TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

The February 25 Wall Street Journal carries an insightful piece of commentary by James K. Glassman (president of the World Growth Institute and a former undersecretary of state) and William T. Nolan (president of Devonshire Holdings and former associate at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. in the early 1970s) .

The Glassman and Nolan piece, entitled “Bankers Need More Skin in the Game; Partnerships may be a more trustworthy business model than corporations,” echoes in the context of Wall Street financial institutions the theme of inappropriate managerial risk-taking that I have previously blogged on a number of times regarding the consequences of  the “limited liability” corporate form.  Glassman and Nolan point to the sterling performance of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., the oldest and largest partnership bank in the U.S., founded in 1818.

The Glassman and Nolan editorial is worth reading in whole, for purposes of discussion I excerpt portions here (bolding is mine):

“Of all the causes of the financial meltdown of the past few years, the easiest to understand is that an irresponsible attitude toward risk led to terrible mistakes in judgment. But where did this casual approach to risk originate?

“A major culprit, we believe, is a change in the way Wall Street financial institutions are organized. During the late 1970s and ’80s, much of the responsibility for risk was transferred away from the people who made the financial decisions. As a result, leverage rose from 20-1 to 40-1 or higher, creating shaky towers of debt, which, as we know, eventually collapsed. …

“The trick is to find a way to encourage sensible risk-taking, while dampening the impulse to take chances that can throw an economy into recession and force taxpayers to bail out a banking system.

“Can government accomplish this feat through rule-making and regulatory oversight? It is unlikely. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich von Hayek correctly emphasized, no one — not even a politician or a bureaucrat — can gain the broad and deep knowledge necessary to make wise enough rules. Moreover, in a $14 trillion economy, you can’t hire enough overseers to pore over everyone’s books.

“There is, however, a better solution: expose players in the financial game to greater personal loss if their risk-taking fails. When you worry that a mistake will cause you to lose your second home, your stocks and bonds and your club memberships, then you’re less likely to take the kinds of risks that expose the rest of society to your failures.

“A simple mechanism exists to achieve this purpose: the private partnership. Partners face liability that extends to their personal assets. They aren’t protected by the corporate shield that limits losses to what the corporation itself owns (as well as the value of the stocks and bonds the corporation has issued). Unfortunately, the partnership is a legal form of business organization that was largely abandoned by banks over the past quarter-century. Our advice is to bring it back. …

“Even John Gutfreund — the man who kicked off the dramatic change in investment-banking culture and structure when he took Salomon Brothers, a longtime partnership, public in 1981 — confirms our thesis. Michael Lewis wrote in the December issue of Condé Nast Portfolio that Mr. Gutfreund now believes “that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer financial risk to the shareholders. ‘When things go wrong, it’s their problem,'” said Mr. Gutfreund.

“But when the personal wealth of executives is put at risk, as it is in a partnership, their behavior changes. Risk aversion increases. Few partnerships would leverage themselves to the hilt to load up on risky subprime loans.

“How do we know this? Luckily, for this financial experiment, there is a control case: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. ….

“Some would say that BBH is sui generis. Would its structure work more broadly for financial institutions? It already is. As large brokers merged into huge corporations with greater concentration in real-estate finance, corporate finance migrated to private equity firms and hedge funds, which are generally structured as partnerships. While many of these new engines of finance have suffered in the recent meltdown, they generally didn’t engage in such extreme risk-taking and thus haven’t become wards of the state.

“We know from Alfred Chandler, the great business historian, that “strategy determines structure.” Similarly, structure determines behavior — in this case, a healthier attitude toward risk. It is unlikely that a partnership will grow to the size of a Bank of America or Citigroup, but, while size can boost efficiency, it also poses systemic risk. As partnerships — and corporations with partnership attributes — replace behemoths, the current crisis will spawn structures for future success.  …

We do not believe that government should require banks to be partnerships. Rather, investors — and governments — should recognize the extra safety inherent in doing business with partnerships.“

I have previously argued that one of the key state interventions that has fuelled the rent-seeking and risk socialization that we see today is the grants of blanket limited liability to shareholders, along with the grant of legal personhood (with unlimited purposes and life and Constitutional rights) to corporations:

Limited liability has enabled corporate managers to act without close shareholder oversight and management; this I believe has played a key role in the vast misalignment of incentives that Michael Lewis and David Einhorn describe at the NYT, and in the risk mismanagement that Joe Nocera of the NYT describes at length in the NYT Magazine.  Those taking large bonuses (whether in the financial industry or large corporations) were essentially playing with OPM – Other People’s Money – and capturing the upside of short-term gains while leaving shareholders and taxpayers holding the bag for loses.

I hope that you and others here will look more deeply at the role of the state in the problem of misaligned incentives that continue to corrupt American capitalism.

It is not clear what Glassman and Nolan intend with their reference to “corporations with partnership attributes”, but I would note that corporations that make use of an unlimited liability structure (as American Express once did) share the main “partnership attribute” – that the owners of the firm may be, if the assets of the firm are insufficient, personally liable to creditors for all debts of the firm (other than those whose creditors agree in advance to limit recourse), particularly for torts to involuntary third parties.  The availability of the unlimited liability corporate form in various jurisdiction should be further investigated.

I agree with Glassman and Nolan that governments should recognize the better risk management that partnerships are likely to conduct, but not merely in the financial sector but in other industrial, commercial and professional fields as well.   Such recognition could take the form of eased regulations, for example.  I favor aggressive pursuit of this “carrot” approach to encouraging better risk management and less shifting of risks to shareholders, government and citizens generally.  However, this fails to consider what should be done about existing public companies and other limited liability corporations.  I would urge more aggressive veil-piercing, both judicially and by statute.

In any case, it is gratifying to see this topic getting some of the attention that it deserves.

The folly practically speaks for itself. 

Why does Bjorn Lomborg think that governments can better determine worthy investments than private firms?  And that such investments should be borne by ordinary taxpayers rather than those who are generating the externalities that are the basis for his concern?  And why does he think governments around the world will each bear their fair share of such expenditures, instead of free riding?

Lomborg’s policies will simply lead to more politically directed pork (wasted money) while doing nothing to discourage GHG emissions or to encourage private investments in GHG-lite technologies. 

h/t Don Boudreaux, who startlingly calls Lomborg’s post “great good sense”!

(Jim Hansen’ “carbon tax – 100% rebate” proposal (noted in my preceding post) – which is much along the lines of the revenue-neutral carbon tax/income tax rebate that kicks in July 1st in British Columbia – makes much more sense than having the government try to micromanage investments and other private decisionmaking.)

Walter Block of Loyola University has graced the main LvMI blog with a rare post, this time a clipping – without commentary – from a piece entitled “Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age“, by Canadian conservative commentator Lorne Gunter concerning the relatively high snowfalls this winter in various parts of the North Hemisphere:   http://blog.mises.org/archives/007828.asp.

What’s the point, except to show that Prof. Block is happy to find something that feeds his own reluctance (and that on the LvMI blog generally) to talk about climate science or policy?  Where’s the beef, Prof. Block?

I posted the following to his thread; as it’s pending there I thought I’d put it up here (with a few typo corrections)

[snark level: high]

Dear Prof. Block:

Thank you for continuing in the hoary LvMI blog tradition, followed by Dr. Reisman, Sean Corrigan and many others here, of doing one’s level best, by way of self-example, to illustrate how strongly we are in the grip of reflexive cognitive patterns such as confirmation bias.

This confirmation bias helps us at LvMI to report, with self-reassuring glee, any iota of evidence that the planet might be cooling, while dodging evidence to the contrary, and to mock those who say that the “climate” is complex and not the same as the weather.

We just love confirmation bias, because it allows us to dismiss all those who have concerns about how our long-term and unmoderated experiment with the Earth’s climate and eco-systems are going as evil and/or crackpots – AND thus spares us from doing any heavy lifting on a number of distasteful tasks:

– actually trying to understand what climate scientists are saying about the climate system, our influences on it and present or future system responses;

– considering the likely consequences if we continue to treat the atmosphere and oceans as unmanaged open-access commons (Mises himself noted: “The extreme instance is provided by the case of no-man’s property referred to above. If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting [to others]”);

– engaging in a good faith discussion with those who have differing views (and their own confirmation biases, no doubt); and

– exploring Austrian and libertarian principles and explicating their possible application to the problem that others declaim (i.e., the general efficacy of property rights, problems of information and transaction costs, rent-seeking, bureaucratic mal-incentives, the lack of rule of law relating to shared global/regional commons and in poorer nations, and with coordinating action for transborder commons under a Westphalian global order, and the legacy of 150+ years of – as you have put it – the “failure of the government to uphold free enterprise with a legal system protective of private property rights“).

It is precisely this cognitive bias that Friedrich Hayek noted in his 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative”:  http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. . . . By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.”

Hayek noted these additional traits that distinguish market liberals from conservatives, which also are commonly manifested here:

• Habitual resistance to change (hence “conservative”);
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change; and
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.

The upshot?  That most of us here at LvMI are engaged in the task of convincing ourselves that the climate is not changing or that those who have concerns about it are illogical man-haters, and that we refuse to engage these others by (i) understanding first that for resources where property rights are undefined or uneforceable, public debates rather than private transactions are the chief means of expressing one’s preferences, and (ii) actively defending or advancing freedom – through attempting to persuade others.

There are other freedom-loving thinkers who have made modest starts in a productive engagement with others, such as:

–  Sheldon Richman, in his essay  “The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman”, in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman:   http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966);

–  Gene Callahan, in his essay “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming”, in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150; and

–  Edwin Dolan, in his Fall 2006 Cato Journal essay, “Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position”.  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx.

But we here at LvMI don’t want to be troubled to be productive, engage others or advance the cause of freedom, so we don’t post, cite to or discuss authors like that.  Being thoughtful or engaging is too much work!  We prefer to cherish our existing beliefs and to nourish our hatred of “enviros”, while ignoring everyone else, as I’ve noted here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/18/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/15/quot-heroic-quot-expert-voices-proven-wrong-on-agw-make-another-slick-cry-for-relevance-at-bali.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/14/who-knows-climate-science-the-mises-blog.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/24/george-reisman-or-how-i-learned-to-hate-enviros-and-love-tantrums.aspx

I am relieved that you seem to want to be one of us, and are not challenging us to get engaged, like Callahan, Richman or Dolan.

Sincerely,

Tom

PS:  One of the conditions of membership in the “Reisman/Corrigan Club”, as we sometimes call it, is that we forswear reading any of the IPCC reports and the reports of all major academies of science.  Can you confirm that you have you have not yet tainted yourself with such “information” and undertake not to?  Also, you must avoid posts by apostates such as this who post other “science” tripe:  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/01/15/did-global-warming-stop-in-1998-jim-hansen-says-no.aspx.

In their more considerate writings, Austrians have counseled a cool, rational approach to environmental issues.  But recent posts lead me to wonder whether a number of LvMI blog authors and commenters prefer hot-headed emotional outbursts and partisan, ad hominem attacks over Austrian principles, rational thinking and productive, good faith discourse.

1.  As a starting point, let me note that Roy Cordato has elegantly explored and summarized the views of various Austrian thinkers as they apply to environmental issues, including his own:

“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. Furthermore, in all three approaches, social welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. For Rothbard such conflicts arise because of interferences with the voluntary use of one’s own property. This prevents a demonstration of true preferences, moving one to a lower level of utility than would otherwise be achieved. For Kirzner interpersonal conflict that cannot be resolved by entrepreneurship and the market process gives rise to a lack of plan coordination and therefore social inefficiency. And for Cordato, conflict, that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices. A theory of environmental economics and pollution that evolves from problems associated with human conflict then would be a natural implication of each of these welfare standards.

“In addition, these standards would argue that irresolvable inefficiencies, i.e., inefficiencies that cannot find a solution in the entrepreneurial workings of the market process, arise because of institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights. In a setting where rights are clearly defined and strictly enforced, plans may conflict but the resolution to that conflict is embedded in the exchange process. In other words, conflict may arise at the planning stages but is resolved before the actors proceed with implementation of those plans.”

“In the absence of clearly defined and strictly enforced property rights this process breaks down and the conflict becomes irresolvable through the market process. Under all three Austrian approaches to welfare economics, therefore, the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights. Not surprisingly this is the approach that has been taken by nearly all Austrian economists who have looked at the issue dating back to Menger.”

I have previously explored more extensively elsewhere Cordato’s summary of Austrian views on environmental matters.  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/cordato-humans-cannot-harm-the-environment.aspx.

Cordato’s view of course meshes with that of Ludwig von Mises, who troubled himself to write directly about externalities, as I have noted earlier: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/draft.aspx

“Carried through consistently, the right of property would entitle the proprietor to claim all the advantages which the good’s employment may generate on the one hand and would burden him with all the disadvantages resulting from its employment on the other hand. Then the proprietor alone would be fully responsible for the outcome. In dealing with his property he would take into account all the expected results of his action, those considered favorable as well as those considered unfavorable. But if some of the consequences of his action are outside of the sphere of the benefits he is entitled to reap and of the drawbacks that are put to his debit, he will not bother in his planning about all the effects of his action. He will disregard those benefits which do not increase his own satisfaction and those costs which do not burden him. His conduct will deviate from the line which it would have followed if the laws were better adjusted to the economic objectives of private ownership. He will embark upon certain projects only because the laws release him from responsibility for some of the costs incurred. He will abstain from other projects merely because the laws prevent him from harvesting all the advantages derivable.”

“The laws concerning liability and indemnification for damages caused were and still are in some respects deficient. By and large the principle is accepted that everybody is liable to damages which his actions have inflicted upon other people. But there were loopholes left which the legislators were slow to fill.”

“Whether the proprietor’s relief from responsibility for some of the disadvantages resulting from his conduct of affairs is the outcome of a deliberate policy on the part of governments and legislators or whether it is an unintentional effect of the traditional working of laws, it is at any rate a datum which the actors must take into account. They are faced with the problem of external costs. Then some people choose certain modes of want-satisfaction merely on account of the fact that a part of the costs incurred are debited not to them but to other people.”

“The extreme instance is provided by the case of no-man’s property referred to above. If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting.

“It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly defective and their results deceptive. But this is not the outcome of alleged deficiencies inherent in the system of private ownership of the means of production. It is on the contrary a consequence of loopholes left in this system. It could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.”

2.  But in recent posts on the main blog on environmental issues, rather than a forthright discussion of whether there are persistent or troubling externalities that (i) prevent a demonstration of true preferences, or (ii) result in interpersonal conflict that cannot be resolved by entrepreneurship and the market process and thus gives rise to catallactic inefficiency (a lack of plan coordination and social inefficiency), we are treated to a petulant turning from good faith engagement, in favor of emotional venting, manifested as either a persistent but unsupported mockery of the views of others or as an outright, Manicheaen dismissal of the preferences of others.

a.  Exhibit 1 might be Sean Corrigan, who in a string of posts (most recently “Cold Wave Attributed to Global Warming”- http://blog.mises.org/archives/007775.asp) manifests a rather conservative streak much like that decried by Friedrich Hayek, in his 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative”.  Mr. Corrigan’s oeuvre is here:  http://blog.mises.org/archives/author/Corrigan; http://blog.mises.org/archives/author/Corrigan2.

Hayek identified the following traits that distinguish conservatism from market liberalism:

• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.”
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.

Edwin Dolan, in his Fall 2006 Cato Journal essay, “Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position”, specifically cautions that market liberals appear to be hamstringing their own analytic strengths by falling into a reflexive and conservative mindframes that benefit established economic interests.  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/14/edwin-dolan-applying-the-lockean-framework-to-climate-change.aspx.

Query:  why is it that LvMI blog authors such as Mr. Corrigan seem to consistently care more about defending an existing legal framework that clearly protect the privileges of established interests (especially the privilege to continue to freely and without restraint to exploit all commons), rather than to examine whether there is any cost-shifting going on, or any valuable resources in which there are no clear or effective owners?  Is this not a profoundly “conservative” approach, instead of one that is concerned with libertarian or Lockean principles?

Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education also recommends Dolan’s essay and calls for less wishful thinking and greater engagement by libertarians in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman:  The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman, http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966.)

Gene Callahan makes a similar warning in his essay “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming”, in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150.

Mr. Corrigan’s blog posts on environmental matters regularly elicit a fair degree of enthusiasm among fans of the Manicheaen strawman style, as I noted on an earlier blog post:  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx.

b.  We now turn reluctantly to Exhibit 2, who is none other than Dr. George Reisman, whom I understand ironically to be the translator of the von Mises passage on externalities that I quoted above.  In his latest post, trumpeted in an all-caps “ENVIRONMENTALISM IS RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM” headline, Dr. Reisman equates Environmentalism with  Communism and Nazism, in that they share “the essential common core of hatred and destruction” and “the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.”  http://blog.mises.org/archives/007793.asp

While some environmentalists may be socialists in disguise, how is this blanket and sweeping condemnation of all who care about the environment helpful, much less consistent with Austrian understanding of the externalities that give rise to environmental concerns or the Austrian principles of how to begin to address what others have expressly recognized as “tough cases”?

When I noted in my comments to Dr. Reisman’s post that environmentalists used to be called “conservationists” and were once largely wealthy conservatives, I was quickly advised by one clever fellow, more concerned with correcting me than in disagreeing with Dr. Reisman, that “these aren’t the same environmentalists that we’re talking about here”.  Allow me to paraphrase my response to him:

Yes, when challenged on these strawmen, LvMI blog commenters will acknowledge that they really only want to talk about the EVIL enviros. The rather poorly defined “Enviros” who are the target of these attacks are simply a convenient strawman, one that allows all the good freedom-loving folks at LvMI to ignore everyone else who cares about their own property, their backyard or shared commons:  wealthy people and consumers, regular folks stymied by the 150+ years that Walter Block has identified that US courts have NOT protected private property, Ruppert Murdoch and Richard Branson, the firms behind the new “Carbon Principles”, the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) http://www.us-cap.org/, the CERES group of institutional investors, the firms that are members of the PEW climate change coalition, the firms that are entering to voluntary carbon trades, the religious groups and the scientists who are suffciently concerned to publish or speak publicly, etc.

It seems rather obvious to me, at least, that the persistent use of such a sweeping strawman is simply unhelpful for analyzing whether there any so-called problems, understanding the concerns or preferences of those who declare their concern or in considering how such concerns could be best addressed within an Austrian framework.  So what explains the prevalence of this rather blind enviro-bashing?  That, I’m afraid, is rather simple, albeit understandable – it is a surrender to the ancient tribal imperative of (and emotional rewards from) engaging in partisan conflict.

As I quoted on Dr. Reisman’s comment thread, Glenn Greenwald also examines psychological motives in a recent post in which he takes neocon Mark Steyn to task for his continued war-mongering:

“There is nothing more psychologically invigorating than the belief that you are staring down the Greatest and Most Evil Enemy Ever in History, courageously waging glorious war for all that is Good and Just in the world. Nothing produces more pulsating feelings of excitement and nobility like convincing yourself that you are a Warrior defending Western Civilization from the greatest threat it has ever faced, following in — even surpassing — the mighty footsteps of the Greatest Generation and the Warrior-Crusaders who came before them.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/17/steyn/index.html.  Clearly this type of analysis has its limits in any given case, but it is such an identifable phenomenon that I couldn’t help wondering on Dr. Reisman’s comment thread:

Mark Steyn : Islamofascism : : George Reisman : Environmentalism?

Those who think they’ve identified demons ought to have sense to question whether they are falling into a cognitive trap – of the kind that throws reason and caution out the door, while giving free rein to confirmation bias, prejudice and fears of enemies.  This is quite common and indeed predictable, as many have noted.  We aren’t computers, after all, but merely human.

But this is the very reason why many on the blog (as on sharp display in Mr. Corrigan’s last thread) like to thrill to the emotional satisfactions of seeing those with whom they disagree (viz., yours truly) as close to the Devil incarnate, simply because I persist in being an outlier and thus a sore thumb here.  To them I say, okay, but have some sympathy for the Devil, as my diabolic aspects may simply be your own creation – and I continue to call you to constructively engage with those you least sympathize with.

Or have I fundamentally misunderstood Austrianism?

Let me close by repeating my statement on Sean Corrigan’s most recent thread:  it is has been my sad experience over the past two years here that there is very little appetite for exploring Cordato’s “tough cases”. Rather, on environmental matters, the modus operandi of many LvMI authors and commenters appears to be: Abandon all logic, all ye who enter here, and let’s band together and blame everything on those evil misanthropes (whomever they may be) – ignoring all others but those hated strawmen!  In honor of two leading lights who regularly exhibit this behavior, I have begun to call it the “Reisman Rule” or the “Corrigan Creed”: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx

—
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynman

I would like to bring readers’ attention to Edwin G. Dolan’s “Science, Public Policy and Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position“, from the Fall 2006 issue of The Cato Journal: www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-3.pdf.  Dolan examines libertarian, “market liberal” reactions to climate change and walks through Lockean provisions that he believes require further consideration and elaboration by libertarians in the context of climate change.

FWIW, Dolan was the editor of the Austrian classic, The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976)(online here: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMAContents.html), and author of the classic pamphlet TANSTAAFL: An Economic Strategy for the Environmental Crisis (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971), which outlined Dolan’s chief perspective:

The fundamental principle on which this strategy is built may be expressed in a simple slogan—There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, the “TANSTAAFL principle,” for short. The TANSTAAFL principle is closely related to the fundamental theorem of ecological economics, that everything depends on everything else. Everything worthwhile has a cost. Whenever you think you are getting something for nothing, look again—someone, somewhere, somehow is paying for it. Behind every free lunch there is a hidden cost to be accounted for.

The task of ecological economics is to figure out how to restructure the economic system so that these hidden costs will be brought out into the open, with the ultimate aim that no one who benefits from the use of the environment will be able to escape without paying in full. The rest of this book is devoted to working out specific applications of this general strategy in order to deal with specific problems.

In the interest of assisting readers, I take the liberty of excerpting liberally from Dolan’s Cato article below.

First, Dolan suggests that many libertarian climate skeptics are acting quite as if they are “conservatives” of the type condemned by Friedrich Hayek.  Dolan cites Hayek’s 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (1960), in which Hayek identified the following traits that distinguish conservatism from market liberalism:

• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.”
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.

Second, Dolan examines whether any of the above “conservative” traits are at work in libertarian positions on climate change.

… We need to address several questions. One issue is what the status is of the privileges and interests of those who are threatened by the possibility of climate change and of those who are threatened by proposed actions to mitigate it. Which of these has the greater claim to the sympathy of market liberals, when viewed in terms of the standards they apply in other areas of public policy? Another issue is what the values are that lie behind the positions taken by various parties to the debate. The issue of values may determine when market liberals can make principled alliances with one of the other corners of the triangle and when they want to make only tactical alliances. Still another issue is what manner of argument should be employed. For example, what is the proper attitude toward the purely scientific element in the global warming controversy? It will be worth taking a closer look at this last issue before proceeding further.

Hayek expresses himself so well on the role of science that it is worth quoting him at length:

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. . . . By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts [Hayek 1960: 404](emphasis added).

This passage raises obvious questions for the global warming debate. What lies behind the skepticism of market liberals regarding the propositions that the world is getting warmer at a rate that is unusually rapid in climate history, if not altogether unprecedented, and that this apparent trend is likely the joint product of natural cycles and human activity, rather than of the former acting alone? Are liberals correctly rejecting an inadequately grounded scientific fad? Or are they refusing to acknowledge facts for fear that doing so would upset their cherished beliefs?  …

Fortunately, the supposed dilemma is a false one. Liberals have long acclaimed the market as a way of adapting to change, and climate change should be no exception. … Also, market liberals should know well that effective environmental policy does not have to take the form of heavy-handed commandand-control measures. … The same kind of market-oriented policies should be possible in the case of climate change.

In short, if one takes into account both the market’s potential for adapting to change and market-based policy alternatives, there is no reason for market liberals to be anything but open-minded toward ongoing developments in climate science, whether those developments, as they unfold, reveal indications or counter-indications of global warming.

There could, instead, be another explanation for some market liberals’ apparent close-mindedness toward the global warming hypothesis. It could be that, when taking a position on issues of climatology, they are speaking not from perceived threats to their beliefs, but out of loyalty to conservative interests with whom they have struck some tactical alliance. For example, policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, no matter how carefully market-guided in their design, are likely to undermine the interests of politically powerful producers of carbon-based energy. Equally, they are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the United States relative to other, less carbon intensive, economies. It is understandable that a conservative member of Congress could be pledged to uphold the interests of energy industry workers or shareholders from his or her home constituency. It is also understandable that a U.S. negotiator at an international conference could work to increase the benefits for the United States of a proposed treaty while shifting the costs to other countries. What is harder to understand is why market liberals would see fit to support such positions, unless for the narrowest of tactical reasons. …

(emphasis added) 

Third, Dolan spends considerable time discussing how the Lockean framework of rights and duties applies to climate change, which he frames as follows:

In the case of global warming, the relevant unenclosed commons include the world air-shed, which, in one of its several competing uses, serves as a sink for greenhouse gasses, and the oceans, which serve as a sink for heat generated by the greenhouse effect and a catchment basin for melting ice. (We are still stipulating scientific certainty of these effects.) Whatever adverse impact the Midwestern power plant has on the Bangladeshi farmer are transmitted through the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on these common-property resources. What does a Lockean approach tell us about rights to make use of the global atmospheric and oceanic commons, and about how those rights might be established?

Dolan walks carefully through Locke’s three rights and three corresponding duties, which he summarizes as follows:

Rights:
• to property in one’s own person
• to property in the fruits of one’s own labor
• to property in land and natural resources taken from nature when mixed with one’s own labor

Duties:
• to abstain from harming others
• to abstain from taking property of others
• to leave enough and as good for others when taking from the common

His discussion here is quite useful.

Finally, Dolan summarizes his own analysis of “the proper market-liberal position on global warming,” that is, one “constructed on a sound Lockean respect for the persons and property of others”:

First, market liberals should keep arguments based on comparisons of costs and benefits in proper perspective. The fact that an action produces net benefits, even very large net benefits, does not shield the actor from liability if it also does harm. The relative magnitude of the costs and benefits, or their relative probabilities, is, in this regard, irrelevant. The duty not to harm people in their persons or property is not to be bypassed on the basis of any facile cost-benefit calculus. This is an essential part of what distinguishes the classical liberal tradition from other political theories that would invoke the power of the state to override individual rights in favor of some greater societal utility. This being said, cost-benefit calculations may in some other respects be relevant to the formulation of a market-liberal position on global warming. They may help choose between different mechanisms for implementing climate change policy. They may be relevant to the decision of whether to abstain from possibly harmful actions, or to risk possible harm while accepting a contingent duty of restitution. And they may be relevant to whether harm is better avoided by mitigation of climate change, or instead compensated through investments that help victims of climate change to adapt.

Second, the market-liberal position should be distinct from a conservative position that defends unjustly acquired privileges. Liberalism in America, in particular, grew up in a Lockean state of nature where it was really true, or at least seemed true, that homesteaders, loggers, grazers, and industrialists could take what they needed while leaving “enough and as good for others.” What the environmentalist side of the global warming debate is telling us is that we no longer live in such a world. It is not just that we can take no more from the commons; we have quite possibly already taken so much as to have breached our duty not to engross. To be sure, the science of just how much can safely be taken is not yet perfect. We may be way past the limit already or still a bit short of it. But to cry foul because those who have taken the most are now asked to bear a substantial share of the costs is not liberalism.

Third, market liberals should keep a clear head when it comes to the relationship between science and public policy. It is fine to be legitimately cautious when policies are urged on the basis of weakly established scientific fads. One should be vigilant against attempts to smuggle questionable economic or political assumptions into scientific analysis, as is sometimes done in the global warming debate, and also to possible biases in research produced by grant-seeking and public choice considerations. But at the same time, as Hayek warned, any reluctance to accept new scientific theories must itself be rational and must be kept separate from the regret that the new theories may upset cherished beliefs (let alone that they threaten the financial interests of useful allies). This is a fine line to walk, and I fear that the market-liberal camp may at times have overstepped it.

Fourth, market liberals should think about the implications of their principles not just for public policy, but for their personal conduct. It is fashionable in some conservative circles to ridicule environmentalism as a new religion that calls for a personal morality of abstinence (see, for example, Schlesinger 2005). Perhaps market liberals would not want to describe their beliefs as a religion, but all of the great thinkers to whom they pay homage make it clear that the duty not to harm others in their persons or property is not just an abstract guideline for public policy, but a specific imperative of personal morality.  To cede the moral high ground on environmental issues to the left is not just tactically foolish, it is unprincipled. To put it simply, a market liberal should not be ashamed to drive a Prius rather than a Humvee.

These broad outlines of a market-liberal position on global warming leave a great deal of room for debate and discussion. They leave open the whole area of how to design a policy to deal with global warming. Are the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol so serious that it is worse than doing nothing at all? Perhaps so—even its staunchest supporters acknowledge that it has many limitations. Should we act now, based on current scientific knowledge? Or should we wait, while firmly insisting on the principle of contingent liability, being prepared to make restitution should subsequent harm turn out to be greater than optimists think it will be? In formulating global warming policy, should each country act unilaterally, based on a duty to avoid harm regardless of what others do, or is it best to try to negotiate international agreements? If measures are to be taken, what role should be given to market-based mechanisms like tradable permits? How can such market-like devices, if used, be introduced in a way that respects existing property rights? How do such devices relate to Lockean principles regarding enclosure and management of residual unenclosed commons?

By addressing these and other questions, market liberals can make a uniquely valuable contribution to the global warming debate. If, however, they allow themselves to be perceived as ostriches whose only policy in the face of uncertainty is to hope for the best while ignoring the worst, and base their position on climate policy on arguments that they would disdain in any other context, they will end up making no useful contribution at all.

(emphasis added)

I hope others will take the time to look through Dolan’s framework, which I believe is useful as a call for constructive engagement by libertarians, even as it does not examine particular policy suggestions* or claim to be complete.  (For example, as Jeff Tucker has observed on another thread, Dolan’s article does not discuss the competency of the state to address climate change, if it is a problem.)

(h/t Donny with an A: http://mises.org/Community/members/Donny-with-an-A.aspx.  I note also that Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education also recommends Dolan’s essay and calls for less wishful thinking and greater engagement by libertarians in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman: The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman, http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966.)

*  I note that Dolan has previously discussed pollution trading permits in the context of acid rain; his remarks were examined by Robert McGee and Walter Block in their “Pollution Trading Permits as a Form of Market Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution,” Fordham Environmental Law Journal, vol. 16 (1994): 58  http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/100flspub4011.pdf.

For convenience of reference, I`ve excerpted from the long “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp) those portions of the exchange of posts I and others had with Fundamentalist that relate to creation science. [This is a re-post – as the first wouldn’t format correctly. Some formatting has been lost.]

Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.” Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38’s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 4, 2007 8:43 PM

Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist! A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group? Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them? And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from? http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62

That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness. TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 4, 2007 10:30 PM

Fundamentalist, By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops? Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 5, 2007 10:22 PM

TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?” 100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 7:39 PM

Fundamentalist/Roger: Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.

I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation. My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it? If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?) Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation. Respectfully, Tom

PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars:

God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation. http://www.icr.org/article/3337/

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/

ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands. http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/

In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/3474/

The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!] http://www.icr.org/article/678/
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 6, 2007 9:12 PM

TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.” Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980’s. And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution.

Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too.

TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.” That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.

TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…” Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 11:23 PM

Roger: A few points:

1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.” “the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.” “I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.”

Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview? Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?

“The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/”

“However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355”

2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets.”

These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power.

3. “Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t.”

Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail.

4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios”

Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group?

5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?”

Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position.

6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.”

For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges? Regards, TT

“[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 10, 2007 5:33 AM

TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?” I agree with all of them.

But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist.

Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority.

I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?” and “If not, how does it work?” The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about.

After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism.

Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.” Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM

“…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…” …or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.
Posted by: Jean Paul at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM

Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.” You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 10:03 PM

Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific. Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:31 AM

TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.” I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:03 AM

TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…” You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:08 AM

Fundamentalist/Roger: So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US. Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”.

You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:16 PM

TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…” You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either. You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.

TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.” Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 2:35 PM

Fundamentalist: – Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all?

– Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists?

– I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it?

– Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture.

– If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore.

– “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”.

– “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain.

– “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy. I do appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Tom

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 10:10 PM

… 6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 15, 2007 11:16 PM

TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…” I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 16, 2007 8:06 AM

Roger/Fundamentalist: Thanks for your further comments. …

2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR? I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following:

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/

3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?”

The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change? “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 17, 2007 2:25 AM

TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:” How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently.

As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds.

All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific?

“Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong” As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them.

TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?” Yes I disagree.

TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…?” No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:07 PM

“But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!”  Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:10 PM

Fundamentalist: … 2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode.

3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong.” You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland? …

5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.” And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 6:16 AM

TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,...” And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology.

TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.” You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well.

TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?” The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it.

TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.” I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 8:03 AM

Fundamentalist: …

2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested.

3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites? The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 9:51 AM

TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.” Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough.

TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.” If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at www.creationscience.com.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Roger, I didn’t call you stupid. You are obviously very intelligent, but like the rest of fundamentalists, I see you as invested primarily in defending a particular mind view. Cognitive conservatism is a basic human trait that we all have to struggle with, and I also am a sinner.

3. On creationism, I am certainly not twisting what you said, but mirroring it to you by asking you to confirm whether you intend the implications. You indicated that, like my argument about creationists, evolutionists also “start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied” and that “The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that?” How is it at all “twisting your words” (much less a juvenile debating tactic) to ask you whether you are “seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang?” In fact, that is precisely what you suggested, and it is clearly wrong. Darwin and other evolutionists didn’t start by positing a Big Bang or some such thing at all, but by looking at the differences between clearly related species and wondering if there was a scientific (non-God, non-magical) explanation for them. OTHER scientists got to the Big Bang – not as anything proven, but as a theory – by working backwards from a growing understanding of mechanics, physics and evidence of the motions of stars and galaxies collected with increasingly sophisticated instruments.

4. On the ice core data, I’d like to take a look at what “www.creationscience.com” has to say, and to put it up on my blog with the various sites I’ve offered to you. I’ve taken a look, but can’t find the chapter you’re referring to. Could I trouble you for a more precise link? BTW, the creationist response to the article on ice core dating that I sent you earlier precisely indicates my criticism of creationism generally. Allow me to quote:

“The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. … If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right. “It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

This creationist is clearly trying to fit the facts into his Bible-based view of reality rather than conducting science; scientists, on the other hand, work from the assumption that, to the extent possible, physical laws rather than magic or miracles should provide the basis for our understanding of the world. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 19, 2007 1:15 AM

<blockquote>[Sorry about this mess.  I was able to get the formatting to work here:  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/30/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx]</blockquote>

For convenience of reference, I`ve excerpted from the long “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp) those portions of the exchange of posts I and others had with Fundamentalist that relate to creation science. Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.” Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38’s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 4, 2007 8:43 PM Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist! A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group? Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them? And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from? http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62 That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness. TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 4, 2007 10:30 PM Fundamentalist, By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops? Regards, TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 5, 2007 10:22 PM TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?” 100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 7:39 PM Fundamentalist/Roger: Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist. I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation. My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it? If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?) Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation. Respectfully, Tom PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars: God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation. http://www.icr.org/article/3337/ The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/ ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/ However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355 Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/ The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands. http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/ In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/3474/ The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!] http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Posted by: TokyoTom at October 6, 2007 9:12 PM TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.” Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980’s. And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution. Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too. TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.” That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old. TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…” Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 11:23 PM Roger: A few points: 1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.” “the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.” “I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.” Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview? Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with? “The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/” “However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355” 2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets. These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power. 3. “Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t. Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail. 4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios” Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group? 5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?” Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position. 6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.” For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges? Regards, TT “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Posted by: TokyoTom at October 10, 2007 5:33 AM TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?” I agree with all of them. But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist. Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority. I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?” and “If not, how does it work?” The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about. After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism. Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came. Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.” Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM “…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…” …or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes. Posted by: Jean Paul at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.” You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 10:03 PM Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific. Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:31 AM TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.” I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:03 AM TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…” You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:08 AM Fundamentalist/Roger: So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US. Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”. You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift. Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:16 PM TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…” You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either. You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself. TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.” Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 2:35 PM Fundamentalist: – Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all? – Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists? – I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it? – Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture. – If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore. – “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”. – “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain. – “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy. I do appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 10:10 PM 6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 15, 2007 11:16 PM TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…” I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 16, 2007 8:06 AM Roger/Fundamentalist: Thanks for your further comments. 2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR? I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following: However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355 Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/ It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/ 3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?” The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change? “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Regards, TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 17, 2007 2:25 AM TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:” How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently. As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds. All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific? “Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong” As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them. TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?” Yes I disagree. TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…? No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:07 PM “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:10 PM Fundamentalist: 2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode. 3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong.” You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland? 5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.” And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 6:16 AM TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,…” And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology. TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.” You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well. TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?” The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it. TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.” I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 8:03 AM Fundamentalist: 2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested. 3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites? The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 9:51 AM TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.” Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough. TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.” If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at www.creationscience.com. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 12:30 PM Roger, I didn’t call you stupid. You are obviously very intelligent, but like the rest of fundamentalists, I see you as invested primarily in defending a particular mind view. Cognitive conservatism is a basic human trait that we all have to struggle with, and I also am a sinner. 3. On creationism, I am certainly not twisting what you said, but mirroring it to you by asking you to confirm whether you intend the implications. You indicated that, like my argument about creationists, evolutionists also “start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied” and that “The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that?” How is it at all “twisting your words” (much less a juvenile debating tactic) to ask you whether you are “seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang?” In fact, that is precisely what you suggested, and it is clearly wrong. Darwin and other evolutionists didn’t start by positing a Big Bang or some such thing at all, but by looking at the differences between clearly related species and wondering if there was a scientific (non-God, non-magical) explanation for them. OTHER scientists got to the Big Bang – not as anything proven, but as a theory – by working backwards from a growing understanding of mechanics, physics and evidence of the motions of stars and galaxies collected with increasingly sophisticated instruments. 4. On the ice core data, I’d like to take a look at what “www.creationscience.com” has to say, and to put it up on my blog with the various sites I’ve offered to you. I’ve taken a look, but can’t find the chapter you’re referring to. Could I trouble you for a more precise link? BTW, the creationist response to the article on ice core dating that I sent you earlier precisely indicates my criticism of creationism generally. Allow me to quote: “The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. … If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right. “It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp This creationist is clearly trying to fit the facts into his Bible-based view of reality rather than conducting science; scientists, on the other hand, work from the assumption that, to the extent possible, physical laws rather than magic or miracles should provide the basis for our understanding of the world. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 19, 2007 1:15 AM