Peter, well said .. you did catch the phrase above though didn't you?

"the opposition is entrenched and is prepared to sacrifice reason in the name of freedom of speech."

It was amusing when I saw it in the post, and more so now that I see your posts.

Suspension of reason indeed.

Peter Hume

My cursor hovered over the "red cross", but I decided that "The warmists are morally and intellectually on a par with the people who used to drown witches." was marginally redeemed by the quality of the historical allusion.

I do not think that you have "refuted" anything. Assertions do not in themselves constitute refutation. Refutation would require a process of assembly of verified facts connected by logic and reason, not just repetition of claims.

That's how science works.

Graham

The other thread refers to Sophie Trevitt's article where I find the patronising language offensive. Like JM, I am reluctant to start a red cross war, so I will let it slide. Your comment about my matyrdom is also something I will live with.

I am also surprised that no-one has commented on the latest State of the Climate report by the US National Climatic Data Centre which provides further evidence of global warming and its effects.

I'll assume that you're arguing in good faith and as it seems that you genuinely can't understand the issues, I'll try to make it as plain as possible.

The issue is whether government should do something. Do you agree with that?

So when I ask you to prove that the government's action would be justified by producing net benefits, you reply that that cannot be known, we can't have exact knowledge, we can't have 100% knowledge etc.

So then I say that you have not been able to prove whether the government should do something, because you have not been able to prove that it would make the situation better than worse.

So then you say to the effect 'that's what the government's there for' [ie to take such action]. In other words, even though there is no proof, and no way of knowing that the government's action would make the situation better than worse, still the government should take such action, because the government should take such action.

So in the end your entire arguments resolves into a circularity: the government should take action because the government should take action. But that's what's in issue in the first place.

The fact it is a circular argument, means it's illogical, which means I have refuted your argument.

I have also proved that government action on AGW must necessarily waste more natural resources than the status quo, by the economic calculation argument, which you obviously have not understood. But the world turns thus nevertheless. Unlike your argument, the economic calculation argument is not circular but logically proves what was to be demonstrated, without impermissibly assuming the conclusion in the premises as you did.

Your conceit that you are in the position of Galileo has it precisely backward - you are in the position of the Church with its circular belief.

Peter Hume

Thanks for taking the effort in such a civil tone.

Your analysis breaks down at the point where you presume that I endorse any and all actions by governments and that governments should act no matter what.

Collective action is indicated when the likelihood of the action being beneficial is greater than the likely disbenefits of the problem (in this case AGW) plus the likely disbenefits of the action. The important issue here is the notion of "likelihood"- I refer back to my definition of management- the available information is always incomplete. In the case of AGW, we beg to differ- today's NOAA announcements increase the likelihood to a very high degree of certainty.

That leaves the "iatrogenic" issue related to the action- will it cause more disbenefits than benefits? It is certainly possible. I have argued at length for a better understanding of Net Energy Analysis- it is possible that we could consume more carbon-based energy constructing solar, wind,geothermal, nuclear and biofuels than we save. I have argued that the present hybrid vehicles probably are not energy savers.

However, doing nothing but letting the market rip is not an option. As energy efficiencies have improved (about 2%/yr over a long time) we have consistently "reinvested" the savings in more consumption. Add to that the increased number of consumers and you have increasing AGW.

A course of action that reduces the carbon that we use annually is the only way to go- cap and trade. A carbon tax alone might just see the tax money re-used to make net-negative "green" energy sources.

Those are risks- but the free market can only guarantee increased carbon use.

Hmm... interesting:

P.Hume claims the issue is whether the government should do something about climate change. Yes, I think we all agree, that is the issue.

He then asks whether it can be proven if the government's action will produce net benefits. And of course no-one can answer that because it completely depends on what the government actually decides to do, and how they go about it. There are many options available, some more effective than others, some more costly than others.

And so, because we can't predict government policy and therefore cannot give a quantitative answer on the net benefits of unknown policy, we are wrong to advocate action at all, according to Mr Hume.

I also believe we need to reduce crime. There are many ways to do it, but I'm not sure what action the government might take to do it; so I can't be sure what the net benefits will be. So, using the Logic of Peter Hume, I better not advocate it.

Basically, Peter, there are many methods to reduce carbon emissions. I can't think of one that will lead to the deaths of thousands of people, which you seem to be arguing is the case. But most methods will also have the added benefits of reducing the depletion of non-renewables, as well as reduce the emission and therefore health costs of other associated air pollutants (e.g benzene, dioxins, furans, PCBs, heavy metals, SO2 etc etc); the latter of which will SAVE LIVES.