tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post7179475984664471060..comments2023-12-29T00:20:29.844-08:00Comments on Logicology: Another "Answer": Global WarmingSean W. Malonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-35838845964658795842012-10-15T13:15:32.101-07:002012-10-15T13:15:32.101-07:00Interesting perspective on a "hot" topic...Interesting perspective on a "hot" topic. One particularly difficult aspect of global warming worth noting is that mosquitos (yeah, those that carry dangerous viruses like West Nile) both breed more readily and more readily pick up dangerous viruses in hotter weather. Thanks for this interesting and informative blog.global warming fearfulhttp://www.isglobalwarmingreal.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-21049065395121129802011-03-07T22:41:51.497-08:002011-03-07T22:41:51.497-08:00First, Tago. I always read "much deeper"...First, Tago. I always read "much deeper" than those few names I wind up posting about.<br /><br />Secondly, it is economic growth that has saved Americans from feeling any seriously negative effects of climate change as compared to any poorer nations.<br /><br />Thirdly, along with economic growth & prosperity comes the technological means to produce more goods & services - including energy - for more people, more efficiently and cleanly. This is why the air quality in the United States, the rivers, lakes & streams, our beaches, our houses & cars and refrigerators are all <i>substantially</i> cleaner and more environmentally friendly today than 100 years ago.<br /><br />Simply saying we need to stop using energy dooms millions of people here and everywhere else to death by starvation and disease, and miserably poor living standards. There is no net gain to humanity that way and it's unnecessary. It is also all without getting into the other issues I brought up in the post here, regarding all of the numerous questions you have to ask yourself about state-controlled "solutions" and even the assumption that we know how to "correct" climate change.<br /><br />As for your buzzword of "neoliberal" economics, I guess you're referring to Milton Friedman - since that was kind of Naomi Klein's term. It's not a term anyone in the economics profession actually uses, and while I appreciate a lot of Friedman's contributions to the field of economics - he's not really my top man, so to speak. Besides... saying I'm following the latest "defense" of these ideas seems at best supercilious and also foolish. I don't need to defend sound economic reasoning. It defends itself by being correct.<br /><br />Malthusians & socialists should start defending <i>their</i> ideas, since they've proven to be incorrect and disastrous time & time again.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-19949050853396093032011-03-01T06:36:50.996-08:002011-03-01T06:36:50.996-08:00You clearly need to read a bit deeper than Lomberg...You clearly need to read a bit deeper than Lomberg or the latest defense of neoliberal economics. It is economic growth that has generated the crisis of climate change - to say that more of the same will help solve the problem is ridiculous. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the kind of economic activity (away from fossil fuels and their subsidization; away from a globalized "free trade" economy) then the situation will worsen.Tago Magohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15223598569168894691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-89938129707557277832010-12-13T01:47:19.866-08:002010-12-13T01:47:19.866-08:00David, you really did not take my point correctly ...David, you really did not take my point correctly at all.<br /><br />First, I have yet to see anything approaching a 4+ deg C global warming prediction that has come from anyone remotely reputable. So I really think you are pushing it calling that the worst case... but fine. For the sake of argument, let's say that happened.<br /><br />You still have to make it past all the other assumptions about knowledge, about political solutions, about the ability to reverse the warming... You have to make a ton of assumptions, many if which are simply false, if you want to force people to give up trillions of dollars worth of potential capital in support of top-down government programs. The point is that no matter what the worst case is, that is a terrible idea.<br /><br />If you want to see global warming result in untold miseries, taking actions that would seriously impede people's abilities to develop economically is the way to do it. People suffer and become displaced because they are too poor to prepare for, much less even compensate for, future natural & manmade disasters that are attendant to life on a dynamic planet like Earth. Most all of the major government actions suggested in the name of fighting GW are unlikely to make even the slightest dent in the changing climate, and are virtually guaranteed to radically distort and harm the global economy.<br /><br />Ultimately, that's a much worse thing to do, when growth & innovation would be what moderates and ameliorates the negative effect of climate change, whatever they may be. The point here is that innovation isn't what I want <i>in spite of</i> global warming, as if to stick my head in the sand and let people get displaced... quite the opposite. Economic growth and innovation is the only way that we will be able to solve this and other problems facing humanity over the next 100 years so no one need be seriously harmed in the first place!<br /><br />Global economies are remarkably inhibited already. Some new totalitarian measures - regardless of the intention behind them - will not help. And making everybody poorer just hurts us all directly in declining living standards, and worse, it puts us all at much higher risk if in fact dire climate predictions do actually come true.<br /><br />P.S. See Bjorn Lomborg on more regarding this kind of point.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-91719264054116329882010-12-13T01:46:54.149-08:002010-12-13T01:46:54.149-08:00David, you really did not take my point correctly ...David, you really did not take my point correctly at all.<br /><br />First, I have yet to see anything approaching a 4+ deg C global warming prediction that has come from anyone remotely reputable. So I really think you are pushing it calling that the worst case... but fine. For the sake of argument, let's say that happened.<br /><br />You still have to make it past all the other assumptions about knowledge, about political solutions, about the ability to reverse the warming... You have to make a ton of assumptions, many if which are simply false, if you want to force people to give up trillions of dollars worth of potential capital in support of top-down government programs. The point is that no matter what the worst case is, that is a terrible idea.<br /><br />If you want to see global warming result in untold miseries, taking actions that would seriously impede people's abilities to develop economically is the way to do it. People suffer and become displaced because they are too poor to prepare for, much less even compensate for, future natural & manmade disasters that are attendant to life on a dynamic planet like Earth. Most all of the major government actions suggested in the name of fighting GW are unlikely to make even the slightest dent in the changing climate, and are virtually guaranteed to radically distort and harm the global economy.<br /><br />Ultimately, that's a much worse thing to do, when growth & innovation would be what moderates and ameliorates the negative effect of climate change, whatever they may be. The point here is that innovation isn't what I want <i>in spite of</i> global warming, as if to stick my head in the sand and let people get displaced... quite the opposite. Economic growth and innovation is the only way that we will be able to solve this and other problems facing humanity over the next 100 years so no one need be seriously harmed in the first place!<br /><br />Global economies are remarkably inhibited already. Some new totalitarian measures - regardless of the intention behind them - will not help. And making everybody poorer just hurts us all directly in declining living standards, and worse, it puts us all at much higher risk if in fact dire climate predictions do actually come true.<br /><br />P.S. See Bjorn Lomborg on more regarding this kind of point.Sean W. Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07652434357640171842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5098030884495656852.post-68469551218669089252010-12-13T00:52:41.285-08:002010-12-13T00:52:41.285-08:00You've not assumed the worst case scenario; yo...You've not assumed the worst case scenario; you've assumed that warming will stop at a +2 C increase. The worst case scenario is it runs to +3 or +4 (or more), which would have significant ramifications for the planet.<br /><br />If I take your point correctly, you're welcoming an outcome of untold misery, suffering - not to mention migration - because it would stimulate innovation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com