Sunday
Apr292012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Pielke Jnr's lecture at ANU
Apr 29, 2012 Climate: WG3 This is well worth a look...
It is helpful to have the slides to hand too.
Update on Apr 30, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Keith Kloor wonders why commenters here are so agitated about Pielke Jr's position.
Reader Comments (123)
I am glad that Pielke Jr's ideas are getting the once-over.
They are self-contradictory. They are far more dangerous than the open alarmist, who, at least has the virtue of straightforwardness in his game.
SHUB
Spot on. He is very dangerous because he can speak publicly with authority although most of what he calls science is arm waving. He used some very clever presentation techniques. Very professional.
"He is very dangerous because he can speak publicly with authority although most of what he calls science is arm waving." << Words that might easily have been written by an environmentalist, complaining about Roger Pielke Jr, the 'denier'.
I don't see the point in all this... 'Sceptics', mirroring the worst of environmentalism. Turns out that many of them are zealots, too.
Dr Pielke's contribution seems to me to be positive overall in that his manner of presentation encourages fellow "progressives" to focus on the facts rather than wallow in the comfort of self-affirmative myth within their own limited view of the world. My interpretation is that he is subtly saying, for instance, that if you care about third world poverty (as leftists would all say they do), you must permit the third world to have access to affordable energy, including from fossil fuels, and if you want the world to head towards decarbonisation at the same time, there must be expenditure on energy innovation.
The latter may be somewhat pie-in-the-sky, but if the leftists (and in the UK/Europe policy-makers across the political spectrum) can be diverted from the CAGW and CO2 mitigation memes to more positive and rational modes of thinking, that can only be a good thing. It is not politically viable to hinder economic development, so a government that is so disposed might retain its CAGW credentials by imposing a small non-damaging tax with the expressed intent of fostering human development worldwide. Surely that is a better alternative than Australia's and the UK's self-harming "carbon" policies.
I realize that the above is not everyone's cup of tea, and some would prefer to press on to ultimate victory over the scaremongers, but sometimes a more rational outcome based on compromise is better than no shift at all in policy. In Australia there are clear signs that victory will be achieved, even though we need to wait, probably many months, until the next election.
Ben Pile says:
"My answer to SBVOR, which seems to have gone missing, is that not everyone is convinced in the idea of the market as a panacea"
First, I have not "gone missing". I have several posts awaiting moderation. At least I hope they are still awaiting moderation.
Second, I know that all so-called "Progressives" live in a fantasy world where facts, data, evidence, logic and reason play no role (or, in the case of Pielke, a very limited role). But, that does not change the OBJECTIVE FACT expressed below:
"Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won...Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism...
The farther to the right one looks, the more prescient has been the historical foresight; the farther to the left, the less so."
Robert Heilbroner -- an academic economist and a dedicated Socialist who eventually realized he could no longer deny reality.
Chris M says:
"if the leftists (and in the UK/Europe policy-makers across the political spectrum) can be diverted from the CAGW and CO2 mitigation memes to more positive and rational modes of thinking, that can only be a good thing."
Actually, NO! That is NOT a good thing!
The goals of these so-called "Progressives" remain EXACTLY the same; ONLY thing which has changed is the newly applied sugar coated wrapping paper. Pielke and his fellow so-called "Progressives" have simply decided they can more easily achieve their (profoundly evil) goals (of world Socialism) by marketing honey rather than vinegar.
Their primary objective (then, as now) is grabbing control of the global energy sector. Why? Because that represents the "Commanding Heights" of the global economy. Control that and you control the world. Ben Pile might tell us he would rather have a global government monopoly controlling these "Commanding Heights". I would rather have a plethora of private companies COMPETING for my business.
I also have lost any respect I had for Roger Pielke. Although his talk is wonderful it is predicated on the assumption that CO2 is indeed a problem. And he beautifully demonstrates how the political class has delivered nothing and wasted everyone's time. However, if CO2 is not a problem, then the wonderful analysis Pielke shows is just theoretical hyperbole. And of course he would be out of a job with his life's work being essentially irrelevant.
Roger - good luck for the future ... because I think you're going to need it.
Ben Pile, et al,
Two of my comments were delayed in the moderation bucket. Review Page 1 of the comments and you'll find them newly inserted into the timeline in which I created them. I also have a new post which is also awaiting moderation.
SBVOR
Could you try to keep you contributions a bit calmer.
Thanks
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”
H.L. Mencken
Ben Pile
Bit late to the party I'm afraid but I totally agree with your comments at 11.12 today - some commentators are losing their sense of perspective. I would ask them some questions about RP Jnr;
1. Does he lie about his work? No!
2. Does he hide data? No!
3. Does he refuse to engage with sceptics? No!
4. Does he adopt an aggressive tone with those who disagree? No!
5. Is he right about CO2 being a major problem? Probably not, but nobody with the current state of knowledge can be totally certain.
I do think Ben Pile is quite right. Some of we sceptics need to a lot more nuanced in our responses.
I am a big fan of Roger Pielke Jr. He is very clear, very precise, does not hype or spin and tries to do his utmost to be honest. It makes trying to understand what he says much much easier than other climate commentators.
But I do think many here have misunderstood what he is on about. He is not a climate scientist like his dad. He is a prof of environmental studies and he comes at climate change from a policy angle rather than a science one. What he says in this video is, I think, a huge contribution to the climate debate and a truly sane voice where there are so many Malthusian moaners clogging the media.
He has my support anyway... and Ben Pile too.
... and now John Hewitt ;-)
Does anyone seriously think there will be a time when nuclear fusion is less than 50 years away? It has been 50 years away for the last 50 years and the gap shows, to me, no signs of shrinking. Is there credible evidence to suggest that the gap might shrink?
NB: the difference between 'which', and 'who'.
I'm not interested in a debate about 'socialism vs capitalism'.
All of the following has been substantiated in my previous comments:
I once respected Pielke Jr., primarily for his work in debunking hurricane hysteria. But now...
Pielke Jr. tells us governments around the world must intervene, through force of law, to decarbonize their economies.
But, he categorically refuses to tell anyone why he believes that to be necessary.
He promises The Hartwell Paper explains it all -- but it does nothing of the sort.
He tells us his book explains it all -- sorry, based on the Hartwell experience, I doubt it.
In his video, he spends a few seconds waving his hands about IPCC computer models.
But, he categorically refuses to address the question of whether (by NOAA's own standards) those computer models have (with a 95% degree of certainty) been invalidated.
I'm sorry, for these reasons and many more, this is not a man I can either support or respect.
Ben Pile,
1) The difference between 'which', and 'who' is duly noted -- my bad, sloppy reading.
2) You should be interested in the debate between Capitalism and Socialism -- it is the defining struggle of the last two centuries. That battle became even more relevant and more heated after the end of The Cold War. Marxism, worldwide, has been on the ascendency ever since then. The decarbonization debate, just like the now defunct climate debate has absolutely nothing to do with either carbon or climate. It has everything to do with this defining struggle of the last two centuries between Capitalism and Socialism. Google "Commanding Heights" and watch, online, one of the few decent programs PBS has ever produced.
It doesn't take much for some people to get their shorts in a knot. At a minimum people should consider John Hewitt's comment and act accordingly.
Tim
John (Hewitt's) questions are good. Some of his answers are not correct though.
Intriguing Shub, do tell ;-)
I don't see the point in all this... 'Sceptics', mirroring the worst of environmentalism. Turns out that many of them are zealots, too.
Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM | Ben Pile
You are right, Ben. Read on. His presentation was all arm waving and no science much like alarmists and some sceptics, but that doesn't make him right. It doesn't make him authoritative, it doesn't make him worth listening to.
[Snip - calm down]
[Snip - calm down]
Could everyone please calm down.
Dr Pielke's contribution seems to me to be positive overall in that his manner of presentation encourages fellow "progressives" to focus on the facts
AND what facts would that be ? 9Gt 4Gt . Not facts I'm afraid just guesses. Probably derived from his assumption that humans are responsable for all additional CO². Therefore starts with 2ppm / ans and works out, heaven know how, that that is 9Gt. Claims the planet absorps 4Gt, heaven knows where that came from, ergo humans are a nuisance.
Of course, I'm guessing as well.
Why the hate, SBVOR? I try to look beyond political affiliations and ask myself, "Is this an honest person? Is this a decent person? Are their ideas in contact with reality?" Imho the answers are in the case of both Pielke Jr and his father a resounding Yes! In effect what Dr Pielke is offering warmists is a face-saving way out of their irrationality on "carbon". At the end of the day it does not matter what sort of energy mix we have, as long as it is efficient, affordable, not injurious to the social fabric and natural environment (wind farms) and consistent with maintenance of living standards.
While it is true that the socialists, Gramscians and Club of Romers will move on to other memes once climate alarmism s defused, the point here is that there are other ways of winning a battle than by direct confrontation. The important thing is that this particular battle is won! There is a place for libertarian warriors like Andrew Breitbart (may he rest in peace) but in terms of climate policy that approach to the issue could be counterproductive.
Apr 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM diogenes
On the contrary, the evidence seems to show that it has been receding into future at 2 years per year for the past 50 years. It might come about but the present hydrogen isotope approach would need to be junked and something totally different thought up.
The EFDA JET project is to move into its next phase, ITER to demonstrate the feasibility of sustained fusion reaction. If no progress had been made at JET, there would be no ITER. The subsequent stage will demonstrate a commercial application. It's made good progress, though is under-funded.
Progress is also being made in fusion-fission hybrid reactors, using a fusion source to drive a fission reaction, offering many advantages. It's all progress, however the project was funded.
Fusion research also has applications in other areas, such as radio medicine.
Having finished watching the presentation and hearing that RPJ is maybe not getting too much love here I thought I would add my loving 2 cents :)
I liked it tremendously and learnt a lot from it – that is all I prize out of life nowadays - simple soul that I am ;)
I respect his standpoint totally. He is clearly saying something quite powerful and simple that needs to be understood no matter where you start from i.e. current climate policies are bug nuts crazy and self-delusional. We can argue about Pielke’s goals and visions but I think all here should value his original work and analysis which basically shows how laughable current western policies are.
He shows clearly how often targets are not getting met, time after time, yet politicians still dribble on with new goals piled on top without learning their lessons.
Something has to give, and it seems that day is nearer judging from the inevitable self-evident failures that will start clocking up. When that happens, and the current unrealistic policies are discredited, I hope the people who take up the challenges (from all sides) will be of the more rational disposition that Pielke represents.
"1) Anytime you expect government to accomplish anything more than ensuring the defense of personal liberties, you will ALWAYS be VERY disappointed. The outcome is virtually always the exact opposite of what was promised. All governments, including the USA government, do a sorry enough job of defending personal liberties. Every government does an absolutely awful job with everything else -- always have, always will."
Um...NIH? DARPA? Absolutely awful failures, both? Really?
The madness here is strong.
Josh,
I'll answer your question, and recapitulate Ben Pile's course of questioning here:
My first claim was: "We need to undertake a deep(er) examination of the Pielke Jr brand of climate ideology."
Superficially, Pielke Jr's observations about the climate debate are correct, and in excellent agreement with what many sceptical observers have noted, over the years. This results in many sceptics appreciating and feting him and his views. What is missed is that, it is only you agreeing with him. He doesn't agree with you (the sceptic, that is).
Ben's response was: oh boy, is that a 'reds-under-the-bed' type of conspiratorial thinking or what?
This line of torquing of the argument by Ben, arises largely in my opinion, from prior engagements with him over Delingpole's book and thesis - 'Watermelons' - which he critiqued, and I defended. There was absolutely no need for it, here.
Pielke Jr and his Hartwell colleagues are pragmatists and Walter Lippmann (sp?) admirers. They are not going to tell you why they do something. That is for you to figure out. Looking for the underpinnings in their line of thought doesn't make you 'conspiratorial', or someone looking for 'reds under the bed.'
The second series of claims, which I disagree with, are here:
Ben:
John Hewitt:
Pielke Jr is not accommodating to criticism, or inclined towards debate. He does not engage with sceptics. Let me put in other words: Pielke Jr is accommodating to criticism as anyone else in the climate debate is, and nothing more. The independent indication for this is the stereotypical response of "It's all in my book" which he has now given to dozens of commenters and observers coming from all sides of the debate. This comes across as quite absurd because, you can pose to him even the most existential of questions: "is controlling carbon really a thing man ought to do?", and he would answer: "yes, folks, it is all settled, and the answer is in my book"
The point is here is not about promoting his book - he can do that, or whether he's really answered such questions in his book. The point is - there is no debate. If anything, Pielke's book answers to the mechanistic aspects of the question, and on that basis he then insists, that the question in its totality is settled once and for all.
In the specific context of the UK, what Pielke Jr says seems attractive. But that is because of the extreme position adopted by the UK government on the climate. Anything, anybody says will sound reasonable in comparison.
"Update on Apr 30, 2012 by Bishop Hill
Keith Kloor wonders why commenters here are so agitated about Pielke Jr's position."
Talking the about science, I do like BBD's explanation of negative and positive feedbacks on Keith Kloor's site.
SBVOR and Shub:
I have four issues with the theory of CAGW:
1. That a trace gas like CO2 could, on its own bring about catastrophic global warming. it can't and all are agreed on that;
2. That positive feedback will multiply the effects of CO2 which will lead to CAGW. There is, of course no evidence of positive feedback, and I have doubts about the long term viability of any system prone to positive feedback, they're too unstable.
3. That the positive feedback will cause massivve ice-cap melting with concomitant sea level rises causing catastrophe. it would have to be quick to catch humans unaware, and should anything as ridiculous happen we'd have centuries to adust.
4. That warming, in and of itself, causes extreme weather events. I don't see why it should because extreme weather events are a manifestation of the earth trying to balance its energy budget, that's the root cause. in a warm world the pole to equator temperature gradient would be lower than today, and although I'm far from being a climate expert I cannot see how the warming would cause more intense tropical storms. Could be wrong.
5. If the doom mongers are correct, I know, absolutely,that there are no power generation solutions that can replace the use of fossil fuels available in the long-term, assuming our friends the greens keep their stranglehold on energy policy.
Dr. Peilke disagrees with me on 1,2 and 3, but we agree (in a nuanced way on 4 and 5. I'mm happy to have him fighting that corner for us, he doesn't have to be pure as the driven snow in rejecting the whole theory for me to see that he's got the right policies.
The problem we have is we're fighting the policies. None of us would be in the least bit het up if the solution was we are all forced to wear panama hats, it's the cost being inflicted on us, and that cost arises from subsidies to alternative, and useless, renewable energy sources. Dr. Peilke is saying forget these sources they're not going to work, instead put (less) money into research into more viable renewable energy sources. I find myself resonating with that idea because if we could find renewable energy sources that can match the output of fossil fuels that would be a good thing for the future.
So give him a break and don't be so ill-mannered. (Shub, I'm especially ashamed of you, your manners are usually impeccable).
"five issues"
Heh, he should listen to his Daddy.
==================
Dividing the world into goodies and baddies according to whether people agree exactly with your views is absurd. I have met people with views close to mine who are unethical sleazebags, and people with views well away from mine who are decent and honourable, and who are now close friends and/or trusted colleagues.
AFAIK, RPJ has been upfront and honest about his views and why he holds them. He has mercilessly skewered propositions on what some here describe as his 'side', because they are based on making stuff up. To the best of my knowledge, he is courteous in discussion.
Short of a totalitarian insistence that everyone's views should be exactly the same, I don't know what more you can ask of a participant in a debate.
I don't agree with everything he says, but that is hardly a sign of depravity on either side of any issue.
May 1, 2012 at 6:10 AM | Rob Burton
Yes, I found that to be a pure delight also! Negative feedbacks indeed...
What is somewhat surprising to me is that RP Jr seems to have different views on the science than RP Sr. The latter has demonstrated over the years a very scientific approach. Acknowledging a (limited) role for CO2, but arguing that man is having many impacts on local and regional climate by way of land-use impacts, interference with natural hydrological cycles and the like. RP Sr is the epitome of the balanced, logical, science based approach. How come Jr seems to have a different view on the science? Maybe it is the father/son conflict that characterised my own relationship with my Dad?
Shub - My first claim was: "We need to undertake a deep(er) examination of the Pielke Jr brand of climate ideology."
But you didn't do that. You instead made statements about Pielke's 'ideology', by inventing a category of crypto-alarmist, more insidious than 'open alarmists', without explaining how you move from Pielke's work to this extraordinary conclusion. You claimed that the point was to develop a 'deep examination of the basic underlying forces that drive their ambition, and call it to question', but it didn't seem all that deep to me, and revealed much more about your own 'ideology' than Pielke's. You then cite two lines from the HP, which is supposed to say something about Pielke's 'ideology'. And this analysis too was somewhat shallower than had been promised.
Some of us have moved on. I've spoken with JD about his thesis; agree with some of it; cited some of his other comments in my posts. The reds under the bed comment is in fact owed to the paranoid tone of your comments about Pielke, not some ongoing feud that I haven't got over.
Like many environmentalists, you're very good at making statements, and speculating about people's motivations. And also like them, you seem to struggle, however, to explain how you determine what someone's inclinations and drives are, much less reflecting on your own. Pielke 'engaged' with this sceptic. He has a blog, on which he publishes his latest work, so that it can be criticised, and he can defend it. That's already much more than almost any other academic in the field does. So you'll understand why I think I don't see any attempt on Pielke's behalf to hide from sceptics, criticism or debate.
I have some sympathy with The Leopard's take: whenever I find RPJr infuriating I remind myself that he takes the IPCC consensus as read and then works from there.
More importantly RPJr has convinced me that the politics of climate change is to a very large extent entirely separable from the science of climate change. It doesn't really matter what the science says: governments will go on for a while trying to implement their current policies; these policies are essentially doomed to fail; governments will eventually abandon them once the cost of failure becomes large enough to threaten their electability, which could happen quite soon. (RPJr has convince me that the general public (1) believe in climate change, and (2) think governments can and should "fix" it, and (3) are prepared to pay up to £10 a month to achieve this, but not much more.) It doesn't really matter what the science says: nothing effective will be done unless and until somebody develops a low carbon energy source as good as fossil fuels.
Those are the political realities, and nothing is going to change them, so we should stop worrying about the politics and concentrate on enjoying the science. Sure it will cost us a fortune, but governments waste money all the time, and they would only waste it on something else if this particular toy gets taken away.
There is some hoary misunderstanding/misinterpretation.
1) I said "we need to examine it," not "I am going to do it within a couple of blog posts."
Going back to your original:
"alarmists who don't actually alarm? And working silently... Behind the scenes..."
I believe, that the alarmists and their alarm can bring no more benefit to the 'climate movement', and in the present phase, they actually do more harm. It is those who have simply accepted all the key claims of AGW/CAGW and proceed as though they need solutions that are harmful. These group of people paint themselves as the reasonable quarter, by criticizing both skeptics and alarmists alike.
Alarmist policy is usually overwrought, largely unpalatable and recognizable. Alarmist policy includes things like windmill building, REDD, nuclear bans, carbon capture etc - stupid things you'd never do but for the carbon scare.
The Hartwell variety of policy suggestions are in the form of subtle policy tweaks and additions, that they say can be pursued on the back and side-by-side of more pressing and supported political agendas: the 'obliquity' idea. They recommend an atomization of the climate cause into innumerable, unrecognizable streams of political pursuit, each of which will encounter little resistance of its own. However virtuous the Hartwell group may think this approach is, there is an element of dishonesty to it.
More importantly this approach is how useless, meaningless laws make it into democratic law-books, and cause their damage. They cannot be objected to easily, because, the proposed changes appear minuscule and minor, and they cannot be repealed because they ares hard to kick up a ruckus about.
An example may be useful: The Hartwell group apparently think that solving the black carbon problem would be a good idea as part of tackling climate issues.
I see that as a double perversion. Firstly, the fact that millions wallow in poverty burning sticks and dung - talking about one source of black carbon - is by itself not good enough a political motivator to tackle the black carbon problem? You have to do it in order to save the climate ? Secondly, 'solutions' to black carbon have consisted of expensive stoves and solar cookers things that would impede adoption of fossil fuel usage, and electrification in the longer run. Does the Hartwell group see the use of coal as a means to solve the black carbon problem? No.
Relevant quote? (emphasis in original)
My suggestion: be upfront. give up pursuing black carbon as a climate target. Pursue black carbon as a public health issue. Let the poorest use fossil fuels. Let them "lock it in."
2) You don't know Pielke Jr's willingness to debate, because, you haven't cross-examined his ideas, or questioned them. I have. So, I have a different perspective. There is a network of alliances and relationships between 'sceptics', and alarmists, and there is a sense of who is on 'your side'. I believe that, as long as one remains polite, one ought to challenge and cross-question these alliances and cross-linkages. Are they what they seem? Are they real?
Responding to Steven Sullivan (Apr 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM),
1) NIH?
Yes, I would happily eliminate NIH and at least 90% of the remaining counterproductive federal bureaucracies that are not authorized by the United States Constitution. But, if you want to provide me with a detailed cost/benefit analysis proving what a great service NIH provides, knock yourself out. You might start with their current "research" into obesity. Does anybody really need NIH "research" in order to know that obesity is not healthy? REALLY?
2) DARPA?
DARPA is directly involved in protecting individual liberties. So, it does not apply. That said, I have no doubt that DARPA could be outsourced to the private sector with far better results.
3) Bringing this back to the point of this thread...
We do not need ignorant politicians (or, self-important academics) centrally planning the global energy sector. If you think we do, then tell me how much you love the debacles of ethanol, wind power and solar power.
What Ben said.
Massive apologies that I've had no time for this bun fight and may indeed have little for BH this month. But Kloor isn't alone in arguing that the wildest posts on sceptic blogs - often by the completely unknown to everyone else - are a fair representation of scepticism generally. It's a fair motivation to wise up.
Shub.
1) You didn't do it at all; you just made statements about Pielke.
2) You know nothing about my reading of Pielke, nor what lengths I have/have not gone to to criticise or challenge his work. You stray from the facts, and move too far into speculation.
May I respectfully urge considered responses to
May 1, 2012 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered Commenter johanna
May 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM | Registered Commenter Jonathan Jones
for anyone still coming to this thread. I found these to be two of the comments which fairly well encapsulate my own current positions, so I won't repeat them. I only follow these debates sporadically but I am stunned at some of the venom toward RPjr. I do share unease at any tax schemes but I don't attribute evil intentions to him. More that he is trying to engage the policy debates where they exist in the IPCC context. Yes, that whole framework should be challenged but I don't think that makes RPjr's approach irrelevant or pernicious. He is dealing with the policy world as it has existed in recent years. I view the issues differently but I don't disparage or dismiss what he is doing.
He has long struck me as one of the most civil and thoughtful commentators in this arena. I guess some see him as some kind of "trojan horse" for big bad govt., but I see him as trying to reason with various sides and provide a better quality of information to all. Certainly he has struck me (in limited online exposures) as someone operating in good will and good faith.
Responding to Skiphill's urge for responses to 'May 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM | Registered Commenter Jonathan Jones'...
I don't think that the politics are 'entirely separable from the science of climate change'. As I put it recently, wanting politics and science to be separate are like wanting your boot not to be stuck in mud. To your mind, the mud and the boot are separate, but the universe has other ideas. One of the limitations of Pielke's approach, I have argued, is that it is doesn't understand why the responses to climate change have taken the form that they have. And it doesn't seem good enough to me to say that 'they got the science wrong', or accept simple, speculative answers about their motivation.
A great deal is presupposed in the responses to climate change, both at national and supranational level. In other words, we can see domestic political problems reflected in the UNFCCC process. There has, for instance, been a palpable corrosion of the quality of democracy in the UK, and a widespread disengagement from politics. I argue that the desire for supranational institutions reflects these crises of domestic legitimacy. And that this may begin to explain some of the emphasis on and preference for the top-down, target-driven responses to climate change.
That kind of analysis may not interest Pielke and Johnathan. And I wouldn't claim that it would make their analyses redundant. The value of Pielke's work is possibly that it doesn't try to explain climate alarmism as a symptom of a wider social phenomenon. It's just policy-analysis. It's necessarily pragmatic. Johnathan is more ambivalent about the political sphere than I am -- and I don't think he would mind me saying it. We discussed it over pizza. A good time was had by all (I think). No shouting, flaming, trolling, or pointy pointy fingers.
Roger Pielke Jr.,
Based on your ANU video here are some fundamental questions for you to answer given you have graciously offered to respond here at the BH blog to commenter Qs. In order understand your argument it I find it necessary know your position at a fundamental level so I am asking about the fundamental basis/premise of your argument.
Q #1) Totally independent of the many important ongoing scientific discourses on climate science that have finally (after 20+ years) really stated to open up to scientists independent of the IPCC’s consensus assessment process, is it your most fundamental premise that C02 emissions by burning fossil fuel must have a significant impact in total on the Earth-atmospheric system which must threaten the existence of human life on Earth?
Q #2) If that (in Q #1 above) is not your most fundamental premise then I respectfully ask what it is?
Q #3) What is the basis of your apparent presumption that an interventionist government policy is needed wrt to your apparent problem with CO2 emission, when it is historically demonstrated that it is only the thrust from an open/free use of private capital productivity (capitalism) that has any viable track record with improving the wealth and quality of life on Earth?
Q #4) Can you please address this favorite quote of mine from Ludwig von Mises:
John
Hey 96 comments, finally a question, Thanks John. Some replies:
1. If I understand your question right then my answer is "no". Here is what I have written about the science of climate change, summarized from Ch.1 of my book:
Increasing carbon dioxide influences the climate system, perhaps dramatically and irreversibly
The climate system is subject to multiple human influences
Our ability to see the future is limited
Certainty is not forthcoming
Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide does not stop climate
The science of climate change does not tell you that you "must" take action of any sort. It does tell you that you may wish to take action, but the next question is the, "what action?" Many of the actions that we would take to increase the rate of decarbonization make good sense on other merits.
2. I don't think I get what you mean by "fundamental premise" but as I interpret it, it is a commitment to human dignity, as described in THP and TCF.
3. This seems like an open-ended question from a philosophy exam ... If the question is, do I think that governments are necessary? then the answer is yes, and further, some government decisions are better than others. Investments in innovation by the public have paid off well -- certainly not all, of course. I have no interest in debating the general principle, and am happy to accept that different people will have different ideological preferences. I have no expectation that everyone need think alike about political matters -- agreeing to disagree is fine by me.
4. I have no interest in a debate over whether governments are inherently good or bad, sounds like a great discussion for the pub.
Thanks!
Pielke Jr. alleges:
"Increasing carbon dioxide influences the climate system, perhaps dramatically and irreversibly"
530 million years ago, CO2 at about 22 times the current levels did not "irreversibly" influence the climate system.
460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Ice Age, CO2 at 14 times the current levels did not "dramatically" influence the climate system.
Contrary to what some would say, there is nothing in the Phanerozoic record to suggest that CO2 has ever been a primary driver of the climate system.
Today, the RSS satellite data demonstrate a negative linear trend line in excess of 15 years. As you well know, 15 years without any warming is the standard established by NOAA for (with a 95% degree of confidence) invalidating all of the IPCC computer models (the SOLE source of all this CO2 hysteria mongering).
Given all that (and much, much more), how can you justify proposing that "decarbonization" be foisted upon the world through force of law?
Ben Pile, it was indeed a good lunch, though I suspect your Pizza was better than my pasta!
What I mean by "the politics of climate change is to a very large extent entirely separable from the science of climate change" is that I find it hard to imagine any development in the science of clinate change which would change government climate policy. (Even a complete vindication of Svensmark wouldn't do it, as there would stil be grounds for believing that the climate sensitivity to CO2 would be non-zero, even though estimates might move down sharply, and I wouldn't count the unearthing of "evidence of the falsifying of data, and [...] ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords", as alluded to by Gavin Schmidt, as a scientific development.)
Government climate policy will only change when they realise that (1) current policies can't possibly work, and (2) they are horribly expensive, and (3) the general populace are demanding heads on plates. (Essentially this is Pielke's Iron Law.) Alternatively it could change if there was a major technological breakthrough, leading to cheap non-fossil-fuel energy, but it would have to be a real breakthrough, and there's nothing in the pipeline at the moment, unless it's very well hidden.
The reason that various governments have seized on climate policy as somewhere to direct their energies is not because the evidence of threat is particularly strong (one could make a considerably stronger case for action on several other looming threats, such as antibiotic resistance) but rather because the putative solutions, involving taxation, regulation, and the use of international bureaucracies to bypass conventional democratic structures, fit their plans like a glove.
You "argue that the desire for supranational institutions reflects these crises of domestic legitimacy [and that] this may begin to explain some of the emphasis on and preference for the top-down, target-driven responses to climate change". I claim rather that the desire to implement "top-down, target-driven responses" leads directly to the current salience of climate change in the minds of the political class.
Taking this conversation further might require another lunch?!?
Pielke Jr. alleges:
"Investments in innovation by the public have paid off well"
Okay, the space program gave us Tang and a few other useful items. DARPA created the seeds of the internet. But, could even Pielke seriously argue that private sector innovations do not FAR outweigh the very tiny few useful innovations provided by the public sector? Can even Pielke Jr. seriously argue that the cost/benefit ratio offered by the private sector does not exceed public sector innovations by many, many orders of magnitude?
I think Pielke Jr. has an irrational degree of faith in the capacity of the public sector to deliver innovation (much less any sort of cost effective innovation).
So-called “investment” in public sector innovation is FAR more likely to deliver utterly corrupt political paybacks such as we saw with Solydra. At BEST, this so-called “investment” generally does nothing but subsidize failure (by virtue of utterly eliminating any need to compete in the real world).