Is there a viable libertarian solution to the problem of man-made global warming? "Viable solutions" don't include appeals to critics of AGW. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is real.
They don't include cursory cost-benefit calculations either; let's make this about the protection of property affected by AGW, which, by libertarian standards, rules supreme over such considerations.
From Jonathan Catalán:
While I apologize for another link to my blog, I think people might find this interesting: Greenhouse Externalities. Its a brief explanation of externality logic and why AGW doesn't call for what its proponents have been asking for in terms of redistributive justice.
John James:So anyone who isn't suing in court to get their climate change beliefs legally declared a religion, or making/spreading propaganda featuring children to who aren't motivated to go along with it being literally blown up by their teacher is "living under a rock".
Interestingly, I'm not even on board with the AGW alarmists. I just find it funny that you react to the really not so far-fetched proposition of humanly influenced climate change with such vitriolic anger.
In your world, is there a respectable climate science beside the exploding kids and the quirky court cases? Does it have anything to contribute to our understanding of the world's climate? Or do we have to resort to guilt-by-association rhetorics to discredit their findings, lest the objective correctness of our own world view be threatened?
John James:I think I'm probably more sorry to inform you that there are many world-renowned scientists (even in the field of climatology) who do not live under rocks [...]
In all earnestness, have you ever even tried to make an objective comparison? Contrasted the number of geophysical scientists who openly advocate AGW positions to those who deny any major link? Compared the number of articles in favor of AGW to those critical of it?
I'll even grant you some leeway with regard to the echo chamber effect of peer review and all that. But even then, you'll find that AGW skepticism is a minority position, and that your assertions of "unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud" are basically completely absent in academic discourse.
Sphairon:Interestingly, I'm not even on board with the AGW alarmists. I just find it funny that you react to the really not so far-fetched proposition of humanly influenced climate change with such vitriolic anger.
I would hardly consider claiming people who aren't "on board with the AGW alarmists" (which apparently you put yourself in that group) to be "living under a rock" the same thing as simply alleging "humanly influenced climate change is a no so far-fetched proposition."
In your world, is there a respectable climate science beside the exploding kids and the quirky court cases?
I don't know how to answer that. I don't consider exploding kids and declaring climate alarmism a religion to be "science" of any sort...let alone a respectable one.
Does it have anything to contribute to our understanding of the world's climate?
You mean can we use scientific study to further human understanding of the climates of Earth? I don't see why not. But I also don't see what this has to do with what we're talking about.
Or do we have to resort to guilt-by-association rhetorics to discredit their findings, lest the objective correctness of our own world view be threatened?
I still am not sure what you're talking about. I don't know what "guilt-by-association" you're speaking of. The "science" that has been at the forefront of the vast majority of this "global cooling, no wait global warming, no wait, nevermind, climate change" alarmism has proven itself to be inconclusive at best...all the way up to downright fraudulent. This contention is supported by the "scientists" who act more like conspirators and sabateurs (than truth-seekers employing a logical methodology) in their private communication and treatment of their "research".
My worldview requires alleged scientific claims to be demonstrated in a scientific manner, and does not simply assume that anything anyone deemed an "expert" says is gospel (and I mean that in the most figurative, as well as the most religious sense possible...as has been established, we are now dealing with a bona-fide religion.)
So again I'm confused as to where this "threat" to my worldview would come from. Unless of course you consider blind acceptance (on a large scale) of incredibly alarming claims (with titanic implications) from people who are literally willing to condemn human beings to death in favor of their faith, a "threat", then yeah. I guess I would probably agree, such behavior is a threat to my (what I would consider) much more reasoned, logical, and rational worldview...as, if more and more people come to accept the former as "reasoned, logical, and rational", I do see the possibility of something like my worldview (which rejects such nonsense) to fade or disappear completely. Especially if the psychos are willing to murder people for it.
Sphairon:In all earnestness, have you ever even tried to make an objective comparison? Contrasted the number of geophysical scientists who openly advocate AGW positions to those who deny any major link? Compared the number of articles in favor of AGW to those critical of it?
In all earnestness, no, because I'm quite sure it's irrelevant. I was just playing your game. Since you brought up my worldview, I'll refer back to that. In my view, the popularity of any idea does not in any way affect its validity or level of truth. It was the majority opinion of 15th century "experts" that there was nothing but water between Europe and India. Less than 200 years ago it was the majority opinion of "experts" that bloodletting was a proper treatment to prevent inflammation of open wounds, and that it was a potential cure for illness.
Again, the number of "experts" who agree to some claim does not impress me, nor does it convince me of the truth or validity of the claim. Evidently, in your worldview (and that of many others) this is not the case. You evidently believe that as long as enough socially awkward people who wear white coats and glasses make a claim, that makes it true. I don't. If you think that makes my view flawed, or false, or somehow inferior to yours, then I'm not sure what else to say.
you'll find that AGW skepticism is a minority position
So was heliocentrism in 3rd century BC, germ theory in the 19th century, and Austrian Business Cycle Theory today. That doesn't make them any less valid.
your assertions of "unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud" are basically completely absent in academic discourse.
...perhaps because the "academic discourse" you speak of is largely where the unfounded hysteria, political persecution, and fraud are stemming from?
I think JJ closed the thread with Levitt's geoengineering alternatives. Who pays for these in the absence of government? Charity should easily be able to raise the funds given that AGW will "kill us all" if it is not stopped. Sure, there will be free-riders but those bearing the cost benefit enough that the fact that the rest of us are free-riding will not deter them from acting.
To supplement the geoengineering point further, I want to mention Bjorn Lomborg's work to put the AGW problem into perspective by ranking it with the world's other biggest problems:
Unless we can fix AGW very cheaply, it's simply not worth our while.
Clayton -
Clayton:To supplement the geoengineering point further, I want to mention Bjorn Lomborg's work to put the AGW problem into perspective by ranking it with the world's other biggest problems: Unless we can fix AGW very cheaply, it's simply not worth our while.
In that same vein, Jerry Taylor made the similar point (quite well, I'd say) in the very first episode of Stossel (he makes it throughout the show, but here's a nice clip):
Notice the anti-human tendencies of his opponent here (all too common within this "green movement"). She doesn't really care about people, she cares about controlling behavior, even to the detriment of people...
Please notice that the term "global warming" (which itself followed "global cooling" by only a few years) has been supplanted by "climate change" as if the natural climate is static. The chief originator of the theory, Roger Revelle, repudiated his conclusions shortly before his death in 1991.