsets" or credits, he claimed to be living a carbon neutral lifestyle. And by purchasing some of these babies — these credits — you too could theoretically rid yourself of guilt for your pollution by paying for the burning of excess methane, or the planting of some trees. And thus, a fraud was born.

...

Exactly how many of these carbon credits would Al Gore and his gigantic entourage need to pull off a Live Earth concert series? In order to save the environment from imminent destruction, Al and friends are going to travel around the world burning jet fuel and diesel, and generating untold tons of methane-producing garbage and sewage in the process. The hypocrisy exhibited by these sanctimonious zealots is on full display. It's not really about global warming or how many pollutants are being dumped in the atmosphere. It's about who's doing it, and how they feel. It's really about that most basic liberal emotion, white guilt. Nothing more need be said.

pax
03-08-2007, 01:07 PM
Jono, if I take a dollar out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket, does that make me a thief?

What if I take $10,000 out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket? Does that make me a bigger thief?

(I know, I know, Jono would never let himself be caught with money on the left)

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2007, 01:08 PM
Jono, if I take a dollar out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket, does that make me a thief?

What if I take $10,000 out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket? Does that make me a bigger thief?

(I know, I know, Jono would never let himself be caught with money on the left)
You ought not to be touching my pockets in the first place. Now what was all this in aid of?

Basil
03-08-2007, 02:17 PM
Denying of the property rights is a cornerstone of socialism, as well as Mugabe policies that led to starvation.Igor, denying of property rights to select groups smacks entirely of socialism. It is the (almost) ultimate vulgarity of our lot's extremism.The socialist aim of redistributing wealth is incompatible with private property rights.

Jono, was this for my edification? I fail to see how what you say relates to my assertion.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Jono, was this for my edification?
No, I didn't think you needed edification.


I fail to see how what you say relates to my assertion.
That's why I didn't quote you.

Basil
03-08-2007, 02:26 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Jono. Everyone else, as you were.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2007, 11:13 PM
Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece) :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2007, 12:55 PM
Below is a little part of the article Jono mentioned:

Shattering the great green myths

— Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water and detergent

— Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more space to store so require extra energy to transport them from manufacturers to shops

— Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive”

— Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered

— Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher

— Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain

— Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas

pax
07-08-2007, 01:03 PM
Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece) :lol:

Yeah, very funny. Of course it only holds water if you get your energy exclusively from beef or milk (because cows produce a lot of methane and require a lot of land). Eat rice or potatoes and the sums are very very different. Even if you calculate the appropriate percentages of a non-vegetarian's normal diet you will get a different conclusion.

Edit: Oh and of course the car calculation fails to consider the calories required to keep you alive while to drive to the shop.

Garrett
08-08-2007, 11:17 AM
Below is a little part of the article Jono mentioned:

I'd knock my head against a wall for two hours straight if I thought vegetables were flown into Britain. What a crock.

pax
08-08-2007, 11:36 AM
— Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive”

If less than ten people travel in a train, it's not good for the environment - who'd have thought?!

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 12:15 PM
If less than ten people travel in a train, it's not good for the environment — who'd have thought?!
Evidently some people haven't.
I mentioned before about some research showing that often public transport picks up those who would otherwise have cycled or walked, but not so many car drivers. To address the problem of too many cars in the city, it makes more sense to charge a toll than spend more on public transport that too many won't use.

pax
08-08-2007, 12:34 PM
Evidently some people haven't.
It's a strawman, since the average train occupancy (in most places) is many, many times higher than ten.


I mentioned before about some research showing that often public transport picks up those who would otherwise have cycled or walked,
Sounds very dubious to me. Almost all train journeys are further than could be walked in a reasonable time, and a large proportion would be longer than cycling distance for most people. People willing to cycle significant distances are a very small proportion of the population.

The opposite sounds far more plausible - i.e people who cycle or walk would otherwise take public transport (rather than a car).

In my experience, people who cycle do so for a combination of these reasons:
-Health
-To save money (public transport or petrol/parking)
-It's better for the environment
-It's often faster

And these reasons generally lead cyclists to prefer bikes over public transport as well as cars. But the key factor is a willingness to cycle on roads in the first place.


but not so many car drivers. To address the problem of too many cars in the city, it makes more sense to charge a toll than spend more on public transport that too many won't use.

How does a toll help if there is no public transport alternative? All that does is provide an incentive for people to cancel trips into the city (for shopping, work, socialising etc) - how does that help the economy?!?

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2007, 12:50 AM
From Silencing Dissent (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/08/08/silencing_dissent)
By Walter E. Williams


Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), sent a threatening missive to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which read: "Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

...

Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts said that his solution for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry" is, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg."

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 04:07 PM
NASA's temperature data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt) show that the hottest year for the US in recent history was actually — 1934!

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

The new leader-board of the hottest recorded years in the US:

1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
These figures apply only to the US, and the corrections make little difference to the world rankings, which generally put 1998 as the world’s hottest year since records were kept.

Basil
10-08-2007, 05:03 PM
Jono, please. I've asked you nicely before and now more strongly. Please stop debunking the hystericalists, the alarmists, the dribblers and the students.

Desmond
10-08-2007, 08:10 PM
NASA's temperature data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt) show that the hottest year for the US in recent history was actually — 1934!

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

The new leader-board of the hottest recorded years in the US:

1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
These figures apply only to the US, and the corrections make little difference to the world rankings, which generally put 1998 as the world’s hottest year since records were kept.You "forgot" to mention that despite about half* of the annual means arrive in the negative, it has not been the case for 10 years. Even the 1930 period you're talking about doesn't go past 7.

*half is my impression from a quick look.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 09:41 PM
One of my slimy pals is alleged to have now snuffed it (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12600707) from a combination of global warming and picking a dubious place to live.

By the way, the picture here (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/aldabra_banded_snail.php) most definitely isn't it. It was actually in the same genus as this (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/dexter/sinister/gallery/species/RacHis.html), only with a different colour pattern.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 01:05 AM
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY [8.8.07]
By Freeman Dyson (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html)

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2007, 11:24 PM
Mentioning Sahara reminded me of a Russian joke:

- What happens if you build a communism in Sahara?
- For he first 50 years - nothing. Then you'll have a shortage of sand.

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Mentioning Sahara reminded me of a Russian joke:

- What happens if you build a communism in Sahara?
- For he first 50 years - nothing. Then you'll have a shortage of sand.
:lol: :lol:

Oh, here is an interview with Bjorn Lomborg on his new book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/08/13/cool_it_-_interview_with_bjorn_lomborg?page=full&comments=true)


I think it’s incontrovertible that it’s happening and that it’s at least partially caused by man. But it’s often vastly over-sold. The idea that we are going to see a 20-feet sea level rise is just simply not in the cards. The UN climate panel tells us it’s going to be about a foot. There’s a huge difference in telling us the sea level rise is going to be a foot over the next 100 years or it’s going to be 20 feet. One is a problem; the other one is a catastrophe. But it’s the problem that will actually happen. To put it in context, remember over the last 150 years sea levels also rose a foot. ...

As I say, “The UN climate panel tell us one foot of sea level rise, so let’s not say 20 feet.” When the U.N. climate panel says we’ll see increasing temperatures that will mean that more people will die in heat waves. That’s absolutely true and everybody points that out. But of course increasing temperatures also means that fewer people will die in cold waves. And since in most parts of the world there are many more people dying from cold than from heat, we’ll actually see more people not dying from cold waves than extra people dying from heat waves. In the UK, it’s estimated that 2,000 more people will die from heat waves each year – a very much publicized fact. But we forget to hear that 20,000 fewer people will die from cold. That’s the point: I’m simply saying we need to hear both sides of that argument. It’s not a very complicated argument, but it’s one that’s absolutely necessary to hear. ...

Climate change is a problem, yes. But it’s by no means a catastrophe. Perhaps it’s important to say that in a world where 15 million people die each year from easily curable infectious diseases, it seems to me that we are missing our priorities when we focus so exclusively on one problem and forget that there are many others — and many others, mind you, where we can do much more good. So it comes down to this: What do we want to be remembered as this generation’s big achievement? Do we want it to be that we did a little bit about climate change? Or do we want it to be that we did a lot about many of the other problems in the world, like HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, clean drinking water, the list goes on?

ElevatorEscapee
14-08-2007, 09:34 PM
Go Jono!!!

It's great to see you against global warming!!!!

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2007, 05:28 AM
Thanx EE. See also Andrew Bolt’s recent column Questions for gassy Gore (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_questions_for_gassy_gore/).

Axiom
22-09-2007, 12:25 PM
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200709/20070920_GW_Memory_Hole_1.htm

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2007, 11:47 PM
Ill wind changes Rudd's course towards Gore (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22475588-5000117,00.html)


Germany has 18,300MW (megawatts) of installed wind capacity -- close to half Australia's total installed electricity generation capacity, about double Victoria's.

E.ON Netz draws on 7600MW of that.

In the precise German way, it tells us that maximum feed-in was 6234MW at 9am on 15/12/05.

Sound great? Except when you read the minimum feed in, at 12.15pm on 27/05/05. Just 8MW. And no, I'm not missing a nought or two.

Some 7600MW of installed capacity delivered just 8MW. When the wind don't blow, the electricity don't flow.

On average across the year, the 7600 MW of installed wind capacity produced 1327MW. That's an operational level of 18 per cent of capacity. In rational terms, it's insanity.

Indeed as E.ON Netz notes, installed wind capacity went up 12 per cent in the year but actual wind power fed in to the grid went up just 1.5 per cent. Because of lower "wind availability".

The way you 'solve' this is that 'traditional' power stations with capacities equal to 90 per cent of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently on line to guarantee power supply.

So not only do you have to install six to seven times as much wind capacity as the output you will actually get, but you also have to build 'shadow' coal/gas/nuclear(?) as well.

That's one power station for the cost of 12 or so.

Did I say insanity? Unless you can build big enough batteries to store the power generated when the wind does blow.

Funny I should say that. E.ON has actually pioneered exactly such a battery. It's the size of four shipping containers, uses 'undisclosed' chemicals and can produce all of 1MW for four hours.

So not only do we have to have windmills blanketing the country-side, but millions of 'super-batteries' as well. Plus some new coal stations anyway.

This is one side of the 'Algore' Rudd insanity. Turning off the power to Australians.

pax
26-09-2007, 10:24 AM
It's all the usual FUD from the anti-renewable crowd.

It's not exactly news that wind generators don't produce power when the wind isn't blowing. I mean really? D'you think?

It's completely obvious to anybody who gives a moment's thought that installed capacity (maximum power production) is not the same as average capacity. To call the "operational level" of 18% "insanity" is completely meaningless unless you analyze the cost per MW of power actually produced.

The need for "running reserve" is also not new. This is well known in the wind power industry, and not some 'hidden secret'. It is not true that you need to build 'shadow coal/gas/nuclear' for each wind turbine - not unless you intend installing wind capacity to supply a very high percentage of the grid load. Wind can supply up to 15% (and potentially as high as 25%) without any additional installed running reserve capacity. Australia is nowhere near this percentage.

And here is some news for you, Jono. Coal/gas/nuclear power stations need running reserve too! That's right, there are hundreds of generators out there doing nothing but spinning wheels, just in case a generator goes offline somewhere else..

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 01:41 PM
It's all the usual FUD from the anti-renewable crowd.
And of course, you're the epitome of objectivity despite being paid by the pro-"renewable" crowd. And I'm not necessarily anti-renewable if it were cost effective. BTW, my wife and I drove past huge wind farms in Iowa.


It's not exactly news that wind generators don't produce power when the wind isn't blowing. I mean really? D'you think?
You'd be surpised.


The need for "running reserve" is also not new. This is well known in the wind power industry, and not some 'hidden secret'. It is not true that you need to build 'shadow coal/gas/nuclear' for each wind turbine - not unless you intend installing wind capacity to supply a very high percentage of the grid load. Wind can supply up to 15% (and potentially as high as 25%) without any additional installed running reserve capacity. Australia is nowhere near this percentage.
That's nice. But at what cost? That's fine if you want to pay for this "green" power, but not if you force other people to pay for it, usually those who can least afford it. And all for the sake of not making a blind bit of difference to the world's temperature.


And here is some news for you, Jono. Coal/gas/nuclear power stations need running reserve too! That's right, there are hundreds of generators out there doing nothing but spinning wheels, just in case a generator goes offline somewhere else..
Doing nothing? Not even as synchronous condensers? And what fraction are these hundreds compared to the total?

pax
26-09-2007, 04:21 PM
And of course, you're the epitome of objectivity despite being paid by the pro-"renewable" crowd.
In what way am I paid by the "pro-renewable crowd"?



And I'm not necessarily anti-renewable if it were cost effective.
If you put a price on spewing CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere, there is no reason that wind energy and other renewables cannot be cost effective. If pollution remains free, then it is very difficult for renewables to compete.



That's nice. But at what cost? That's fine if you want to pay for this "green" power, but not if you force other people to pay for it, usually those who can least afford it.

There are plenty of people who do want to pay more for green power. So there is actually a lot to be gained for having a reliable national or international infrastructure that allows for the buying and selling of green energy. But equally, I think it is very important for pollution (CO2 or otherwise) to be priced. If there is a price on carbon emissions, then there is an incentive to reduce them. If there is no price, then there are no market forces holding them back.



And all for the sake of not making a blind bit of difference to the world's temperature.

Says you.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 05:05 PM
In what way am I paid by the "pro-renewable crowd"?
Weren't you involved with the Esperance wind farm? And as for that fraud alGore flogging off his new managed fund, profiting from his pseudoscientific green scaremongering (and thus funding his hypocritical jetsetting and energy-guzzling homes).


If you put a price on spewing CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere, there is no reason that wind energy and other renewables cannot be cost effective. If pollution remains free, then it is very difficult for renewables to compete.
Depends what you mean by "pollution". CO2 is plant food. And Australia is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to worldwide emissions, even if we count only manmade. It's even stupider for NZ's socialist PM to impose carbon taxes, when that country is one of the cleanest, greenest in the world. But appeasing the Green Gods is all-important.


There are plenty of people who do want to pay more for green power. So there is actually a lot to be gained for having a reliable national or international infrastructure that allows for the buying and selling of green energy.
No one is stopping them paying. What I object to is making me pay, for my own good of course.


But equally, I think it is very important for pollution (CO2 or otherwise) to be priced. If there is a price on carbon emissions, then there is an incentive to reduce them. If there is no price, then there are no market forces holding them back.
Pricing them distorts the market and just allows the political elite to take more of our money.


Says you.
Yes I do.

pax
26-09-2007, 05:53 PM
Weren't you involved with the Esperance wind farm? And as for that fraud alGore flogging off his new managed fund, profiting from his pseudoscientific green scaremongering (and thus funding his hypocritical jetsetting and energy-guzzling homes).

Mate, that was 13 years ago. And I was paid (not very much) by Western Power which owned all of the coal, gas and petroleum power stations in addition to the Esperance wind farm. So it's hardly the conflict of interest that you would like to portray.



Depends what you mean by "pollution". CO2 is plant food. And Australia is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to worldwide emissions, even if we count only manmade. It's even stupider for NZ's socialist PM to impose carbon taxes, when that country is one of the cleanest, greenest in the world. But appeasing the Green Gods is all-important.


Australia may be a drop in the bucket, but do you really think China will do anything if countries like Australia do nothing?


Pricing them distorts the market and just allows the political elite to take more of our money.

Fine. So as far as you are concerned, anybody can spew anything they like into the air (or the water for that matter) at zero cost? Marvellous.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 07:49 PM
Australia may be a drop in the bucket, but do you really think China will do anything if countries like Australia do nothing?
More to the point, why should clean countries like NZ and Oz screw our economies while the commies and ex-commies pollute?


Fine. So as far as you are concerned, anybody can spew anything they like into the air (or the water for that matter) at zero cost? Marvellous.
Nope, that is typical categorical thinking typical of the self-Anointed. In reality, the effects of pollution are incremental. "The does makes the poison".

Axiom
26-09-2007, 08:04 PM
most scientists now agree that global warming is not man-made.
the real problems that are obscured by this most evil of hoaxes are pollution and genetically modified crops.
notice how little publicity is given to these 2 really pressing dangers as opposed to CO2 - the means by which oxygen is produced via plant life !
perhaps if we stopped destroying rain forests we could keep the natural CO2 sponges ! how convenient to demonise that which humans exhale as opposed to the toxins that humans inhale and ingest !

pax
26-09-2007, 08:25 PM
Nope, that is typical categorical thinking typical of the self-Anointed.

That's rich, coming from you..

pax
26-09-2007, 08:29 PM
More to the point, why should clean countries like NZ and Oz screw our economies while the commies and ex-commies pollute?

"Clean countries like Australia"? Come off it. Australia exports more coal than any other country on the planet. Our energy production is nearly all coal. Our vehicle emissions standards are very low. Our renewable energy industry is tiny. The recent announcement of a target of 15% renewable/nuclear/clean coal by 2020 actually *follows* a similar (but stronger) announcement by China.

By what measure is Australia "clean" exactly?

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 09:11 PM
"Clean countries like Australia"? Come off it. Australia exports more coal than any other country on the planet.
Right, so it is other countries that actually pollute with it.


Our energy production is nearly all coal.
Blame the scientifically illiterate anti-nuclear brigade on the Left. And coal is a much cleaner fuel than wood, that the green religionists expect the third world countries to use to heat their own homes.


Our vehicle emissions standards are very low.
I didn't notice any smog where I live ...


Our renewable energy industry is tiny.
Big whoop, if the renewable energy is costly.


The recent announcement of a target of 15% renewable/nuclear/clean coal by 2020 actually *follows* a similar (but stronger) announcement by China.
And you believe that monumentally corrupt and human-rights–abusing despotism?


By what measure is Australia "clean" exactly?
Clean air, water, environment, all the usuals.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 09:12 PM
That's rich, coming from you..
Why? You're the one who thinks that others should be made to pay what you think is good for them, showing your membership of those with the "vision of the anoited (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)":


"In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group."

"The presumed irrationality of the public is a pattern running through many, if not most or all, of the great crusades of the anointed in the twentieth century--regardless of the subject matter of the crusade or the field in which it arises. Whether the issue has been 'overpopulation,' Keynesian economics, criminal justice, or natural resource exhaustion, a key assumption has been that the public is so irrational that the superior wisdom of the anointed must be imposed, in order to avert disaster. The anointed do not simply happen to have a disdain for the public. Such disdain is an integral part of their vision, for the central feature of that vision is preemption of the decisions of others."

"When the anointed say that there is a crisis this means that something must be done--and it must be done simply because the anointed want it done. This word becomes one of many substitutes for evidence or logic."
— Thomas Sowell

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2007, 09:38 PM
The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group."

I'm no big fan of know-all leftist elites either but I'm not sure why that is the relevant comparison. The "direct knowledge" is only useful if processes used by the general public result in it being influential, but if they elect bad governments it might not be.


"The presumed irrationality of the public is a pattern running through many, if not most or all, of the great crusades of the anointed in the twentieth century--regardless of the subject matter of the crusade or the field in which it arises.

This is true but it is also a pattern running through many conservative crusades and a theme done to death by many if not all of your fellow theistic activists.

On your view, are the public generally rational on issues of religious belief? Are they generally rational on the issue of Creationism? If not, on what basis do you quote Sowell's rebuttal to the concept of irrationality of the public on other issues?


Whether the issue has been 'overpopulation,' Keynesian economics, criminal justice, or natural resource exhaustion, a key assumption has been that the public is so irrational that the superior wisdom of the anointed must be imposed, in order to avert disaster. The anointed do not simply happen to have a disdain for the public. Such disdain is an integral part of their vision, for the central feature of that vision is preemption of the decisions of others."

Again Sowell is correct but many right-wingers, particularly religious ones, operate in much the same fashion.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2007, 09:56 PM
I'm no big fan of know-all leftist elites either but I'm not sure why that is the relevant comparison.
Because it is those on the Left who generally decry systemic unplanned processes like the free market and cultural traditions. Traditions, like the market economy, in Sowell's views, are not the result of central planning but the result of certain behaviours of many people over many centuries that have shown to work. This is where his other book A Clash of Visions parts company with some Libertarians.


The "direct knowledge" is only useful if processes used by the general public result in it being influential, but if they elect bad governments it might not be.
Sowell has written extensively on why the democratic process can lead to crappy results: the incentives for politicians are to get re-elected, and they do this by pleasing certain people in the short term. But in the long term, when the economic problems have a chance to show their severe shortcomings, these politicians are long gone.

E.g. a demagogue might tax the rich corporations and thus appeal to envy. And it is too costly for the corporations to move shop quickly. But over many years, they can shift their offices piecemeal to another place that doesn't practise punitive taxation. But the demagogue is long gone when the economy collapses without the jobs and income provided by these corporations their policies drove out.


This is true but it is also a pattern running through many conservative crusades and a theme done to death by many if not all of your fellow theistic activists. On your view, are the public generally rational on issues of religious belief? Are they generally rational on the issue of Creationism?
Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Sowell is concerned with those who force rather than persuade others to do their bidding.


If not, on what basis do you quote Sowell's rebuttal to the concept of irrationality of the public on other issues?
What Sowell calls the constrained or tragic vision (he cites Adam Smith and Oliver Wendell Holmes as proponents for example) recognizes human limitations. But this applies to all humans. While some people are doubtless more knowledgeable than others, he argues that no one has more knowledge than the combined and diffused knowledge of the general population. So those who would unilaterally try to plan an economy are doing what no small group of elites is capable of doing.


Again Sowell is correct but many right-wingers, particularly religious ones, operate in much the same fashion.
Au contraire—while I have no idea of Sowell's religious beliefs, it seems to me that the tragic vision is certainly consistent with the biblical picture of man made in God's image but fallen. That's why many Christians support the free market and are suspicious of the claims of central planners who know best.

pax
26-09-2007, 10:02 PM
And coal is a much cleaner fuel than wood, that the green religionists expect the third world countries to use to heat their own homes.

And you accuse me of categorical thinking :rolleyes:

pax
26-09-2007, 10:07 PM
You're the one who thinks that others should be made to pay what you think is good for them,

What's the alternative? Zero taxation? Is that you're ideal world? No roads, schools, hospitals, defence force, electricity grid unless they are provided by private enterprise? No laws? After all we can't have you, telling others what is right and wrong.

This argument is complete absurdity.

Axiom
26-09-2007, 10:45 PM
it is quite clear here that true libertarians have little time for the nannying left or the nannying right !

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2007, 11:57 PM
Because it is those on the Left who generally decry systemic unplanned processes like the free market and cultural traditions. Traditions, like the market economy, in Sowell's views, are not the result of central planning but the result of certain behaviours of many people over many centuries that have shown to work. This is where his other book A Clash of Visions parts company with some Libertarians.

The free market "working" as an economic tool isn't quite the same thing as it working as a generator of politically relevant knowledge, let alone the public consumption thereof.


Sowell has written extensively on why the democratic process can lead to crappy results: the incentives for politicians are to get re-elected, and they do this by pleasing certain people in the short term. But in the long term, when the economic problems have a chance to show their severe shortcomings, these politicians are long gone.

Doesn't help when deciding between the views of the so-called "anointed" elites and the views of the representatives of the "majority" on particular issues.


Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Sowell is concerned with those who force rather than persuade others to do their bidding.

Not irrelevant at all. Sowell is arguing that their judgement that the public are so stupid as to require such a solution is flawed. His grounds for this appear to be not solely that a different approach to solving public stupidity is required (in which case the force/persuasion difference might be relevant) but that the general public are not so stupid as to justify the leftists' proposals in the first place.


What Sowell calls the constrained or tragic vision (he cites Adam Smith and Oliver Wendell Holmes as proponents for example) recognizes human limitations. But this applies to all humans. While some people are doubtless more knowledgeable than others, he argues that no one has more knowledge than the combined and diffused knowledge of the general population. So those who would unilaterally try to plan an economy are doing what no small group of elites is capable of doing.

But the market isn't the "combined and diffused knowledge of the general population"; it's the combined and diffused knowledge of people who have money, often acquired under conditions radically different from those to be faced in the future. So to say whether the impositionalists are right or the free-marketeers are right on environmental issues the scale of which we may not have seen before is to me a tricky thing. The burden of proof is on the impositionalists, but I'm willing to listen to their attempts.

Also, the idea that pricing unwanted behaviour distorts the market is also used by anarcho-capitalists to argue against the existence of a state monopoly on the use of violence, but I don't see you agreeing with that!


Au contraire—while I have no idea of Sowell's religious beliefs, it seems to me that the tragic vision is certainly consistent with the biblical picture of man made in God's image but fallen. That's why many Christians support the free market and are suspicious of the claims of central planners who know best.

... except in the field of morality. :hand:

(Of course, there are some exceptions. Nowhere near enough, and if I quiz them across a full range of issues they often turn out less morally liberal than they thought they were.)

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2007, 11:57 PM
it is quite clear here that true libertarians have little time for the nannying left or the nannying right !

I don't either, and I'm not a true libertarian!

Axiom
27-09-2007, 12:10 AM
I don't either, and I'm not a true libertarian!
well what the hell are you then ?? ;)

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 12:14 AM
What's the alternative? Zero taxation? Is that you're ideal world? No roads, schools, hospitals, defence force, electricity grid unless they are provided by private enterprise? No laws? After all we can't have you, telling others what is right and wrong.

This argument is complete absurdity.
Yes it is, like most leftist straw men :hand:

Of course, as explained before, I support the role of government as protecting life and property rights, while its main role in the economy should be enforcing contracts and preventing fraud and coercion. A lot of the other things you mention would be best supplied by the market.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 12:28 AM
The free market "working" as an economic tool isn't quite the same thing as it working as a generator of politically relevant knowledge, let alone the public consumption thereof.
It was just an example Sowell uses, to show that central planners can produce worse results than the interactions of many people who produce a result not intented.


Doesn't help when deciding between the views of the so-called "anointed" elites and the views of the representatives of the "majority" on particular issues.
The main difference here is that there is sometimes a chance to vote out the representatives, but much harder when the elites are judges or bureaucrats.


Not irrelevant at all. Sowell is arguing that their judgement that the public are so stupid as to require such a solution is flawed. His grounds for this appear to be not solely that a different approach to solving public stupidity is required (in which case the force/persuasion difference might be relevant) but that the general public are not so stupid as to justify the leftists' proposals in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.


But the market isn't the "combined and diffused knowledge of the general population"; it's the combined and diffused knowledge of people who have money, often acquired under conditions radically different from those to be faced in the future.
Even here, the amount of diffused capital is also important. A lot of the alleged injustices of the free market occur when the government is the crony of some business interests, against what a large number of free buyers and sellers would choose.


So to say whether the impositionalists are right or the free-marketeers are right on environmental issues the scale of which we may not have seen before is to me a tricky thing. The burden of proof is on the impositionalists, but I'm willing to listen to their attempts.
You've made some good cases yourself with specific examples on other threads. However, there will always be good cases to justify impositionists, while the costs are harder to see:


"A California farmer can always show the television audience the abundant crop he has been able to grow because of federal water projects. But no one can videotape the crops that would have been grown elsewhere, at less cost to the economy, if there were no federal subsidies to encourage the use of water delivered at great cost into the California desert instead of water delivered free from the clouds elsewhere."

Another example was Pax, a supporter of socialized medicine because of some good experiences, but he ignores the long waiting lists and healthcare rationing in Britain and Canada. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/09/19/socialized_medicine_is_broken_and_cant_be_fixed)


Also, the idea that pricing unwanted behaviour distorts the market is also used by anarcho-capitalists to argue against the existence of a state monopoly on the use of violence, but I don't see you agreeing with that!
No, I don't, but the American 2nd Amendment is a good idea too.


... except in the field of morality. :hand:
Not at all. There is a difference from thinking that God has all the necessary knowledge and any people today do.

And the Left are very much into imposing their own morality, with their campus speech codes, anti-vilification laws and "hate crimes" legislation. And in economics, punishing things like insider trading, which Milton Friedman argued was a good thing, because it would provide an incentive for share trades that would signal the true value of the company to the market as soon as possible.


(Of course, there are some exceptions. Nowhere near enough, and if I quiz them across a full range of issues they often turn out less morally liberal than they thought they were.)
And it's a common experience that there is no one as illiberal as a liberal in power.:hand:

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 01:00 AM
It was just an example Sowell uses, to show that central planners can produce worse results than the interactions of many people who produce a result not intented.

Indeed they can. But markets can also sometimes produce stupid results, hence intervention by governments to avert market panics, for example. In the field of global environmental challenges (assuming we indeed face one, though its extent is doubtless being overblown as usual), I'm not sure what past events are really relevant for predicting what may work and what may not.


The main difference here is that there is sometimes a chance to vote out the representatives, but much harder when the elites are judges or bureaucrats.

Again, not always a help at the time. And in any case, what the elites are often doing is asking politicians to implement their proposals. If governments implementing the proposals fail, they can be thrown out. As for judges or bureaucrats, they are appointed by politicians!


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is that you (and I mean you specifically, I'm not suggesting Sowell has an issue here) can't cherry-pick on the issue of whether human intelligence is to be trusted. If you trust the largely free economic market to sort out the global warming issue, then where does that sit with the largely free marketplace of ideas currently rejecting many of your religious views?


Even here, the amount of diffused capital is also important. A lot of the alleged injustices of the free market occur when the government is the crony of some business interests, against what a large number of free buyers and sellers would choose.

True, but the issue here isn't injustice, but the possibility of honest error.


You've made some good cases yourself with specific examples on other threads. However, there will always be good cases to justify impositionists, while the costs are harder to see:

Agreed, but this sounds like a reason for considering things on a case-by-case basis.


No, I don't, but the American 2nd Amendment is a good idea too.

Whatever on earth it means. :P


Not at all. There is a difference from thinking that God has all the necessary knowledge and any people today do.

A difference I have not noticed nearly enough "Christian" activists, particularly those of the "family values" pro-censorship variety, grasping.


And the Left are very much into imposing their own morality, with their campus speech codes, anti-vilification laws and "hate crimes" legislation.

Actually "hate crimes" law is just a modern extension of the pre-existing practice of considering motive in sentencing. It arises in cases where someone has already forfeited their rights and the question is how heavily they should do so - it's not comparable to cases where the alternative is being able to do something or not being able to do it. I do tend to agree with you re anti-vilification, except to the extent where vilification amounts to incitement.


And it's a common experience that there is no one as illiberal as a liberal in power.:hand:

That's because the opposite of "illiberal" isn't "liberal", it's "libertarian" (or something like that), and no-one knows what libertarians are like in power because they never really get there.

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 01:01 AM
well what the hell are you then ?? ;)

A non-left anarchist masquerading as a reconstructed libertarian. We'll be starting a party just as soon as we can find a phone box twice the size of ACCF. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 01:31 AM
Indeed they can. But markets can also sometimes produce stupid results, hence intervention by governments to avert market panics, for example.
Should they even do that? A number of economists think that FDR's interventions actually prolongued the great depression (see e.g. FDR's Folly (http://www.lfb.com/index.php?stocknumber=AH9049) by Jim Powell and The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2007/06/27/the_big_lie_about_the_great_depression?page=full&comments=true), Amity Shlaes, in contrast to other recessions that were over in a year or two.


Yes, the market can produce stupid results, because it still deals with imperfect humans. But Sowell's main point is that many attempts to fix its mistakes have greater costs:

"There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs."

[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]In the field of global environmental challenges (assuming we indeed face one, though its extent is doubtless being overblown as usual), I'm not sure what past events are really relevant for predicting what may work and what may not.
So is a government bureaucrat likely to know better than the market?


As for judges or bureaucrats, they are appointed by politicians!
Sad but true.


What I'm getting at is that you (and I mean you specifically, I'm not suggesting Sowell has an issue here) can't cherry-pick on the issue of whether human intelligence is to be trusted.
As I said, Sowell points out that inherent limitations of humans. The Anointed seem to think that they are above them:


"But, to those with the vision of the anointed, to say that a particular plan or policy is contrary to human nature as we know it is only to say that human nature must be changed. Thus the vocabulary of the anointed is replete with such terms as 'sensitizing,' 'enlightening,' or 'reeducating' other people."


If you trust the largely free economic market to sort out the global warming issue, then where does that sit with the largely free marketplace of ideas currently rejecting many of your religious views?
Do they really? Why do polls show that a high percentage of Americans agree with them?:hand:

But even if my views were in a minority, there is no problem as long as the majority doesn't try to impose their views on me!


Actually "hate crimes" law is just a modern extension of the pre-existing practice of considering motive in sentencing.
More likely, as Andrew Sullivan, himself gay, says:

What we are witnessing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths—if they affect a politically protected class—are worth more than others.
I.e. hate crimes is nothing like something like killing in rage; rather, it pronounces that some victims are more important than others.


It arises in cases where someone has already forfeited their rights and the question is how heavily they should do so - it's not comparable to cases where the alternative is being able to do something or not being able to do it.
In the most famous cases, the criminals were already punished as severely as possible, meaning that the existing laws were adequate. Hate should simply not be a crime, only actions.


I do tend to agree with you re anti-vilification, except to the extent where vilification amounts to incitement.
I agree. Same with holocaust denial — it is absurd to make it a criminal offense. Rather, such crap is best met with factual rebuttals to start with then ridicule if the denier is an intractable antisemite.


That's because the opposite of "illiberal" isn't "liberal", it's "libertarian" (or something like that), and no-one knows what libertarians are like in power because they never really get there.
Yeah, except perhaps in Estonia. But it bears out my point that self-described liberals of the left are anything but liberal.

pax
27-09-2007, 06:43 AM
Yes it is, like most leftist straw men :hand:

You were the one railing against telling other people how to spend their money. And it's rich of you to talk of strawmen - I seem to recall that you did not respond the last two times I called you out on your own strawmen.



Of course, as explained before, I support the role of government as protecting life and property rights, while its main role in the economy should be enforcing contracts and preventing fraud and coercion. A lot of the other things you mention would be best supplied by the market.

Yet here, and in our tax discussion you support taxation for some purposes. I even seem to recall that your favoured tax burden and mine are not very far apart. So spare me the crap about forcing other people how to spend their money.

You know what? There are probably a *lot* of people who would be quite unhappy about people like you taking their money away to buy nukes to drop on Iran.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 11:09 AM
Yet here, and in our tax discussion you support taxation for some purposes.
Of course. But for minimal purposes.

[QUOTE=pax]I even seem to recall that your favoured tax burden and mine are not very far apart. So spare me the crap about forcing other people how to spend their money.
Well, I am forced to subsidize telecommunication in the bush, bail out drought-stricken farmers, pay for "art" and a TV channel I don't want, and to waste a lot of time with our convoluted tax system.


You know what? There are probably a *lot* of people who would be quite unhappy about people like you taking their money away to buy nukes to drop on Iran.
The nukes are already bought. And a lot more people would be unhappy if Iran nuked Tel Aviv because we did nothing to stop their building of nukes.

Sure, it would have cost to stop Hitler in the middle 1930s, but it would have been a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of allowing him to become so powerful that the calamitous WW2 was required. Some people have not learned the lesson of the futility of appeasing an evil Jew-hating despot who is strengthening himself.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 12:21 PM
Take these global warnings with a pinch of salt (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/take-these-global-warnings-with-a-pinch-of-salt/2007/09/26/1190486390151.html)
Bjorn Lomborg
27 September 2007
Sydney Morning Herald


....
But we should hear both sides of any story.

....

Much of my work is to make sense of all these global warnings. I try to put them in perspective and figure out which ones really should concern us, and when we should act on them.

Perhaps surprisingly, not everything of concern should be dealt with immediately. If we don't have a good way to fix a problem, it might be better to focus on something else first. After all, when you don't know where your next meal is coming from, it's hard to worry about what global temperatures will be 100 years from now.

Things have improved immensely in both the developing and developed worlds. In the past 100 years, scientists have won many of the most important battles against infectious diseases, to the extent that poverty is now the main reason for a lack of treatment. Global average life expectancy in 1900 was 30 years; today, it is 68.
....

pax
27-09-2007, 01:34 PM
Take these global warnings with a pinch of salt (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/take-these-global-warnings-with-a-pinch-of-salt/2007/09/26/1190486390151.html)
Bjorn Lomborg
27 September 2007

This Bjorn Lomborg is an interesting character. It is worth noting that he is not a scientist (he is more of a political scientist and economist). His previous book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has been the subject of numerous complaints regarding fabrication of data, selective citation of data, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation of data.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 01:47 PM
This Bjorn Lomborg is an interesting character. It is worth noting that he is not a scientist (he is more of a political scientist and economist).
He doesn't claim to be a scientist. He is a trained statistician though.

He is certainly right that cold has caused more human deaths than heat.


His previous book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has been the subject of numerous complaints regarding fabrication of data, selective citation of data, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation of data.
The Danish government had the charges investigated, and no official charge was sustained. A Dutch group argued that most criticism was unjustified and merely an attempt to suppress a contrary viewpoint.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Oh yeah, the SciAm hatchet job comprising Ehrlichite population doom-mongers, which refused to allow Lomborg the right of reply.

pax
27-09-2007, 02:50 PM
Oh yeah, the SciAm hatchet job comprising Ehrlichite population doom-mongers, which refused to allow Lomborg the right of reply.

You mean like this reply (http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf), or this one (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000001E0-157B-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322)?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 02:58 PM
You mean like this reply (http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf), or this one (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000001E0-157B-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322)?
I meant "this one":


After Scientific American published an 11-page critique of my book The Skeptical Environmentalist in January, I've now been allowed a one-page reply. Naturally, this leaves little space to comment on particulars, and I refer to my 32-page article-for-article, point-for-point reply at www.lomborg.org and on the Scientific American Web site (www.sciam.com).

I.e. not a real reply was allowed to be published but a token one-page piece, followed by more blather from the editor. But note again:


The Kyoto Protocol will do very little good—it will postpone warming for six years in 2100. Yet the cost will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually. Because global warming will primarily hurt Third World countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto in just 2010, we could once and for all solve the single biggest problem on earth: We could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every single human being on the planet. This would save two million lives and avoid half a billion severe illnesses every year. And for every following year we could then do something equally good.

pax
27-09-2007, 03:02 PM
I meant "this one":

His 32 page reply was published in full on the SCAIM website. It's hardly a denial of a right to reply.





For the cost of Kyoto in just 2010, we could once and for all solve the single biggest problem on earth: We could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every single human being on the planet. This would save two million lives and avoid half a billion severe illnesses every year. And for every following year we could then do something equally good.

You know, for the cost of the Iraq war, we could do the exact same thing..

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 03:09 PM
His 32 page reply was published in full on the SCAIM website. It's hardly a denial of a right to reply.
After much pressure.


You know, for the cost of the Iraq war, we could do the exact same thing..
As we can with the money saved by having no repeats of 11-9 since we are killing the terrorists in Iraq instead of America.

Axiom
27-09-2007, 03:44 PM
A non-left anarchist masquerading as a reconstructed libertarian.
Well, thats ok then !

We'll be starting a party just as soon as we can find a phone box twice the size of ACCF. :lol:
The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far to dangerous to be allowed to exist. - Stefan Molyneux


If we would only testify to the truth as we see it, it would turn out that there are hundreds, thousands, even millions of other people just as we are, who see the truth as we do... and are only waiting, again as we are, for someone to proclaim it. - Leo Tolstoy


The success of any great moral enterprise does not depend upon numbers. - William Lloyd Garrison

Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi

pax
27-09-2007, 03:56 PM
After much pressure.

Pressure from whom? It looks from the main article like the 32-page version has been around as long as the 1-page version has.

pax
27-09-2007, 04:01 PM
pax aka Neville Chamberlain II

What a ridiculous thing to say. Iraq was nothing like Germany of the 1930's. Is your grasp of history really so poor?



As we can with the money saved by having no repeats of 11-9 since we are killing the terrorists in Iraq instead of America.

There is zero evidence of any link between Iraq and 9/11. And do you know what? There are a hell of a lot more terrorists in Iraq now, than there were before the invasion.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 04:18 PM
What a ridiculous thing to say. Iraq was nothing like Germany of the 1930's. Is your grasp of history really so poor?
Iran certainly is. And my grasp of history is good enough to know that appeasement doesn't work. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power, butchering his people and funding PLO terrorist suicide bombers (the only military the Left likes).


There is zero evidence of any link between Iraq and 9/11. And do you know what? There are a hell of a lot more terrorists in Iraq now, than there were before the invasion.
Yeah, and Petraeus' surge is not only killing them but embolding the Iraqis against them.

You are to be commended for calling these mostly non-Iraqis "terrorists" though instead of the Leftmedia's favorite "insurgents"—how can they be insurgents in someone else's country.

If we left now, they would take over, and it will be a blood bath, just like in Vietnam the last time we cut and run as the Defeatocrats want.

Axiom
27-09-2007, 04:20 PM
As we can with the money saved by having no repeats of 11-9 since we are killing the terrorists in Iraq instead of America.
jono you are correct , man-made global warming is a massive hoax.
jono you are correct that interfering nannying big govt is anathema to human liberty.
and i applaud you on these views.

this makes it all the more strange that you seem to have swallowed the war on terror propaganda whole.

some questions for you:-

1)terrorists flying planes into buildings was not a new idea prior to 11/9.
Do you now accept this?

2)if the terrorist threat to the U.S is so great why are their borders still wide open?

3)do you honestly believe that americans are fighting terrorists in iraq and not fighting defenders of their land from invaders?

4)do you believe that iraq was a significant hub of terrorists prior to invasion, more so ,say, than pakistan or saudi arabia ?

5)if the terrorist threat is supposedly so great, why are there so few terrorists caught and convicted ? (you know, more than the odd crazy street bum trying to set alight their shoes on an aircraft!)

6)how familiar are you with the history of false flag terror attacks ?

7) what makes you so ready to buy this war on terror , is it because it fits conveniently into your pro israeli stance?

8)and of course you denounce the statements of the war motives by greenspan and kissinger , yes?

9)why has it been stated that the U.S is using al qaeda from iraq to attack iran, at the same time saying al qaeda from iran is behind the insurgency in iraq ?? and isnt al qaeda supposed to be the primary enemy in the first place !?

pax
27-09-2007, 04:32 PM
You are to be commended for calling these mostly non-Iraqis "terrorists" though instead of the Leftmedia's favorite "insurgents"—how can they be insurgents in someone else's country.
There is a great deal of Sunni on Shia violence and vice-versa. I'm not sure I would characterise the perpetrators of these as either insurgents or terrorists. At the moment there are probably many more Iraqis engaged in violence than foreigners. But you are correct to say that there are many foreigners in Iraq carrying out violent acts and fomenting violence between Iraqis.

Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator. But has the situation improved for Iraqis since then? No. Certainly not yet. Will it improve in future? Who can say?

There are a lot of brutal dictators out there. Do you advocate military interventions to remove them all? Or just the ones that control oil?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 04:45 PM
jono you are correct , man-made global warming is a massive hoax.
jono you are correct that interfering nannying big govt is anathema to human liberty.
and i applaud you on these views.
Thanx.


this makes it all the more strange that you seem to have swallowed the war on terror propaganda whole.
Not at all. The evidence is strong that we needed to take out Iraq, for repeatedly violating the ceasefire conditions of the Gulf War.


some questions for you:-

1)terrorists flying planes into buildings was not a new idea prior to 11/9
Do you now accept this?
There may have been ideas of this, but still, the dominant view was that terrorists were hijacking planes for hostages. As Mark Steyn pointed out (http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/558/):


It was the failure of one group of human beings to understand that the second group of human beings was determined to kill them that led to the crew and passengers of those Boston flights sticking with the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late.


2)if the terrorist threat to the U.S is so great why are their borders still wide open?
A damn good question which many Americans are asking of their political overlords, from GWB down. It was this public outcry that led to the amnesty bill being canned. The Mexicans are hypocritical when they whinge, because they have an ultra-strict policy on immigrants TO Mexico from their south.


3)do you honestly believe that americans are fighting terrorists in iraq and not fighting defenders of their land from invaders?
How can they be defenders of their land when these thugs often don't come from Iraq. E.g. Zarqawi was Jordanian. See also The details reveal the truth: Iraq’s “resistance” are barbarians (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_details_reveal_the_truth_iraqs_resistance_are_ barbarians/).


4)do you believe that iraq was a significant hub of terrorists prior to invasion, more so ,say, than pakistan or saudi arabia ?
I believe that Saddam was a terrorist against his own people (one of GWB's explicitly stated reasons for invasion), and funded overseas ones.


5)if the terrorist threat is supposedly so great, why are there so few terrorists caught and convicted ? (you know, more than the odd crazy street bum trying to set alight their shoes on an aircraft!)
Because they are killed instead.


6)how familiar are you with the history of false flag terror attacks ?
Not at all.


7) what makes you so ready to buy this war on terror , is it because it fits conveniently into your pro israeli stance?
Nothing convenient about it. Both are the result of considering the evidence. See my posts about Israel for more info.


8)and of course you denounce the statements of the war motives by greenspan and kissinger , yes?
If they are contrary to the facts, yes.


9)why has it been stated that the U.S is using al qaeda from iraq to attack iran, at the same time saying al qaeda from iran is behind the insurgency in iraq ?? and isnt al qaeda supposed to be the primary enemy in the first place !?
Both Iran and Al Qaeda are enemies.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 04:55 PM
Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator. But has the situation improved for Iraqis since then? No. Certainly not yet. Will it improve in future? Who can say?
America should have handled Iraq like we handled Japan. No, not nukes, but full-out war until the warrior class surrendered unconditionally, so America could impose constitution on them that had the rule of law not simply democratic voting. The Japanese are now a free and prosperous country.

But Bush was seduced by democracy, even though his own founding fathers opposed democracy precisely because it can lead to tyranny of the majority. Note: America is a republic not a democracy, and a Republican President should have known that! While the Iraqi people wanted their own freedom, many of them were not so keen on freedom for other people. E.g. Christians are persecuted in Iraq and Afghanistan.


There are a lot of brutal dictators out there. Do you advocate military interventions to remove them all?
Some desirable actions are not feasible. It doesn't follow that we should have let Saddam continue throwing his opponents into paper shredders and his sons continue to rape and torture.


Or just the ones that control oil?
Come on, spare us this "blood for oil" furphy. If America were just after the oil, they could have had Kuwait's for the taking, not to mention Alaska's.

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 06:30 PM
Should they even do that? A number of economists think that FDR's interventions actually prolongued the great depression

I didn't have that in mind so much as some of the micro-management which goes on nowadays. I'm no expert but it looks like it works.


So is a government bureaucrat likely to know better than the market?

Not a single bureaucrat. But a panel of qualified experts drawn across a wide range of fields, for example, who knows?


Do they really? Why do polls show that a high percentage of Americans agree with them?:hand:

Because the USA for all its military might and technological success is also in many regards a singularly backwards nation compared to other "first world" countries. Even there your views are not quite in the majority, and everywhere else in the developed world, you're nowhere near.


But even if my views were in a minority, there is no problem as long as the majority doesn't try to impose their views on me!

Well it comes back to the issue I raised about whether the public are intelligent. Perhaps we should address the question of whether the public are or are not to be trusted before we move onto the question of whether any defect in their intellect is best dealt with by persuasion or by force. :lol:

In my view the general public are stupid on most issues. Elites are often stupid too, especially those that appoint themselves experts on issues they're not very expert in simply because they care more. Perhaps as a general rule, the only issues on which the public are most likely to be intelligent are those where a left-wing or right-wing do-gooder is telling them what to do.


More likely, as Andrew Sullivan, himself gay, says:

What we are witnessing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths—if they affect a politically protected class—are worth more than others.
I.e. hate crimes is nothing like something like killing in rage; rather, it pronounces that some victims are more important than others.

Think I've said enough about "hate crimes" on other threads, nothing more to add at this stage.


I agree. Same with holocaust denial — it is absurd to make it a criminal offense. Rather, such crap is best met with factual rebuttals to start with then ridicule if the denier is an intractable antisemite.

Agreed.


Yeah, except perhaps in Estonia. But it bears out my point that self-described liberals of the left are anything but liberal.

In Australia you hardly hear a leftist call themselves a "liberal". In the US, which doesn't really have a left-wing so your so called "liberals of the left" are actually communitarians and centrists, "liberal" seems to be used as much as a pejorative these days as as an endorsement. But basically it just reflects the age-old contradiction that one wing of politics looks at supporting freedom in one area and denying it in another, while the other wing does exactly the opposite, and both of them are repressive.

pax
27-09-2007, 06:40 PM
America should have handled Iraq like we handled Japan. No, not nukes, but full-out war until the warrior class surrendered unconditionally, so America could impose constitution on them that had the rule of law not simply democratic voting. The Japanese are now a free and prosperous country.

Where have you been? There *Was full out war, and Iraq *did* surrender. Bush claimed "victory". It's just that America is now fighting a different war, where the "enemy" is not controlled by a single entity or government which *can* surrender.

What do you do? Bomb the crap out of the population until the car bombs stop coming? Way to win those 'hearts and minds'.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 06:44 PM
Not a single bureaucrat. But a panel of qualified experts drawn across a wide range of fields, for example, who knows?
I think we have a fair idea, given the failure of centrally planned economies around the world last century.


Because the USA for all its military might and technological success is also in many regards a singularly backwards nation compared to other "first world" countries.
Of course backwardness is in the eye of the beholder. America has many advantages over Europe for example, with its high employment and huge nanny state.


Even there your views are not quite in the majority,
Theism certainly is, and even creationist beliefs have a high percentage, much to the chagrin of the Anointed.


and everywhere else in the developed world, you're nowhere near.
YEC no, theism yes.


Well it comes back to the issue I raised about whether the public are intelligent. Perhaps we should address the question of whether the public are or are not to be trusted before we move onto the question of whether any defect in their intellect is best dealt with by persuasion or by force. :lol:
Or whether human imperfections should be treated as given, so policies should concentrate on incentives as per the 'tragic vision', or whether policies should try to change dispositions as per the 'anointed vision'.


In my view the general public are stupid on most issues.
Maybe, but then those with the tragic vision argue that their interactions can still produce socially beneficial results. Adam Smith long ago recognized that he would get his dinner from the self-interest of the butcher, baker etc. rather than counting on their altruism.


Elites are often stupid too, especially those that appoint themselves experts on issues they're not very expert in simply because they care more.
True. And they are often more dangerous because they lack the checks and balances of society.


In Australia you hardly hear a leftist call themselves a "liberal".
I know, esp. when you always have to explain to an American that the Liberal Party is the more conservative of the major parties.


In the US, which doesn't really have a left-wing so your so called "liberals of the left" are actually communitarians and centrists, "liberal" seems to be used as much as a pejorative these days as as an endorsement.
I disagree about not having a left. The main thing about the left is "big government knows best", and the Democrats have always been about expanding the government and redistributing wealth. Sad thing is, the GOP have done much the same.


But basically it just reflects the age-old contradiction that one wing of politics looks at supporting freedom in one area and denying it in another, while the other wing does exactly the opposite, and both of them are repressive.
So you are a libertarian after all?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Where have you been? There *Was full out war, and Iraq *did* surrender.
No there is not. There was far too much pussyfooting around there. Oh, can't touch a mosque even if someone shot at the troops from the window.


What do you do? Bomb the crap out of the population until the car bombs stop coming? Way to win those 'hearts and minds'.
Again, those who shelter and support terrorists should suffer the consequences. And you would win their hearts and minds by cutting and running, i.e. betraying our allies yet again, just like Vietnam and Bush I? A lot of Saddam's opponents hate the US for the way Bush I encouraged rebellion against Saddam, then stood back while Saddam gassed them.

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 07:41 PM
Just to unclarify my "anarchist" comment above, I don't actively advocate the dissolution of all power structures (in fact I believe any anarchism of such a sort would only be temporary and government would reform, which is why I see left-wing anarchism as invalid). The sense of "anarchist" I referred to is one of believing that no power structure has any particular legitimacy. So in theory I might support the dismantling of any particular power structure, however, because whatever remains also has no particular legitimacy, whether I actually do so or not is up to me. Hence the "masquerading". (If anyone understands that, I'll be impressed.)

Axiom
27-09-2007, 07:50 PM
again, by looking at the above few posts, it should be clear to all by now, the indistingiushable difference between the supposed opposing major parties.
sometimes left is right and sometimes right is left.... it seems this important breakthrough in thinking is being made.
the sham is being exposed.

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 07:52 PM
I think we have a fair idea, given the failure of centrally planned economies around the world last century.

But most of them were centrally planned by communists, thugs or both. And the issue here isn't only economics, it's global warming.


Of course backwardness is in the eye of the beholder. America has many advantages over Europe for example, with its high employment and huge nanny state.

Not a relevant comparison given that the minimum wage in the USA is so low. It is better financially to be unemployed in many countries than working on minimum wage in the USA.


Theism certainly is, and even creationist beliefs have a high percentage, much to the chagrin of the Anointed.

Many of those who self-describe as theists on opinion polls or censuses are only token Christians, as many more devout Christians themselves complain.


Or whether human imperfections should be treated as given, so policies should concentrate on incentives as per the 'tragic vision', or whether policies should try to change dispositions as per the 'anointed vision'.

Again, it depends on what aspect of policy you look at. When it comes to moral issues, it is "conservatives" who are most often trying to change disposition. They've been doing it for at least 2000 years.


So you are a libertarian after all?

Only by comparison to the illiberals to be found in all successful Australian political parties.

If there's a Libertarian Party on the ballot in Tasmania (which there won't be) I'll be voting for it. Not because I'm a libertarian but because Australia is out of whack on issues of liberty across the whole political spectrum, and there need to be counter-forces to that.

Axiom
27-09-2007, 11:17 PM
George Hunt:UN UNCED Earth Summit 1992 - The dark side of the sustainable development movement

Google Video
Tuesday September 25, 2007

Very Interesting short feature made in 1989 that documents the beginning of the hijack of the environmental movement by the elite in order to usher in more restriction and a policy of population reduction. Everything covered is now unfolding before our eyes.

Note: The quality of the video is not the best but it is almost 20 years old.

George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff. He initially wanted to buy a ticket, but this proved to be much too expensive ($650).

At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election).

http://video.google.com/videohosted?docid=-6642758020554799808

Kevin Bonham
27-09-2007, 11:18 PM
Very Interesting short feature made in 1989 that documents the beginning of the hijack of the environmental movement by the elite in order to usher in more restriction and a policy of population reduction.

Hijack? The movement was obsessed with population for at least 30 years before that!

Basil
27-09-2007, 11:23 PM
Hijack? The movement was obsessed with population for at least 30 years before that!
My God! Kevin. Are you saying that the makers of the film or Axiom lied???
Sham exposed!!! No-one is safe. Who is really behind this forum where such misinformation is perpetrated? :lol:

:doh:

Axiom
27-09-2007, 11:28 PM
Hijack? The movement was obsessed with population for at least 30 years before that!
Yes i accept that.
Not long ago i listened to a recording of a speech given by aldous huxley in the early 1930s proposing population reduction.
Dont dismiss this video though on that criticism alone, perhaps the author of the above article was alluding to the significant step up in the overtness of the program ?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2007, 11:53 PM
Hijack? The movement was obsessed with population for at least 30 years before that!
Yet that old fraud Paul R. Ehrlich is still given credence by many.:wall:

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2007, 11:31 AM
Just to unclarify my "anarchist" comment above, I don't actively advocate the dissolution of all power structures (in fact I believe any anarchism of such a sort would only be temporary and government would reform, which is why I see left-wing anarchism as invalid). The sense of "anarchist" I referred to is one of believing that no power structure has any particular legitimacy. So in theory I might support the dismantling of any particular power structure, however, because whatever remains also has no particular legitimacy, whether I actually do so or not is up to me. Hence the "masquerading". (If anyone understands that, I'll be impressed.)
I do: you are a serial polyarchist :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2007, 11:23 AM
But most of them were centrally planned by communists, thugs or both.
Even without the thuggery, the central planning in itself was a disaster. Ludwig von Mises explained long ago why it is doomed to fail, because no central planner can gain enough information about the millions of consumer preferences, something quickly conveyed by free prices in a market economy. Hence the widespread shortages and surpluses in the Soviet Union. There is also no incentive to work hard or serve customers, something I noticed when I was there.


Not a relevant comparison given that the minimum wage in the USA is so low. It is better financially to be unemployed in many countries than working on minimum wage in the USA.
There is something wrong with that picture. Also, most of those on the minimum wage don't stay there. These are often jobs for young people where for the first time they learn skills like punctuality, following instructions, serving customers, etc., that will qualify them for better paying jobs. But a life on the dole doesn't prepare anyone for better jobs.


Many of those who self-describe as theists on opinion polls or censuses are only token Christians, as many more devout Christians themselves complain.
You been reading my articles again? :P


Again, it depends on what aspect of policy you look at. When it comes to moral issues, it is "conservatives" who are most often trying to change disposition. They've been doing it for at least 2000 years.
Up to a point, as individuals, but most prefer to use incentives when it comes to public policy. E.g. conservatives might try to encourage personal generosity, but support an economic system that recognises innate selfishness, i.e. the free market.

Kevin Bonham
29-09-2007, 01:05 PM
Even without the thuggery, the central planning in itself was a disaster. Ludwig von Mises explained long ago why it is doomed to fail, because no central planner can gain enough information about the millions of consumer preferences, something quickly conveyed by free prices in a market economy. Hence the widespread shortages and surpluses in the Soviet Union. There is also no incentive to work hard or serve customers, something I noticed when I was there.

Again, this is not necessarily relevant to global warming. Also, proposals for curbs on global warming are not generally analogous to central planning of an entire economy - although I agree that it will be difficult with any amount of expertise to estimate the economic impacts.


There is something wrong with that picture. Also, most of those on the minimum wage don't stay there. These are often jobs for young people where for the first time they learn skills like punctuality, following instructions, serving customers, etc., that will qualify them for better paying jobs. But a life on the dole doesn't prepare anyone for better jobs.

Is lifelong dole-bludging (or lack of an alternative to it) really so widespread in the prosperous parts of Europe? As for the working poor in America, even your ally Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/06/01/the_working_poor_scam) (there, I saved you the bother of linking to him again!) admits that (as of 2004) one in twelve of the USA workforce are below the poverty line, full-time and over 25. That sounds pretty high to me especially in the context of debating differences in unemployment rates.


You been reading my articles again? :P

It's a very widespread claim.


Up to a point, as individuals, but most prefer to use incentives when it comes to public policy. E.g. conservatives might try to encourage personal generosity, but support an economic system that recognises innate selfishness, i.e. the free market.

That's not the sort of "moral issues" I am talking about. I mean the whole sexual freedom/drugs/violence-on-TV (among other issues) spectrum where the conventional "conservative" (right-wing, religious, whatever) response has long been not to provide incentives for behaviour they approve of in these lines, but to seek to limit, ban or ostracise the opposite.

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2007, 01:46 PM
Again, this is not necessarily relevant to global warming. Also, proposals for curbs on global warming are not generally analogous to central planning of an entire economy — although I agree that it will be difficult with any amount of expertise to estimate the economic impacts.
Yeah. And poverty is a far bigger danger to life than an extra degree or two next century.


Is lifelong dole-bludging (or lack of an alternative to it) really so widespread in the prosperous parts of Europe?
Seems to be. You pay people not to work, so it's not surprising that people don't work.


As for the working poor in America, even your ally Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/06/01/the_working_poor_scam) (there, I saved you the bother of linking to him again!)
Much obliged :owned:


admits that (as of 2004) one in twelve of the USA workforce are below the poverty line, full-time and over 25. That sounds pretty high to me especially in the context of debating differences in unemployment rates.
This article was "The 'working poor' scam", so makes the opposite point you want to make though. He wasn't "admitting" anything:

Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth — or fewer than 10 percent of the workers — who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense.
And this "poverty line" was "making $18,800 a year or less". Dr Sowell's main point was:


An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 have since then also been in the top 20 percent. This inconvenient fact has been out there for years — and has been ignored for years by those who want more government programs to relieve individuals from responsibility for making themselves more productive and therefore higher income earners. ...

The fallacy here is that it is not the same people in the bottom 20 percent over the past 30 years. Most people in the bottom 20 percent do not stay there even one decade, much less three. Young, inexperienced beginners do not remain young or inexperienced or beginners their whole lives.


That's not the sort of "moral issues" I am talking about. I mean the whole sexual freedom/drugs/violence-on-TV (among other issues) spectrum where the conventional "conservative" (right-wing, religious, whatever) response has long been not to provide incentives for behaviour they approve of in these lines, but to seek to limit, ban or ostracise the opposite.
Well, I've read some libertarian views about drugs, and they have got me thinking at any rate, at least about whether the practical benefits of drug prohibition outweight the costs.

As for "sexual freedom", it is one thing to support freedom to be promiscuous, but what about the freedom not to subsidise the problems resulting from this behaviour?