[Update: Bob Murphy sends in an email comment, copied (in relevant part) at the bottom of this post.]
I`ve addressed here on five different threads the question of whether there is an “objective moral order”, which Gene Callahan broached in a May blog post. I`ve commented here mainly because I find the subject interesting, but the subsequent discussions at Gene Callahan`s blog and at Bob Murphy`s blog to be rather unproductive, if not frustrating and disappointing. However, I note that Bob Murphy, bless his soul, has kindly emailed me a comment for me to post on one of my recent threads, in which Bob refers to a recent relevant comment elsewhere by Gene.
Allow me to repost here Bob Murphy`s comment, and my response, but first here`s some context from the post that Bob Murphy is responding to:
1. Me:
While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my
own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired
via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation,
– as Bruce Yandle has suggested,
– as argued by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American
Anthropology Assn.) in his book “Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity” (which I have discussed here) and – as I have recently discovered –
– as David Sloan Wilson has argued in his book “Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society“.
I note that the NYT has recently run a series of posts on related topics.
In my view, our moral sense, rituals and “sacred postulates” (later, religions) have played a central role in the evolution of man as a
social animal, by
providing a fundamental way of ordering the world, the group`s role in
it, and the individual`s role in the group – thereby abating commons
problems both within and created by the group. The religious
lies at the root of our human nature, even as its inviolable, sacred
truths continue to fall by the wayside during the long march of
culture and science out of the Garden of Eden. While we certainly have
made progress (partly with the aid of “universal” religions) in
expanding the boundaries of our groups, we very much remain group,
tribal animals, fiercely attentive to rival groups and who is within or
outside our group, and this tribal nature is clearly at work in our
cognition (our penchant for finding enemies, including those who have
different religious beliefs that ours).
But I didn`t really kick off this discussion – why are Callahan and
Murphy so reticent to describe what it is they think they mean when
they assert that there are “objective moral truths” and an “objective
moral order”? (I can understand why I seem to have earned the clear
hostility of one them; after all I have proven by my persistence and/or
thickheadedness to be, if not an “enemy”, then in any case not one of
the august clear-sighted.)
Here are a few questions I left with them at Bob`s most recent post:
–
Are those who believe that there is an objective “moral” order
asserting that, for every being – regardless of species – that there is
a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument
that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware
beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious
but not self-aware?
– Or is the argument that the “objective”
moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be
identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on
brain activity and arising from shared genes? Will such objective moral order still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?
– Or is the
objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all –
depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the
development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?
– Is the human “objective” moral order universal, for all individuals – of whatever, gender or age – across all history?
– Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for
despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly –
like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t
personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?
– And
if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply
the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its
parameters, and to explain (and test) it with “laws”?
– What are some of the parameters and laws governing the moral order?
2. Bob Murphy`s comments: (emphasis added)
On the general issue of “are morals objective for everyone?” I refer to this excellent discussion by Gene Callahan:
www.gene-callahan.org/…/freedoms-just-another-word-for.html
[Here is Gene`s relevant comment:
“Something that is correct only ‘to’ someone is subjectively, not
objectively, correct. What ‘objective’ means is precisely ‘to any and
all possible perceivers.’ And, of course, it is simply a further muddle
to introduce beings incapable of perceiving the objective item in
question, as if that raised doubts about its objective status. ‘Would
this be objectively correct for ants?’ makes no more sense than ‘Is it
objectively true for ants that Mars has two moons?’ It is objectively
true, not ‘for’ anyone, that Mars has two moons, and it is also
objectively true that ants are a kind of being that cannot peer through
telescopes or count to two. It is objectively true that murder is
wrong, and if ants were the sort of being capable of murder, which they are not (as far as we know!), it would be wrong for them to commit murders.”]
When I say that I think morality is objective, what I mean is that a
statement such as “it is better to kiss an infant than to drown it” is
a different type of thing from the statement “chocolate ice cream is
better than vanilla.” The latter is clearly stating a subjective
preference, whereas the former is (I claim) reflecting an objective
truth about reality.
Note that to say morality is objective doesn’t necessarily mean that
‘the same rules’ apply to everybody, at least not in the sense that I
think you mean. It might not be immoral for Eskimos to euthanize old
people, whereas it could be considered murder in Manhattan. But this
doesn’t actually prove morality is subjective. By the same token, it’s
OK for me to eat the food in my fridge. But if somebody else wandered
into my house and did the ‘same thing,’ it would be theft.
I’m a Christian so if you ask me for a list of these rules, a good
start is the Ten Commandments. And then if you want to know how to
apply these rules, I’d tell you to read the gospels and study the life
of Jesus.
As far as your specific questions, I don’t want to bother trying to
answer them. I admit I can’t give you great answers on some. But to me,
that doesn’t show that morality is subjective after all. There are
plenty of non-material things (like mathematics etc.) that are
rock-solid objectively true. So I think our difference here is much
deeper than an issue of mere morality. I think you are a materialist
and I’m not, which is influencing our discussion on morality.
3. My response: (emphasis added)
Bob, thanks for troubling to visit and
read, but your comments are obviously a disappointment – as you`ve
simply done none of the heavy lifting that you have implied by
insisting on various occasions that there is an “objective” moral order.
All that you`ve done here is to make a very weak argument that MAN
has a moral sense regarding how we treat others. But this is not only
obvious, it is also something that I have asserted all along. While it
tells us something I agree is objectively true generally about man –
something that I have made various attempts to explore here and to
sketch out on your blog and Gene`s – it tells us essentially nothing
about an objective moral order to the universe, that is applicable to
other life forms, and that will survive mankind if we were all ever to
perish.
I`m afraid I have to disagree with you about Gene`s post, which in
fact illustrates the weakness of his position regarding “objective
truth”. While he suggests that by “objectively correct” we mean
something that is correct for `any and all possible perceivers’ (so
far, so good), he then presents the example of ants, for whom he
asserts it would be wrong for them to commit murder IF THEY WERE
CAPABLE of committing murder. But he`s failed to notice that he`s not
only begged the question about what we mean by saying that “it is
objectively true that murder is wrong”, but he`s suggested that because
ants lack a capacity to perceive moral strictures against murder, they are unable to commit it.
By doing so, he`s just invited in all of the questions that I`ve
outlined above [in item 1 here], plus questions of culture and exigency that you have
pointed out by your reference to Eskimos. Can any animals or life forms
other than man commit murder? Do moral restrictions against murder
require some threshold level of self-reflection, intellectual capacity,
typical social structure, physical and social maturity, or upbringing?
So there IS an objective moral order, but it only applies to those
able to perceive it? This is both a very modest position, as well as
one that oddly smacks of belief in Leprechauns.
Rather than arguing that still undefined but “objective” moral rules are embedded in the structure of the universe but have only limited application, isn`t it easier to acknowledge that man has a moral sense, observe
that it enhances our ability to cooperate, observe that other animals
also exhibit patterns of reciprocal behavior and posit that our moral
sense is something that we have evolved, as it enhanced our ability to
survive and procreate?
#
re: Evolution, religion and our insistence on a still undefined “objective” moral order
By the way, I note that fellow Community blogger lilburne and I agree generally about morality*
“There is a burgeoning school of thought in evolutionary biology and
the cognitive sciences (led by Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker) which
contends that morality is not just cultural artifice, but that it is an
intrinsic feature of the human mind which evolved over the countless
millennia of humans living together.”
mises.org/…/245211.aspx
If anyone is still reading, let me note that I posted a week or so ago further thoughts on the evolution of moral codes and why we fight over them (rarely applying to those outside our group the same moral standards that we apply to those within our groups).
[Update:] Further email comment from Bob Murphy (posted with approval):
I’m going to have to punt on this debate for now. If you agree that
“Bob should not kill an infant” has a truth value more significant
than “Bob should not wear a dress to work” than I’m happy. I think
maybe when I say “morality is objective” you are interpreting it to
mean something more than what I do mean. After all, you are saying
moral rules apply to all humans, so I don’t know what our difference
is at this point. I thought originally you were saying you were a
moral relativist.
TokyoTom
fundamentalist: “I love the responses from the GW hysteria crowd.
They have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and appeals to
authority.”
Am I excluded from the “hysteria” crowd, Roger? Because if I`m in,
you seem to have entirely missed my post, and my point, as to the
consistency of your arguments with Austrian principles and the
effectiveness of approaches like yours in dealing with the rest of the
world – including all of the deluded and others who are engaged in bad
faith.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Stephan Kinsella
[Note: this is the comment to which I responded with the remarks copied on my preceding post]
“Tokyo” asked me to respond to his post but it’s so rambling I am
not sure what to respond to. To me this is very simple. I think we are
in an interglacial period. It’s going to start getting cooler
eventually, unless by then we have enough technology and freedom (no
offense, Tokyo) to stop it. If there is global warming maybe it can
delay the coming ice age by a few centuries.
If there were really global warming why not just use “nuclear
winter” to cool things down? You don’t see the envirotards advocating that! 🙂 (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)
In any event as I see it there are several issues. Is it warming?
Can we know it? Do we know it? Are we causing it? Can we stop it?
Should we stop it?
It seem to me we do not know that it’s warming; if it is, it’s
probably not caused by Man; and if it is, there’s probably nothing we
can do to stop it except effectively destroy mankind; there’s no reason
to stop it since it won’t even be all bad, and in fact would be overall
good. I do not trust the envirotards, who hate industrialism and love
the state, and seek anything to stop capitalism and to give the state
an excuse to increase regulations and taxes; why anyone thinks these
watermelons really know what the temperature will be in 10, 100, 1000
years, when we can’t even get accurate weather forecasts a week out, is
beyond me.
That said, I’ll take the watermelons seriously when they start
advocating nuclear power. Until then, they reveal themselves to be
anti-industry, anti-man, techo-illiterates. (See Green nukes; Nuclear spring?.)
Published: October 30, 2009 10:03 AM
TokyoTom
[my prior version ran off without my permission; this is a re-draft]
It seems like I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him think,
We all have our own maps of reality and our own calculus as to what
government policies are desirable and when, but as for me, the status
quo needs changing, and the desire of a wide range of people – be they
deluded, evil, conniving or whatnot – to do something on the climate
front seems like a great opportunity to get freedom-enhancing measures
on the table and to achieve some of MY preferences, chiefly because
they help to advance the professed green agenda. [To clarify, I didn`t mean that I want to advance “the green agenda”, but that the pro-freedom policy suggestions I have raised should be attainable because greens and others might see that they also serve THEIR agendas.]
I see no reason to sit at home or simply scoff or fling poo from the
sidelines, and let what I see as a bad situation get worse. There`s
very little in that for practically anyone here – except of course
those who like coal pollution, public utilities, corporate income
taxes, big ag corporate welfare, political fights over government-owned
resources, energy subsidies and over-regulation, etc. (and those folks
aren`t sitting at home, believe me).
I can keep on questioning everyone`s sanity or bona fides, or I can
argue strongly for BETTER policies, that advance shared aims.
Does Austrian thinking simply lack a practical political arm, other
than those few who have signed up to support special interests?
Ramblin` Tom
Published: October 30, 2009 11:51 AM
TokyoTom
Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and
fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of
others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.
You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a
scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a
roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of
others,
(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and
at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in
the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually
defends and advances our policy agenda, and (putting aside the
insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so
rambling I am not sure what to respond to”); and
(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the
motives and sanity “watermelons” (as if they`re running the show), a
few helpful, free-market libertarian “solutions”, like open-air
explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a “nuclear winter” effect!
And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we
actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after
all, underway is met with silence – other than your faithful report
back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about
…. science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not
merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling
melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway
simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the
very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!
Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow
engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the
Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the
big to do about climate – which may very well result in a mass of
ill-considered, costly and counterproductive
legislation – is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).
If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.
Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.
Sincerely,
Tom
Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:
“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal
seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute
plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or
efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that
similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to
catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being
captured by prices.”
“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the
heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that
is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal
plan formulation and execution.”
“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is
conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to
property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to
identify possible ways of resolving it.”
“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in
either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant
resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist.
This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly
all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998;
Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective
on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen
as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the
market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the
necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced
property rights, is not in place.”
Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
TokyoTom
Bala:
“Did rising temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration”.
This is a great, basic question; I`d love to answer it (actually, I
already did, though a bit indirectly), but you see, I`m one of the
nasty obfuscating members of the socialist hysterical crowd, so I
really should defer to others here who have better ideological and
scientific stature here (and who hate ad hominems and love reason),
such as fundamentalist, or perhaps even our confident lead poster,
Stephan Kinsella (who has nothing to offer on the question of how
libertarians should engage with others on the political front), or even
our humble physicist climate system authority, Dr. Hayden.
Gentlemen, take it away.
Published: October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
TokyoTom
I`m sorry I don`t have time now to respond in more detail to those
who have commented in response to mine, but let me note that not one of
you has troubled to actually respond to my challenge, which was based
on Austrian concepts of conflict resolution, understanding of
rent-seeking embedded in the status quo, and the recognition that the
present debate on climate, energy and environmental issues presents
opportunities to actually advance an Austrian agenda.
In my view, we can either try to improve our lot, by seeking items
such as those I laid out previously or condemn ourselves to irrelevancy
by standing by and letting the big boys and the Baptists in their
coalition hammer out something worse from our Congresscritters.
For this, the correctness of our own views of climate science
matters little – nothing, in fact, unless we are willing to DO
something about it, by engaging with OTHERS who have DIFFERENT views.
For those who have too much trouble remembering the legal/regulatory changes that I suggested, here they are:
[pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:
* accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to
allow consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will
rapidly push efficiency gains),
* ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
common-law dependent approaches),
* ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
* if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that
it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the
hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact
and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and
least susceptible to pork).
Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an
insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring
that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the
administering agency).]
Many others come to mind.
Well, what`s it going to be? Relevancy, or a tribal exercise in disengaged and smug self-satisfaction?
Published: October 31, 2009 12:37 PM
TokyoTom
1. Christopher and mpolzkill:
Thanks for the favor of your comments.
I was asking if Austrians never seek to practically engage others on
questions of policy; the first of you brings up Ron Paul, but one man
is not a policy, nor are his sole efforts a policy program; the other
of you suggests succession from the U, which is hardly an effort at
pragmatic engagement with anybody over a particular issue. (BTW, here
is Ron Paul`s climate program.)
I can see some engagement by libertarians on this issue, but such
seeds either (i) die when they fall on the rocky ground of the Mises
Blog or (ii) represent work by people paid to criticize one side of the
debate, and consistently ignore problems with the definitely
non-libertarian status quo.
Why libertarians do not see any opportunity here for a positive
agenda? Do they prefer to be taken as implicit supporters of the
government interventions that underlie most enviros` complaints?
2. fundamentalist:
“I don’t see anyone doing that except the GW hysterical crowd.
Honest scientists like Hayden try to present evidence and reason so
that we can have a real debate, and the hysterical crowd flings poo
from the sidelines.”
Thanks for your direct comment (even as you lace it and others with
ad homs), but can`t you see you also are missing my point? Are you NOT
interested in trying to cut deals that would, say:
* accelerate cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
* eliminate antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow
consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will rapidly
push efficiency gains),
* end Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
common-law dependent approaches),
* end energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
* speed economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar),
* insist that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens,
* end federal subsidies to development on barrier islands, etc. or
* improve adaptability by deregulating and privatizing roads and other “public” infrastructure?
Or is it more productive to NOT deal with those whom you hate, and
stand by while special interests cut deals that widen and deepen the
federal trough?
TT
Published: November 1, 2009 2:21 AM
TokyoTom
Allow me to outline here a few responses to the arguments raised by
Dr. Hayden, even as I do not pretend to be an expert (and, to be
pedantic, even though they are largely irrelevant to the question of
whether Austrians wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented
by the many scientists and others who have differing views, to roll
back alot of costly, counterproductive and unfair regulation).
1. Models: Dr. Hayden disingenuously casts aside what modern physics
tells us about how God plays dice with the universe (via random,
unpredictible behavior throughout the universe), and the limits of
human knowledge (including the ability to measure all inputs affecting
climate, including all of our own), and essentially asks us to wait
until our knowledge is perfect, and our ability to capture and
number-crunch all information relevant to the Earth`s climate
(including changing solar and cosmic ray inputs and ocean behavior)
before any of us, or our imperfect governments, can take any action on
climate.
Physical and practical impossibility aside, is this how any human or
any human organization structures its decisions? Narrowly, Dr. Hayden
is of course right that “the science is not settled”, but so what?
2. Was there a tipping point 300 million years ago (or whenever it was when CO2 levels reached 8000 ppm) ?
Dr. Hayden plays with language, suggesting that a “tipping point” means
something irreversible over hundreds of millions of years, when it`s
very clear that there have in the past been numerous abrupt changes in
climate (some taking place in as little as a few years, with a general
return to prior values sometimes taking very long periods of time) and
that scientists today are talking about tipping points that may be reached in human lifetimes.
Will we lose all mountain glaciers? Will the Arctic become ice-free in
winter? Will thawing release sufficient methane from tundras and seabed
clathrates to push the climate even more forcibly than CO2? Are we set
to lose glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, regardless of what we do?
Will we dry out the Amazon basin, and interrupt the Asian monsoon?
There is plenty of concern and evidence that these things are real
possibilities.
3. “Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.”
But you never tell us whether you, too, Dr. Hayden, are an
“alarmist”. Further down you acknowledge that “Nobody doubts that CO2
has some greenhouse effect” admitting (B) (though not that it may be
the chief factor), but as far as (A) goes, you only acknowledge that
“CO2 concentration is increasing”. Care to make yourself an alarmist by
admitting what cannot be denied – that man is responsible for rising
CO2 concentrations? Or you prefer play with laymen`s ignorance by
irresponsibly suggesting that rising CO2 is now due to warming oceans
and not man`s activities?
– “CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind.”
Yes, but what relevance is this now, when man is undeniably not simply “helping” but clearly responsible?
– “The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution.”
So? Does the fact that CO2 fluctuates naturally do to things other
than man`s activities mean humans` massive releases of CO2 have NOT
made a “meaningful contribution”? It`s very clear that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic rise in CO2. Surely you don`t disagree?
– “Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2
level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply
assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.”
“Alarmists” of course is simply an unhelpful ad hom; and as for the rest, concerned scientists and laymen clearly note how CO2 has fluctuated prior to the Industrial Revolution.
There undoubtedly many clueless laymen, just as there are some
clueless scientists, so your sweeping statement may be narrowly
accurate.
But in the big picture, it is clear that man has had a drastic
impact on CO2 levels – so what, precisely, is your point, except to
confuse the issue?
– “The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and
increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice
Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Sure, but this doesn`t mean man hasn`t been the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2.
Further, of course, warming oceans CEASED to release CO2 at the
point that atmospheric CO2 started to make the oceans more acidic.
– “The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2
changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the
current warming?”
The lag in the historical record BEFORE man simply shows that CO2,
which has an acknowledged warming effect, was a warming reinforcer and
not an initiator. This does NOT, of course, suggest that massive CO2
releases by man magically have NO effect.
4. Assuming that we ARE changing climate, is that a bad thing?
– “A warmer world is a better world.” Maybe, but are there NO costs,
losses or damages in moving to one? And do those people and communities
who bear these costs or kinda like things as they are have any choice,
much less defendable property rights?
– “The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as
numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. … Those huge
dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land
is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”
I see; this is not a question of fossil fuel interests homesteading
the sky (or being given license by govt) and so being entitled to shift
risks and costs on us, but them beneficiently bestowing gifts on
mankind – or dinosaurs, as Dr. Hayden may prefer! Wonderful gifts that
cannot be returned for centuries or millenia! Yippee!
[This is only scratching the surface of the letter, but I`m afraid I need to run for now.]
Published: November 1, 2009 4:51 AM
TokyoTom [Note: my original post contained some bolding that went haywire and bolded most of the post; I`ve fixed that.]
Okay, here`s a few more unconsidered thoughts to show how hysterical
I am, am hooked on religion, hate mankind, [want to] return us to the Middle Ages
and otherwise take over the world:
– “Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.”
Sure, for If only it were so simple. The increase in AVERAGE global
temps that we`ve experienced so far has meant little warming of the
oceans (a vast thermal sink), and has shown up at higher latitudes,
where we have seen a very marked warming and ongoing thawing, a shift
of tropic zones away from the equator, disruption of rainfall patterns
and stress on tropical ecosystems; all of this is considered to be just
the beginning of a wide range of climate effects that have not yet been
fully manifested for GHG and albedo changes so far,. much less to
further increases in GHGs.
– “CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”
It IS a “pure and simple” plant food, but your rhetoric implies much
more – essentially that CO2 is NOTHING BUT plant food, and large
releases of it have no effect on climate. And this, as you well know,
is NOT a “pure and simple” matter.
– “CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.”
You mean not by your reasonable definition, or under
historical standards. But what IS “pollution”, but a social construct
to describe the outputs of human activity that some of us have found to
be damaging to our persons, property or other things that we value?
Were CFCs released by refrigeration equipment “pollution” before we
discovered that they damage the ozone layer?
Scientists may be qualified to measure particular outputs and their
consequences, but otherwise have no special insights into what others
value.
– “A warmer world begets more precipitation.”
Sure, as warmer air generally holds more water – which in turn has a
warming effect, let`s not forget. But as for the water itself, climate
change leads to more severe rain events in some places but to droughts
in others. And let`s not forget that a warmer world means that mountain
snows don`t last until spring and summer as they once did, leaving
streams and forests drier, and adversely affecting agriculture that
relies on such water.
– “All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient
between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer
and less violent storms.”
Not so fast; this doesn`t hold for rain events or tornadoes.
Further, independent paths of research indicate that while the North
Atlantic may end up with fewer hurricanes, warming is likely to make them more intense.
– How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice
and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?
First, note again the Dr.`s use of a strawman; no one is expect an
imminent melt of “ALL” the ice. But significant melting and thinning of
coastal ice IS occurring, and not merely on the West Antactic
peninsula, which the good Dr. would realize if he`d trouble himself to
compare his simple mental model, of reality with FACTS. As previously
noted, coast ice sheets are plugs that slow the flow of glaciers from
the interior. As these plugs are removed, the glaciers flow more
quickly, via that exotic phenomenon we call “gravity”. I`ve already
addressed this above, with links.
– “If the waters around it warm up, they create more precipitation.”
Yes, but does the new precipitation balance the ice being melted?
Actual, detailed observations tell us that, despite your absolute
certainty, that we are seeing increasing net mass losses far inland,
not merely in Greenland but also in Antarctica. Your religious-like
faith in your own superior understanding doesn`t make the facts go away.
– “The ocean’s pH is not rising. It is falling, ever so slightly.
Obviously your respondent has not the faintest clue as to how pH is
defined. (BTW, the oceans are basic, not acidic.)”
Yes, the good Dr. catches my mistake – pH is falling rather
remarkably (from basic towards acidic) – but he too hastily skates past
the main point, which is that this is due to increased atmospheric
levels of CO2, which prove that the oceans are NOT actually releasing
CO2 (or they`d be becoming more basic).
I provided links in this last year here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007931.asp#c192563
Here`s more:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:y_W6vseUrykJ:www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf+caldeira+ocean+ph&hl=en&gl=jp&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEEoFLf7xd9QTyol2TYYmXKPxXFqMq5Nr1IPdGd_yEbV3zIxPi-4Rmhb6d-IQ-r4BPwBqzyhF6GZQw_ka1Eh3Ynn0lYlP7p974IYMHIdLMVE90nWJ81GHAfcdTrUJTNk7W8Man&sig=AFQjCNGg6Idq6GQ5gyrddlXRD8R98NQ_dQ
From the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK) :
“Until recently, it was believed that the oceans contained so much
disolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions that any extra would have
little effect. In fact this absorbtion was generally acknowledged a
valuable process in protecting the planet from the worst effects of
rising temperatures and climate change. However, in 2003 a paper was
published in Nature (vol 425) which suggested that the increases in
atmospheric CO2, occurring over the last 200 years, has actually
increased the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 of a pH unit.The pH scale is logarithmic and this change represents a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.
“However, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been
higher during previous times in Earths history and these high CO2
periods didn’t cause ocean pH to change. The difference now is that the
rate at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, is 100 times greater
than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia. Consequently,
the processes that ultimately balance the carbon cycle are unable to
react quickly enough and ocean pH is affected. About half of all
released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans but even if we stop all
emmissions today, the CO2 already in the atmosphere has been predicted
to decrease ocean pH by a further 0.5 unit.”
From
Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification”>Wikipedia:
“Dissolving CO2 in seawater also increases the hydrogen ion (H+)
concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and
Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean
acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes
during the last 300 million years.
Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that
surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the
logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is
estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as
the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][2][9] These changes are
predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic
CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for
example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways
society takes.[10] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH
is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could
also be described as becoming less basic.”
– “The term global warming has given way to the term climate
change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter
term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If
it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change
whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.”
Wonderful observation, except for the fact that IT`S WRONG; the
change instead being deliberately led by Republicans; leading
Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz in 2002 pushed Republicans
to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate
change”, because, as Luntz wrote,
“’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’
… While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it,
climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional
challenge”.
Of course there IS the inconvenient fact that “climate change” is
actually more accurate than simple “global warming”, but who cares
about accuracy anyway, right Dr.?
– “the earth has handily survived many millions of years when CO2
levels were MUCH higher than at present, without passing the dreaded
tipping point.”
I already addressed above the point that while the Dr. seems to
what to recreate the Cretaceous, the better for dinosaurs, most of us
seem rather to like the Earth that we actually inherited and that the
rest of current Creation is adapted for. He is obviously a physicist
and not a biologist, and doesn`t seem to give any thought to the
rapidity of the scale at which we are conducting our little
terraforming experiment, and te challenges the pace of those changes
are posing to ecosystems.
– “To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists
have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models
take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs
are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a
travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.”
To put it bluntly, this is largely rubbish; there is a tremendous
and growing amount of climate change DATA. You just make it your habit
not to let facts get in the way of your own opinions. I would be a
travesty if we continue to countenance posts such as yours, questions
of relevance to Austrian purposes aside.
– “I don’t do politics”
Fine; I can see why that would not be your forte. But what`s very
puzzling is that you seem to think that climate science IS your forte,
when all you`ve show is a shocking level of arrogant ignorance.
– “I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist.”
And on a blog dedicated to Austrian economists, just why, one
wonders, do the “giants” in our Mises world keep filling the Blog pages
with post such as this, which are, on their very face, IRRELEVANT, to
the question of how Austrians wish to address the preferences of other,
the misuses of government and the management of unowned common
resources.
– “he only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats
is, in practical terms, their rhetoric. I don’t pretend to be an
economic theorist.
– “But the notion that we can run an industrialized giant on
chicken manure and sunbeams doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Except
in Washington.”
At long last, you say something something intelligible. Except
Washington spends trillions on nonsense at the drop of a hat, if you
haven`t noticed recent events.
Published: November 1, 2009 10:02 AM
TokyoTom
Sorry if I`ve been a bit intemperate; that I`m rushed doesn`t excuse it.
Dr. Hayden, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion and your
own mental map of reality, but not to your own facts. As to your
opinion and mental map, they are by your own admittance uninformed as
to matters of economics and political science, but I must confess that
I find your understanding of climate science to be seriously wanting.
Given these, I fail to see what you offer here, other than a
convenient, if very thin, cover for others here who don`t want to
think, or to fight to make the world (or our own government) better.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: November 1, 2009 10:11 AM
TokyoTom
Bala, I appreciate your polite persistence; I`m sorry I haven`t responded yet, but I`ll get to you.
Please note that my time is both limited and my own (though indeed
others have claims on it), and I have no obligation to spend any of it
responding to your importunings regarding climate science, which are
now shading into impertinence.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but a fair reader might note that:
– my priorities may (unsurprisingly) differ from yours,
– my chief points (and Austrian principles as to how to engage with others) have nothing to do with climate science per se,
– I explicitly make no pretense of being a scientist or climate expert, and
– in any case, there is no simple course to understanding reality; we
are all forced to make decisions as to how much energy to devote to
puzzling things out on our own (and overcoming what we know of our own
subconscious cognitive filters) versus outsourcing this effort to
others (by accepting things without deliberation, “on faith” as it
were).
Others who have been around longer will know that I`ve also devoted
what they might consider an unreasonable amount of my time over the
past few years, “hysterical” trying to help others work through climate
science (and policy) issues.
TT
Published: November 1, 2009 8:46 PM
TokyoTom
mpolzkill:
– “Tom, believing you live in a Republic with 300,000,000 people is a delusion which heads off all actual pragmatism.”
This is not a delusion I have, but in any case it`s not at all clear
that this or any other delusion “heads off all actual pragmatism”.
– “Until there is actual representation, everything said by we
proles is literally hot air (unless it’s happens to coincide with
whatever benefits the regime).”
I use “our government” simply as shorthand for what you call “the
regime”, but perhaps may be more accurately described as a multicentric
mess.
In any case, the painstaking efforts of LVMI to grow the Mises
website, and the welcome reception of and contribution to those efforts
by everyone here – yourself included – belies both your near-nihilistic
cynicism and your conclusion, as to virtually every topic discussed
here. Words are deeds, though they be more or less frivolous, weighty,
insightful or consequential.
If the other Mises bloggers agreed with you as to the possible
efficacy of their words, either generally or on this particular topic,
they simply wouldn`t bother to post.
However, I share your concern about efficiacy, which is why I
criticize posts such these (whether by Stephan, George Reisman, Sean
Corrigan, Walter Block, or Jeffrey Tucker), which are, by and large,
more of a circle jerk than an effort to engage.
– “thank you for being respectful”
My pleasure, but you hardly need to thank me; this is a community, after all.
– “even though you mistakenly think I’m a nut.
In this case, it is you who are mistaken (not that you ARE a nut, but that you think I think you are).
Tom
Published: November 1, 2009 9:35 PM