The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Anti-sceptics dance on reason’s grave > Comments

Anti-sceptics dance on reason’s grave : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 23/7/2010

There can be no freedom of thought without the right to be sceptical. On climate change or anything else.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All
Jedimaster

“That is because it is impossible to prove anything that is still in the future - it is an intention.”

That is not correct. We are able to have certain minimal knowledge which is nevertheless universally valid, on the basis of logic.

For example, we are able to know that Pythagoras’ theorem will continue to apply to all right-angle triangles in the future. And that 7 x7 will still equal 49 on 20 July 2017. No need to wait and do empirical observations, nor statistical tests of the relative frequency of correctness.

We already know these truths with 100% certainty a priori from logic. This can be applied, to a certain limited extent, to human action. For example we also know that adding more and more fertilizer cannot infinitely increase the productivity of a given piece of land. Physical laws impose certain limits on human action and therefore production possibilities, and we are capable of knowing certain logical consequences of these.

Thus we can prove things from a test of threshold logic without recourse to empirical observation *if * the premises are factually true, and the logical deductions are formally valid. That’s why we don’t do statistical testing on the viability of policies based on invisible pink unicorns:- because they don’t meet the threshold test of forming logically sound propositions in the first place.

For these reasons, we already know that without the possibility of economic calculation, an economy *must necessarily* waste far far more resources than an economy in which economic calculation is possible. (This is why the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was able to prove in 1920 that mass starvation would result from socialism, which the socialists had to learn from empirical observation by killing millions of people. This answers Trashcanman’s question about mass starvation from AGW policies.)

The assumption of AGW policy providing net benefits does not meet the minimum threshold of a logically sound proposition in the first place; (which is why you’ve been unable to prove it).
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 1 August 2010 1:17:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not? Because there is factually nothing about a legal monopoly of coercion, and coercion-based central planning of production, that would enable us to conclude that its chief executive or his delegates could ever have the knowledge or capacity (or disinterestedness) to allocate the zillions of resources possibilities to valued ends, as economically as could a system based on the private ownership of property. If you want me to prove it, please let me know. The proof is logical and mathematical, not empirical.

On the contrary, government will contain all the original problems *and* have
- no way of economising resources in accordance with its own rationale
- no way of avoiding massive waste in practice – think pink batts:- the government’s idea of saving the climate btw
- no way of avoiding tragedy of the commons, legalised fraud, massive corruption, institutionalised freeriding and systemic injustices
- the power of killing on a massive scale.

"I will concede that I haven't demonstrated conclusively that government action will provide a net benefit."

Very good of you, but with respect, you haven’t even begun to demonstrate it.

Similarly Trashcanman, obviously if we ignore the costs of something, anything will seem beneficial. You’re applying a double standard and that’s the only reason your conclusion may seem justified. A private business cannot operate at a loss because it will send the business broke. But for the schemes you advocate, you don’t count the economic and environmental costs necessary to put the people in the same position they would have been in if they had not been taxed to pay for the schemes. So you’re not comparing apples with apples.

I have now shown that
- the entire argument for policy action on global warming is based on false claims about science, and consists of circularly asserting a mere assumption that is not verifiable or falsifiable; and that
- AGW policy action will *necessarily* be more wasteful and therefore counter-productive *even when judged from its advocates' own standpoint *.

QED
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 1 August 2010 1:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, Peter

Your thoughtful contributions are a credit to OLO.

So our issue is not the existence of AGW, but what to do about it- I think that collectively you have established a "false trichotomy" ie only 3 options- do nothing, let the government do it or let the private sector do it.

"Do nothing", leads to either "just live with it", as it will never get too bad (because nature will self-regulate), or seek to "mitigate" it, either by private or government action.

"Government action" gives Peter the horrors, as he rightly says that we can't control zillions of interactions, redolent of determinism arguments in my undergraduate days. This is a straw argument, because no one is suggesting a totalitarian approach with massive computers coupled to ubiquitous CCTV. We can do a lot better than that.

"Leave it to private sector" is as logically absurd as "all Government", as most economies are, and will remain, about one-third government funded and those funds (from our taxes), already shift preferences- witness the recent mining tax debate and the claims as to how that would shift production preferences.

I posit a fourth option, which is broadly in line with the present public proposals- government shifts the preferences by taxation and legislation, and lets the "economy" (private and public) sort out the myriad of details at the transaction level.

But how to do it? And how much? And when? I accept, in principle, both Peter's "iatrogenic" fears, and Graham's comment that the financial modelling to date is inadequate. My thinking still remains along the lines that I set out 2 years ago in my OLO paper on Net Energy Analysis OLO www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5695 and the pdf of my larger paper referred to. Essentially, I take the approach (not "believe") that energy consumption and economic consumption are very closely correlated, so we don't have to create a separate "energy economy"- we can use conventional economics.
We don't have to have to drop our standard of living (SOL). (..Cont'd)
Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 2 August 2010 11:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I've said before, productivity has tracked at about 2%/yr for more than a century. If we simply maintained SOL and population from, say, 1910, we would have had 2% annual deflation and carbon use would have about quartered. But we didn't- the population climbed faster than productivity and we "reinvested" the "efficiency dividend into more purchases, therefore increasing our SOL. Credit has also increased the effective money supply and essentially purchased even more carbon to burn. Although Western populations are peaking, India and China have joined the significant carbon burning populations.

Leaving India and China aside, we could reduce carbon use by not "reinvesting" all of the 2% efficiency gains- limited to, say, 1%. This could be done by governments running surpluses (go for it Tony!) and keeping a lid on credit. That would halve the carbon in 70 years- a bit slow fo some, but much better than nothing.

India and China? In the short term, we can't do much, but China,is taking this problem seriously. I was at a World Solar Congress in Beijing a couple of years ago and it was apparent even then that the "Celestial Empire" does not want to be shrouded in pollution. China is already the world's largest producer of windpower, PV and solar water heaters and growing exponentially. As I have said before, these energy sources are not "competitive" with carbon yet, but the trend lines (see, for example http://www.1366tech.com/v2/) have renewables at grid parity within a decade or so. Although they can't totally supplant carbon yet, they will contribute to the efficiency dividend after 2020. India is more problematic as they don't seem to have a culture that intrinsically worries about pollution. Maybe they will be swept along by the international momentum.

So there- "just" pull the fiscal levers and the participants in the economy will do the rest. Possible? Very! Probable? As Reagan (possibly) said "people don't change when they se the light- only when they feal the heat." And how much AGW "heat" will be enough?
Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 2 August 2010 11:15:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your kind remarks.

Your method *again* relies entirely on assuming what you need to demonstrate.

The argument keeps looking something like this:
Warmists: We need government to do something about global warming.
Skeptics: Prove it.
Warmists: The science proves the globe is warming!
Skeptics: That doesn’t prove policy action is indicated.
Warmists: But it does.
Skeptics: Why?
Warmists: Because only a bad person – a ‘denialist’ - would deny it.
Skeptics: That’s personal argument and assumes you’ve already proved what’s in issue. How will government know all it needs to know to make the situation better than worse?
Warmists: We can’t know all the details of government action.
Skeptics: Then how do you know there’d be a net benefit?
Warmists: We don’t know it exactly.
Skeptics: Well how do you know it at all?
Warmists: It has to be.
Skeptics: Why?
Warmists: Because. The government must do something.
Skeptics: That’s circular argument. How do you know there’d be a net benefit?
Warmists: Because the government must do something.
Skeptics: That’s circular again.
Warmists: You are an enemy of reason.
Skeptics: What makes you think government would be able to produce a net benefit?
Warmists: Because. There is a tragedy of the commons situation. No-one owns the atmosphere. There are externalities and market failures.
Skeptics: All the same problems would equally inhere in government action too, plus other problems now absent. How is extending the commons going to reduce the tragedy of the commons?
Warmists: Because only government can fix the problem.
Skeptics: How do you know government’s intervention will make things better than worse?
Warmists: Because that’s what governments are for.
Skeptics: That’s what’s in issue.
Warmists: Well what about government interventions in other areas?
Skeptics: What about them? Can you prove a net benefit from those interventions?
Warmists: No.
Skeptics: So?
Warmists: There would have to be a net benefit.
Skeptics. Why?
Warmists: Because government does them.
Skeptic: Is that the best you can do?
Warmists: The government has to do what’s necessary because the private sector won’t do it.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 August 2010 4:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skeptics: Well I’m not surprised. If they do it at a loss, they’ll go broke. You’re somehow assuming that doing things at a loss will not waste more resources.
Warmists. Perhaps so, but I’m assuming there would be a net benefit.
Skeptics. Well obviously. But you can’t assume as a premise what you’re trying to prove as a conclusion.
Warmists: Okay fair enough. How about this? Government exists, therefore government should do something.

On so on and on and on. It’s like a joke. Did you guys go to Fallacy University or something? And this is someone who writes cost-benefit analyses for Cabinet! This method should have been beneath you, but given you used it, I should only have had to point it out *once*.

But this is invincible ignorance. What we are dealing with here displays all the characteristics of an irrational belief system, and none of the characteristics of a rational one.

There is no need for me to enter on any of the easy refutations of your last post until you have got to square one, which you haven’t done yet.

Let’s be honest. Admit that you can’t advance an argument without assuming government provides net benefits, or if do you again, it means you concede the general issue, okay?
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 2 August 2010 4:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy