I introduce this policy because while it is quite controversial I think it is an important area where the LDP can make a stand. Global warming is happening and could potentially become one of the most important challenges of this century, but I (and the party) continues to doubt the usefullness of Kyoto or other similar policy options being proposed to reverse climate change.
It is important for us to retain our intellectual credibility and therefore it is vital that we approach this issue carefully and without over-statement. But as a point of clear differentiation between ourselves and other parties it is an issue that we should not shy away from. I am particularly hopefull that the resident libertarian AGW-blog-campaigner Terje will be able to caste his astute eye over our policy.
The LDP acknowledges that there is scientific evidence to indicate a trend towards global warming. However, the degree of human influence, likely consequences and what we can effectively do about it are far from certain.
Indeed, the evidence to support these propositions is weak and there is no scientific consensus. Some of the scientific evidence suggests that global warming is largely (if not entirely) a natural event that has been occurring since the dawn of time. Much of human history has been subject to the effects of global warming or cooling – the origins of the Sumerian, Babylonian and biblical stories of a great flood, for example, are probably due to a massive rise in sea levels following global warming 7,600 years ago. Global cooling from 1300 to 500 BC gave rise to the advance of glaciers, migration, invasion and famine. The Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300 AD led to the Vikings establishing colonies and trade routes.1
However, whether humans are responsible for global climate change or not, the important issue is whether government is able to introduce any policies that produce a likely net benefit. Given the uncertainty, it would not be legitimate for governments to intervene in the energy market on the assumption that global warming can or should be stopped. Only if the evidence were to become considerably more convincing would that be acceptable, and even then there is a risk that government intervention would inhibit rather than facilitate a solution.
Therefore, based on evidence to date, the LDP does not support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol as there is insufficient evidence that doing so would create a net benefit. It also does not support the use of public funds to subsidise particular types of energy or the imposition of additional taxes on particular types of energy.
It nonetheless supports research to establish whether and by how much global warming is due to human activity and also into potential responses to global warming, whatever its cause.
October 25, 2006 at 12:46 am |
Recently you implied that only economists were suited to commenting on the formulation of Global Warming policy. That was a mistake I think you should avoid repeating.
The fact that there has been past climate change that was not caused by humans is completely accepted in the scientific community, although it never hurts to remind people.
If you think that the risk that AGW might be real is enough to warrant public money being spent on more climate change research then why not spend public money on alternate energy research? Where do you draw the line. Is the use of public money to create understanding fundamentally any different to the use of public funds to create technology?
Given how much all taxes distort things anyway would a shift in focus from taxing income to taxing CO2 emmissions cause a loss of liberty or would it just change the mix of freedoms?
I think the LDP needs a policy on climate change but I agree it should be a small target policy. The philosophy of freedom does have something to add to this debate however so much hinges on whether the problem is real or not. If the LDP wants to ignore expert opinion then it either needs its own experts that can argue the other way or else it need to say something intelligent about why expert opinion should be ignored.
Does the LDP on the balance of probabilities accept the AGW theory? Or is it the case that the views of its members vary on this question and so it is still too early to state a position? This whole issue seems to be about weighing risks and I can’t easily find a black and white position on this issue myself. As I keep telling John Quiggin I’m a skeptic not a denialist.
I do think it is possible to ratify Kyoto introduce emissions trading and still achieve a massive reduction in the size of the state. However if your about reducing the size of the state then Kyoto would be a funny starting point. Maybe the LDP could argue that any expansion of the state in one area can only be tolerated if the state retreats in other areas and we would bargain according to those terms. So if an ALP government wanted to ratify Kyoto and needed LDP support we would horse trade for increased economic freedom overall. The LDP must stand first and foremost for freedom and must give voice to that cause. Perhaps it is enough to acknowlede the problem of climate change and simple point out that we are here to give voice to other problems. Does one party need to pretend it has all the answers?
October 25, 2006 at 8:43 am |
“Recently you implied that only economists were suited to commenting on the formulation of Global Warming policy. That was a mistake I think you should avoid repeating.”
Well as a statement its a bit of an exaggeration but its also a necessary corrective.
For too long we have had science workers telling us about ECONOMIC EFFECTS…. Yet so often its hard to pin them down on straight science questions.
There is simply no cause to suspect net costs to CO2 release in the next two centuries.
But I must confess I’ve not been all that successful in clarifying concrete facts on scientific matters on the net.
Most capital gets used and must be replaced pretty quickly. The more durable stuff requires constant maintenance. So the idea that CLIMATE CHANGE necessarily means all these net costs has two unrealistic ideas to it.
1. Climate Change happens because of us. Climate Change happens no matter what. We will likely be making it a bit more comfortable then it otherwise would be.
2. That old investments wouldn’t have to be trashed and new investments wouldn’t have to be made in other areas IN ANY CASE.
Change is guaranteed and so some investments will fade away in some areas and new investment will show up in other areas.
So the craziness is we have had these science workers assuming it will be all nastiness and chaos that there will be change all over the place.
When a sober economist (if he understood the science) would say it was no pressure at all.
October 25, 2006 at 9:04 am |
Graemebird,
The same set of logic would say that if Kyoto is imposed it is no big deal either. We will just adapt and get on with life. However I think you are being a little simplistic.
Also I think that the priests of doom are more often journalists that scientists.
Regards,
Terje.
October 25, 2006 at 11:27 am |
Economists should recognise their limitations just as much as brain surgeons and climate researchers. Nobody has a monopoly on knowlege, while experience brings wisdom.
A no-longer-young economist wrote about climate change in the Australian newspaper today. His final paragraph read as follows:
“Global warming is taking place, but how fast it will proceed, what its causes and consequences are, and what can, or should, be done to attempt to mitigate it are still matters of legitimate debate, not the subject of a phoney scientific consensus.”
That precisely expressed both my view and LDP policy. Unless the science becomes much more compelling, I can’t see any reason to alter either.
October 25, 2006 at 2:05 pm |
It’s probably my view also. However in terms of climate experts, in other words those that have made a speciality and a profession out of climate science, there doesn’t seem to be too many willing to argue that the AGW theory is possibly incorrect (with a few notable exceptions). This is a political problem as the Liberals have already figured out.
The LDP is here to be a voice for liberty rather than pitching for the job of government, so it can probably sit on the fence on this issue and get away with it. However John Humphrey talked about the LDP taking a stand on this issue. Saying that we are still debating it or that we want more public debate isn’t what I think of when somebody suggests taking a stand. If he means that the LDP opposes government action on AGW for the time being then that seems suitably modest.
If the LDP opposes government action to address AGW then I hope on principle it oppose the Howard government “lets pick winners” rhetoric more harshly that the ALPs “lets set a price signal and let the market sort it out” approach. I much prefer something like MRET over industry grants.
October 26, 2006 at 12:02 am |
“there doesn’t seem to be too many willing to argue that the AGW theory is possibly incorrect”
As far as global warming occurring, I’d agree. Few question that.
Whether human activity is a significant contributor, I disagree. There are actually plenty who question that.
And finally, whether there are realistic, affordable changes in human activity that could halt and then reverse the process, I’d say a majority would say no. That’s pretty much where the Stockholm Consensus got to as well.
October 26, 2006 at 12:07 am |
One of these days I was planning on compiling a thorough list of scientists who disagree with the assertion that global warming is caused by human activity. Has anyone else done this already?
October 26, 2006 at 1:32 am |
Since August 2005 the following list has been growing:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_theory
I am surprised (and influenced) by how few names there are on the list.
October 26, 2006 at 4:12 am |
Are there any qualified members of the LDP who have thoroughly investigated the actual studies on both sides of the debate? Just wondering what you base your policies on.
October 26, 2006 at 8:33 am |
“The same set of logic would say that if Kyoto is imposed it is no big deal either. ”
No thats NOT right.
Since physical force is involved.
Try and organise your thoughts.
What have you to say on the SCIENCE?
What have you to say on the ECONOMICS?
October 26, 2006 at 8:35 am |
“Are there any qualified members of the LDP who have thoroughly investigated the actual studies on both sides of the debate? Just wondering what you base your policies on.”
Qualified in WHAT?
Economics or science or what?
You bring on the evidence. The panic side of the argument is strangely short of science.
October 26, 2006 at 8:38 am |
“One of these days I was planning on compiling a thorough list of scientists who disagree with the assertion that global warming is caused by human activity. Has anyone else done this already?”
Well thats not really the way to word it.
Industrial CO2 release is GOOD.
And one of the MANY good things it does is make the planet more cozy.
The real debate is whether it warms thing just a little bit…. or should we break out the champagne since it warms us a bunch more.
October 26, 2006 at 8:41 am |
“Economists should recognise their limitations just as much as brain surgeons and climate researchers. Nobody has a monopoly on knowlege, while experience brings wisdom.”
Well thats fine. But they haven’t been asserting themselves at all.
We are getting economic judgements from UN science workers as the ongoing currency.
I sez the current crop of scientists aren’t really up to their heritage.
But if I’m wrong lets see some science from the panic crowd.
Too much hot air and no science.
October 26, 2006 at 10:14 pm |
Graeme,
From your statements I take it that your position is that industrial CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm but that a warmer planet is on balance a good thing. As such you seem to be an advocate for the AGW theory. Is this an accurate summation of your view?
Regards,
Terje.
October 27, 2006 at 12:09 am |
Bird is just being juvenile. He doesn’t have a coherent position on AGW, he just rebels against whatever he perceives authority’s position to be. If “authority” says AGW is happening, he’ll say it isn’t. If “authority” says AGW is bad he’ll say its good.
That adding greenhouse gases to its atmosphere makes a planet warmer is physics that’s been around since the 19th century. The quantum of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly since pre-industrial times and it’s not controversial that humans are largely responsible. It would be childish for the LDP to have a policy that denies this.
October 27, 2006 at 12:51 am |
Terje I found another list of global warming sceptic scientists (and non-scientists): see here.
I am sure there are many scientists who disagree on the causes and extent of the theory of global warming. It’s just a matter of someone sitting down and listing them.
And then there is further disagreement on how to respond to the roblem, and how quickly to respond – whether we should do it voluntarily or be coerced.
In any case, good science is not ascertained by the number of people advocating a particular view (or who they are funded by).
October 27, 2006 at 5:08 am |
Sukrit,
You are right that numbers don’t prove the argument. However libertarians articulate a lot of faith in most people to do the right thing most of the time. If most scientists are misrepresenting the facts of the matter then we have a lot more to be worried about that just the climate.
I don’t mind the LDP opposing Kyoto or government action in general. I would prefer the LDP to state that it prefers price signals (eg a tax or trading scheme) over and above the governments current political approach of hand picking winners. I would oppose the LDP making claims about climate science that are too far out on the fringe, although it should defend the fringe dwellers right to argue their case.
Regards,
Terje.
October 27, 2006 at 6:30 am |
Many reputable scientists can be wrong or deluded. The support given to eugenics from unlikely quarters is an example. Another is the famous wager Julian Simon made with environmental scientist Paul Ehrlich. We have been subjected to doomsday scenarios before.
While scientists may see something that could become a problem (eg overpopulation), they may not see the solution is achievable through other means than coercion. In the case of population they may not see that forced sterlisation is not needed because the trend among countries that become wealthier is reduced fertility. It’s a certain type of lateral thinking.
For example, while scientists might look at declining absolute levels of oil and say we need the government to ration it for us, an economist would tell you price signals would drive us towards alternatives long before that.
What we need on global warming/climate change is more lateral thinking that goes beyond the knee-jerk reaction. Or else, we need more certainty in the science if we are to reduce our standard of living to stave off ‘doom’.
Anyway, I will see what I can do about compiling a list of sceptics.
October 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm |
“it’s not controversial that humans are largely responsible. It would be childish for the LDP to have a policy that denies this.”
This is the kind of PC dogma the LDP must resist. The issue is certainly controversial and there is nothing childish about a policy that preservves a a degree of scepticism in the face of a herd mentality.
Increases in CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) production due to human activity are not the issue. What is in question is whether the increase in global temperatures is attributable to human activity given the existence of significant compensatory mechanisms. For example, CO2 encourages plant growth, precipitation and cloud cover, blocking the sun and lowering temperatures.
It is entirely conceivable that the impact of human activity is insignificant relative to naturally occuring factors, including volcanoes. Not even global warming fanatics claim that humans were responsible for the last episode of global warming, yet it happened anyway. So why is this one different?
I believe it is best to ignore the herd and stick with facts.
October 27, 2006 at 2:10 pm |
You’ve read the IPCC reports then and found them factually inaccurate? Tell us about it.
“So why is this one different?” because this time there are humans adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
October 27, 2006 at 3:16 pm |
A reputable scientists being wrong is different to the vast bulk or reputable scientists being wrong. Althought that is of course possible also.
I don’t know of anybody studying such things that refutes that the rise in CO2 over the last century is man made. The debate is over the implications of rising CO2 and whether it is linked to the observed rise in temperature.
If you do know of alternate theories to explain the rise in CO2 I would be interested to hear them. I am already familiar with alternate theories to explain the rise in temperature.
October 27, 2006 at 4:01 pm |
Terje, an alternative theory for CO2 concentration increase: plate tectonics. Limestone reacts with silicates at convergent plate boundaries, yielding wollastonite and carbon dioxide. I believe that caused (contributed to?) the end of the lsat ice age.
I’m of the view that no government action is required on this issue. Industry should be encouraged to cleaner production. Thing is, most industries are heading that way anyway, for the fact that throwing soot into the atmosphere is less efficient than burning all of it. Also, attitudes have changed in the last couple of decades, and pollution is widely unacceptable (as was discussed recently at ALS).
Keep in mind the way scientists get a bit too excited about their own field, and tend to overstate what research shows _could_ happen. My sister is a pharmacist, and has been known to get wound up over my grandmother taking the occasional aspirin. She can rattle off heaps of possible adverse reactions, when the truth is *deep breath* chances are nothing will happen.
October 27, 2006 at 4:02 pm |
And besides, I think we humans have proven ourselves to be a fairly hardy mob. If oceans rise and it gets a bit warmer, I’m confident we can find a way to get by.
October 28, 2006 at 12:18 am |
Dane,
Can you link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper discussing your theory? I would like to read more about it.
As for “find a way to get by”, that may be but it sure sucks if you’re Bangladesh ot Tuvalu.
Some Libertarians are awfully blase about destroying other’s property.
Sceptics often talk about “net costs” to humanity, smug in the knowledge that it won’t be their home that gets flooded. How does the “net cost” brigade feel about paying compensation to countries whose property is damaged?
October 28, 2006 at 8:43 am |
In the context of climate change, peers unfortunately lack credibility. A “peer-reviewed scientific paper”, on either side of the debate, does not carry the authority one would expect.
Some sources that challenge the orthodox view (particularly that of the IPCC) can be found at http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-ccb17.php
In particular note the following sentence: “McKitrick’s analysis that the modelling was fundamentally flawed and the data unrepresentative is now regarded as correct. The work behind the chart was not checked before the IPCC endorsed and headlined it.”
An older site that accepts the rise in CO2 but challenges whether it is responsible for a rise in temperatures can be found at:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm The science here is quite well argued.
There are many more, none of which prove anything. Which is exactly my point – nothing is proven.
I find John’s comments about Bangladesh and Tuvalu irrational. On what basis would compensation be paid? By whom?
October 28, 2006 at 1:50 pm |
Dave, when I read this from your link I gave up:
“Most Governments around the world are not persuaded by the claims that global warming presents a cataclysmic threat. If they were, they would not have walked away from the Kyoto Protocol.”
This is nonsense. Kyoto is a flawed treaty, as you state in the first paragraph of your policy. Governments rejecting a flawed treaty has nothing to do with the climate science.
“I find John’s comments about Bangladesh and Tuvalu irrational. On what basis would compensation be paid? By whom?”
Assuming sea levels rose and it was generally accepted that it was caused by C02 emissions, why shouldn’t the polluting countries compensate those affected?
October 28, 2006 at 6:49 pm |
My tectonics theory was something off the top of my head, to point out that there are a number of possibilities. I’ve had another look at the geology book it came from (Plummer et al, 2005, Physical Geology 10th edition, McGraw Hill, Boston), and it turns out that effect was significant between 50 and 60 million years ago, when the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate to form the Himalayas. Dunno, maybe it’s occuring now as well.
Maybe it’s due to subsea carbon sinks changing (I found a paper on this, but it’s not in a public database. I can email it.). Maybe there are fewer surface rocks being weathered (which consumes CO2).
Or maybe CO2 concentrations follow temperatures. We can be farily certain the two are linked, but no one knows which is cause and which is effect. Roger Revelle, the bloke who started all this research in the 1950s said it was too early to take drastic action.
Paying compensation to countries swamped by rising seas is impractical. As David said, how do we work out the payments? Should I pay to put all the houses on Tuvalu up on stilts because people in my country have been burning coal for 200 years? That seems to contradict the LDP position on the Iraq war.
JohnZ, if “generally accepted” is anything like the current “consensus”, it ain’t good enough.
October 28, 2006 at 7:28 pm |
Today’s Age has an article on how the Howard government is subsidising polluters. The LDP may want to include something about cutting off such subsidies.
This is a non-coercive way of forcing people to bear the real costs of their actions, and coupled with Pigouvian taxes and voluntary codes of practice on certain polluters, may be the best option until the science becomes clearer.
Here’s the money quote from the Industry minister:
Uh… yes, that’s exactly what we expect you to do, TAX-EATER (kudos to Graeme Bird for the term).
October 28, 2006 at 7:53 pm |
Why do my comments keep getting put in moderation?
Re: the Pigouvian taxes: is this an issue libertarians agree on? While we don’t want to give the government an excuse to increase its coffers and as there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, perhaps more toll roads/private roads would be better for the environment than revenue that goes to the government?
October 29, 2006 at 1:18 am |
Dane, no one disputes that there are many possibilities for explaining global warming. A lot of smart people work in climatology and I think it’s highly unlikely that they would overlook your theory if it had merit.
Unless you’re going to take the position that “all texts are equal”, you have to accept that the majority of climatologists believe that humans are at least partly to blame for global warming. That is not to say that there is no doubt on the matter, but the science is well established enough that anyone who wants to dispute it needs a solid scientific argument, not something they though of “off the top of my head”.
The history of this debate has proved the climate scientists correct time and time again. First they said that the temperature was rising. The usual suspects denied it, accused the scientists of “fishing for grant money”, and made a huge deal about discrepencies between different measurements in the troposphere. Those measurements turned out to be wrong and the scientists correct.
The next phase was when the scientists ramped up their claims that the rise in temperature was due to greenhouse emissions. Again, the usual suspects denounced it, accused the scientists of “green scaremongering” and nitpicked at the edges of the science.
They failed dismally – the consensus beccomes stronger every year and now left wing radicals such as John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Arnold Swarzzeneger, Tony Blair, BP, WalMart (etc etc etc) accept that humans are contributing to the problem.
As for compensation, I’m curious as to what libertarian philosophy allows a group of people to destroy someone else’s property without compensating them?
October 29, 2006 at 5:02 am |
Consensus? Read http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm.
I’m not arguing that the climate isn’t changing (because it is always changing), just that we can’t be certain why recent climate events are occurring.
People all around the world have been burning fossil fuels for centuries. Livestock have been releasing greenhouse gases for thousands of years. Someone explain to me how to equitably pay compensation to low lying countries who won’t adapt themselves.
October 29, 2006 at 5:57 am |
Peiser? Lambert’s already covered this one.
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser
As to compensation, you’re conflating two questions – the first is SHOULD we pay? The second is HOW can we pay?
I don’t see how anyone who believes in property can argue that a country which loses the majority of its land due to damage caused by others should not be compensated for the loss. “low lying countries who won’t adapt themselves”? Are you kidding?
“People all around the world have been burning fossil fuels for centuries.”
The majority in the previous 50 years, look at atmospheric CO2 concentration records.
“Someone explain to me how to equitably pay compensation to low lying countries who won’t adapt themselves.”
Short answer – it almost certainly won’t be equitable, however it will be a damn lot better than allowing one group of people to profit at the expense of someone else’s property.
October 29, 2006 at 11:32 am |
John H blogging as John Z,
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m.”
This is mentioned in a critique of Al Gore’s propaganda film at
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Even if human activitiy is contributing to a rise in global temperatures and this is leading to a rise in sea levels as the IPCC predicts, it is only one of a number of factors. It is entirely rational to expect countries to adapt, and not be compensated, given both the uncertainty as to the cause and the period over which it might occur.
Your language suggests your attitude is fixed – “The usual suspects”, nitpicking, “left wing radicals”. It is possible to argue each of your points on rational grounds – eg politicians and business are no better at judging these things than anyone else – but I don’t believe you are receptive.
As I see it, unless the science becomes less equivocal it is comparable to religion. A large majority of people believe in religion, including John Howard and George Bush, but there is not a skerrick of scientific evidence to support it. The only rational position is agnosticism.
October 30, 2006 at 10:18 pm |
Firstly just want to make comments on minor things:
“Some of the scientific evidence suggests that global warming is largely (if not entirely) a natural event that has been occurring since the dawn of time.”
This sentence is a bit strange, and “dawn of time” is a bit rhetorical. I’d suggest something like:
“Scientific evidence suggests that the Earth’s climate has changed throughout its existence, sometimes dramatically, and that changes in climate have impacted human civilisation.”
Also, there’s a hypothesis that the biblical flood is a folk-story memory of the flooding of the black sea by the mediterranean (it’s mentioned in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_sea).
October 30, 2006 at 10:37 pm |
This policy is really concerned with what is a good policy approach to dealing with a highly uncertain situation in which there are potentially disasterous consequences, although no-one is completely sure.
The policy currently reads to me like, “let’s stick our heads in the sand until we’re absolutely sure”.
October 31, 2006 at 6:47 am |
No it doesn’t.
The other side has to come up with some evidence.
If you have money in your pocket you are more able to deal with whatever comes up.
“I don’t see how anyone who believes in property can argue that a country which loses the majority of its land due to damage caused by others should not be compensated for the loss.”
For Pete’s sakes talk about REAL stuff will you JohnZ.
That hasn’t happened in the real world except by conquest.
October 31, 2006 at 6:54 am |
“From your statements I take it that your position is that industrial CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm but that a warmer planet is on balance a good thing. As such you seem to be an advocate for the AGW theory. Is this an accurate summation of your view?”
Yes you have it Terje.
A Priori CO2 would have SOME warming effect. It would be MOST strange if it had no warming effect at all.
And what can you say about that but YAHOO!
Because we are in an ice age. And we have been in an ice age for 39 million years. And we have been in the most severe phase of this ice age for 3 and a half million years.
So CO2 does have some warming effect. And thats a good thing to. And only complete perverts would say otherwise.
October 31, 2006 at 11:30 pm |
The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?
November 1, 2006 at 1:12 am |
Rather, the interglacials have been!
November 1, 2006 at 11:21 am |
I’m not John Z.
I think it dangerous to say that climate science is religion. It makes us sound like we don’t trust science whenever it can’t be replicated. Like human evolution. I don’t want to be associated with anti-evolution crusaders.
Of course the science debate is not finished. Of course there is continued uncertainty. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the science. From my reading of the literature, the most logical conclusion is that humans are contributing to global warming. Further, if this warming gets too big, then there are significant potential costs to the world.
I think the fear-mongers are overplaying the costs and unplaying the benefits of moderate global warming… and I think that there will be significant costs from government action. On balance, I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to warrant government action.
I can’t see any value in running against the science or denying that climatology is a science. Especially when it doesn’t impact on our actual policy! Our role isn’t the science… our role is the policy. If we get caught in the science debate we are needlessly offering our political enemies a stick with which to beat us.
I support Sacha’s revised wording in the paragraph she cites above.
November 1, 2006 at 10:31 pm |
(minor point – I’m a he!
)
A general point is that political parties aren’t in the business of science, but in the business of policy-formulation. Doing good science is hard enough, let alone evaluating and developing policy responses to it!
I hope the LDP develops well-thought out policies and obtains federal registration – I’m all in favour of a variety of political parties offering different policies to voters (and yes I am a member of a different party).
November 3, 2006 at 1:16 am |
As well as noting that climate change is an inevitable natural process. It should be noted that 98% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. This puts the impact CO2 production into perspective. As humans cannot impact on 98% of total greenhouse gases (H2O).
The assertion that humans are increasing the rate of global warming is not as scientifically accepted as the media portrays. There is still a lot of research to be done.
My personal opinion is that solar events correlate much better with global temperature levels than the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
For example CO2 levels were relatively quite high in 1930-1940 but average global temperatures were low. Over a geological time period, CO2 levels usually rise after global temperatures increase. Presumably this is due to increased plant growth and subsequent decomposition of this plant growth.
I think that socialist left leaning people are envious of sucessful big business and this is what motivates them to jump to the conclusion that CO2 levels cause global warming.
I think the fastest road to technological and real scientific advancement is a free market capatalist system. Hence, regulating companies’ CO2 emissions will probably slow down the development of economically viable alternative fuels which are currently very popular.
November 3, 2006 at 1:48 am |
As a research scientist, I am well aware of the left leaning ideology of most scientists. (I have many scientist friends). In Australia, most climate scientists are employed by the government. These government climate scientists benefit from the dooms day predictions of global warming. This doesn’t mean the predictions are wrong. However the media is unaware of this potential bias. The media and public do not critically examine the work of these scientists. They are often all too happy to accept doom and gloom predictions without investigating the story thoroughly and putting facts into context. This situation leads to a public putting pressure on the government for CO2 emissions regulations as can be seen currently.
November 3, 2006 at 4:09 am |
As a research scientist, I am well aware of the left leaning ideology of most scientists. (I have many scientist friends). In Australia, most climate scientists are employed by the government. These government climate scientists benefit from the dooms day predictions of global warming by the IPCC and climate activists because they’ll gett increased funding and public support. This doesn’t mean the predictions are wrong. However the public and the media are unaware of this potential bias. The media and public do not critically examine the work of these scientists who often unknowly have a bias to their work. The public are often all too happy to accept doom and gloom predictions without investigating the story thoroughly and putting facts into context. This situation leads to the public putting pressure on the government for CO2 emissions regulations as can be seen currently. Society’s gerneral inability to think critically highlights the problems of politics and voting in general.
November 6, 2006 at 1:14 am |
I think that government action would be required if the cost of alternative energy sources was not declining relative to CO2 emitting sources. However the trends that I have seen (not a lot of data I will admit) all seem to indicate that many alternative energy sources will become economically viable within the next decade even with no real additional government action.
Does the LDP advocate removal of existing government action such as abolishing the MRET or reducing petrol taxes? I would think that it is easier to take a “don’t do anything more” attitude rather than an attitude of “lets roll back all existing policies that currently give alternate energy sources a leg up”.
November 6, 2006 at 2:52 am |
One of the best lay articles on global warming I have read so far:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
November 6, 2006 at 4:07 am |
David,
The article is a good summary of many of the anti AGW arguments. However few of them are very new and all of them have been countered (with varying degrees of success) by the proponents of the AGW theory. That does not render then irrelevant but they do remain contentious.
The recent cooling of the Oceans as measured by the Argo project is quite recent news however it is probably too new to rely on yet.
In short the lay person is screwed. There is no “easy answer” to the truth of this matter, unless you take a leap of faith one way or the other. And leaps of faith are unlikely to be very accurate.
Regards,
Terje.
November 10, 2006 at 8:00 am |
“The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?”
Bullshit. Its been one holocaust after another.
Now you can’t sidetrack that basic point Terje. So lets go over it again.
We are in an ice age.
There has been many catastrophic cooling events in the last several million years.
There has been NO catastrophic WARMING events in the last many many millions of years.
Nor is there likely to be any while Antarctica lies over the South Pole.
Now be a bit serious about this Terje. If a minor party is going to compromise in any way with this junk science, hysteria and fraud then what the hell is the small party for.
We should have a policy of going after Coal energy and Nuclear energy production with a vengeance. CO2 is a GREEN gas. It promotes the growth of nature. To the extent that it warms things a bit its and insurance policy against catastrophic cooling.
What is so difficult about this?
You will search in vain for any evidence of catastrophic warming. Or the likelihood of it. The LDP ought to speak up about this fraud and speak clearly.
November 10, 2006 at 8:09 am |
“Peiser? Lambert’s already covered this one.”
No JohnZ. Lambert didn’t COVER it. He didn’t refute anyone. You have to try a lot harder not to be an idiot yourself and find out what a refutation actually is.
It was just the same with your and Lamberts idiocy to do with Archibald.
You really have to get your act together.
Now can anyone here come up with any evidence for catastrophic warming?
No I don’t think so.
November 10, 2006 at 8:11 am |
“The article is a good summary of many of the anti AGW arguments. However few of them are very new and all of them have been countered ”
countered? COUNTERED?
You guys just got to stop bullshitting yourselves about what constitutes being COVERED or COUNTERED.
You haven’t covered or countered or refuted anything. And the alarmists have no evidence whatsoever for catastrophic warming.
November 10, 2006 at 12:30 pm |
Graeme… calm down. Modern humans have adapted ourselves well to the world in a temperature range a lot narrower than the world has previously had. You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress: higher life expectancy, better health & education, higher incomes, more spare time, more freedoms, greater equality of opportunity, new fandangled technology. I don’t want to give up modern developed society, and despite your silly holocaust comment, I doubt you do either.
So it does matter if something is going to upset our current balance. My understanding of the relative costs and benefits is that a moderate warming will have a net benefit to the world (though spread quite unevenly)… but once we start getting above 3 degrees then the costs start to outweigh the benefits.
On balance, given the uncertainty about what will happen and the early state of the economic debate, I can’t see merit in pursuing huge government spending projects. I know you like huge pointless spending projects based on fear campaigns that fail BCAs, but I always oppose them. Matter of principle.
November 10, 2006 at 12:37 pm |
And to count Terje among the pro-Kyoto mob shows an amazing lack of ability to read. Terje is perhaps the best and most respected skeptics left running around the blogosphere.
The reality is that many skeptic arguments have been found wanting (troposhere cooling). Or at least exagerated (eg urban heat island). If we want to be taken seriously as an intellegent party, then we have nothing to gain by clinging to embarassing junk science when the agreed reality is enough to defend our policy. There is no need to discredit ourselves like that.
November 11, 2006 at 1:37 pm |
This has went off-track. Further posts have been moved to http://www.bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com for further discussion.
November 12, 2006 at 12:15 pm |
[...] Graeme, on this comments thread you admitted that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures… but you claim that this is a good thing because we have been in an ice age for 39 million years and in a severe phase for the last 3.5 million years. You have suggested that only “perverts” would disagree. [...]