As I have said earlier in these exchanges, I have never believed that there is a watertight case for climate change for logical reasons. I don't see how there ever can be. Evidence can only point in a direction, but that's all it can do - point. We need to draw our conclusions from the evidence, and rarely do we have enough time to check all the evidence.
Although I cannot process to be a scientist, I do think I have a reasonable grasp of the scientific method. I have no idea (I have not done the research) how many phenomena various scientists have been looking at - Arctic melting, glacier melting, various temperature regimes, atmospheric CO2, and the list goes on I'm sure. Most of that science is good, because that is what scientists want to do - good science. Some of it is poorly done, either because the scientist did not take something into account something he should have (an honest mistake), or because he enters the research with an overwhelming bias.
So the rational person takes all of this information into account, and draws his conclusion. It is my perception that most (but not all) scientists have concluded, from the evidence, that the threat of Climate Change is real. It is also my perception that few politicians think the threat is real (based on their actions); and I think about 50% of the general population thinks the threat is real (based on polling - I don't have the latest) From time to time, evidence emerges that some of the science (or the scientist) is flawed. At other times new evidence emerges either supporting or not supporting the climate change hypothesis.
I think it is noteworthy that most, perhaps all of the news stories debunking Climate Change have had to do with the emergence of flawed research. I am not aware of any story of new science challenging the hypothesis. There have been stories of new science supporting the hypothesis, but they have not received the coverage of the "debunked science".
Which brings me to the real point of this post. The event is global recession. What has caused it?The assumption is the bust of the housing bubble in US. And Karl go another rung down in the ladder, and asserts that the housing bubble came into being because of flawed leftist policy intended to make housing available even to those who could not afford it. Maybe Karl is right, and maybe the widespread belief that the burst of the housing bubble caused the recession is right. There certainly is some evidence to support this, and certainly the belief that the housing bubble caused the recession has much following. I am not sure how much it has yet affected policy. I have not seen it. Maybe the policy is coming.
But what if that's a whole bunch of junk economics manufactured by the big banks as a way of getting money out of the treasury. How confident can we be that this is not junk economics? What if the whole (or main) reason behind the recession is the high price of oil? I think the case could be made, I just don't have the time to do the research now.
What if the policies we need now, are not primarily policies to regulate our banking system, but primarily policies that anticipate higher oil prices?
On another point altogether. I have been reading Ralph Friesen's recent book about Steinbach Between Earth and Sky. It's a good read for anyone interest in Steinbach or the evolution of Mennonite thought, particularly Mennonite thought about humility. Ralph quotes Roy Vogt in 1991. -- perhaps the most profound statement in the book.
With all their achievements -- and they are very real -- there's something very sad. They want to be humble, yet they are materialist in the crassest sense of the word. I always felt there was a lot of commitment to charity. Charity is treating people well after they have been mistreated. Justice is trying not to treat them badly in the first place.
Menschenskinder it took me forever to just respond to your comments on last post and you were already posting anew. I see I have some work to do, if mostly on climate change you know I probably won't respond, not my issue, I frankly don't care.
ReplyDeleteI however look fwding to reading what you've written, even if I don't debate it.
The last two sentences about charity and justice is exactly my point on the bailouts and the new education program.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is the fundamental difference on conservatism and socialism, treating people justly and not as charity or one could say compassion or standards as Karl pointed out way back in October,(feminization post).
Perhaps you are not a liberal after all,
though I believe Roy who wrote that stmt was, so go figure? Good for you liberals for adopting conservative thinking. Ha ha, smile!
Why can't we just agree on all the rest?
I think I have said several times in the course of these conversations, that labels are useful, but only up to a point. And certainly there is frequently a serious difference between a political party's stance, and the political ideology it is based on. How do you deal with that? :) (Why won't blogspot let us put emoticons into comments? Not fair!)
ReplyDeleteWell, I have Ralph Friesen's book on my bookshelf and have not read it. Now that my relative, Roy Vogt, is quoted in it I might just crack it open. : )
ReplyDeleteLori Klassen
1. There is no scientific consensus (even 70% agreement from what i can tell) on man-made global warming. It appears the momentum is quickly shifting in the deniers favor the past 5 years. This is why it is quite offensive that until very recently, the media and academia (ie showing the Al Gore movie in schools) have spread the propaganda as indisputable fact.
ReplyDelete2. There is no evidence for your claim that banks invented the crisis to get money from the treasury. Surely given the liberal bias in the media (over 75% of journalists are self described liberals), there would be some credible evidence by now if this was the case. I dont even see how this is logical, given most of the banks didn't even want TARP, but were required to take it by the government under the name of stabilizing the system. Also, keep in mind that most banks have paid TARP funds back.
I lost a comment in cyberspace. You won't believe how profound it was. Actually I think there is a conspiracy out there that filters out my best comments.
ReplyDeleteActually I think the lesson is: keep your comments brief or save them elsewhere.
Karl, I think you have made my point. You have chosen to be skeptical of global warming. I am not sure why. One plausible reason is that you have examined the scientific evidence suggesting global warming is occurring, and found it wanting. Another reason may be that you have found the most vocal spokesman for global warming, Al Gore, to be less than credible. I suggest that your reason for not believing in global warming is not the first, but the second, or some variant of the second.
A story I hear is that most scientists have joined the global warming band wagon because that is the only way they can get funding and get their salaries paid.
The other story is that big oil has hired lobbyists (who may have science training) who have mounted a serious PR campaign to undermine the climate change alarmists.
The question is, which story is more likely, which is more credible. Personally, I find the first story lacking credibility. Basically, scientists are in the business of looking for truth. Yes there is junk science, and yes, there are corrupt scientists, and yes, they follow the money (but those that do that chose to work for corporations) but on the whole scientists are scientists because they seek the truth.
The second story I find persuasive. I don't need to tell you how many lobbyists there are in Washington whose job it is, not to propagate the truth, but to twist the truth in favor of their employer.
So back to my point. What actual evidence is there that the world wide recession was caused by the burst housing bubble? Why your lack of skepticism? http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/22/oil-shock-did-high-oil-prices-cause-the-recession/tab/article/
GIven the environmentalists have cried "the world is ending" with global cooling and warming many times in the last 100 years, and have been wrong every time, i think the contrary view is more credible. The global warming movement shuts down debate (many examples) which common sense tells me means the truth is not on their side. But yes, i think we can agree that the science is not clear on either side, and being environmentally responsible is a good thing. I think we just disagree on the best solutions and the gravity of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI see no data in this article to suggest oil was a cause, its a theory with nothing behind it. Common sense would tell me that given oil, and the products it produces, became less than 10% of disposable income at its peak this decade (vs historically it was often 30-40% 50-80 years ago) that its impact was minimal. But even if higher oil pricked the housing bubble (which i don't believe) the collapse in housing was inevitable, and ultimately is the source of the bank collapse and recession. There are many ways to look at this, but banks were forced to lend to people that couldn't even afford the interest on the mortgage, hence they were doing negative amortization loans.
I really don't have much to say here, b/c it would require more thinking than I'm used to. Ha!! Actually that's not true.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'm caught up on my reading now (except Cab's blog .. I see there are posts I haven't read there .. I'll come by soon, C). And wanted to let you know that I AM reading. And you never know when I might actually contribute to the conversation.
So we disagree on the gravity of the situation, but I thought we had agreed on the solution -- a carbon tax. If living in an environmentally responsible way is a good thing, I wonder why debunking climate change is important. Where is an attitude of embracing climate change as likely, leading to bad policy? Having said that, my position is that recognizing our dwindling oil supplies is more likely to lead to good policy than concern about climate change. (A post on this is coming soon. When it comes, it may be too long to read!!!!)
ReplyDeleteI agree that the housing bubble was destined to burst, and that whenever that came, it would cause trouble for many people, even as it did in 1929. However that does not remove the correlation between high energy prices and recession. I don't have the statistics, but anecdotally, but here in Manitoba, as fuel prices went up, truckers were being laid off and car sales were down. You refer to common sense. My common sense would say that a lot of economic activity depends on stable (probably low) energy prices. If energy prices go up, activity is going to slow down.
To your question, the whole problem of embracing climate change as a big crisis, is that it is used to grab more power for the government. The larger the government, the smaller the citizen, and the bigger the crisis that can be created with a "climate change" scare, the more freedom will be taken away. Importantly, i think the solutions would be ineffective as well. Just like solving poverty is an admirable trait, we need to recognize as governments gain more power and control to solve it, they create bigger and more severe unintended consequences, and dont solve the original problem in the process.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that Haiti, where they have had minimal government prior to the earth quake, is better off now because of that than they would be, had they had more government?
ReplyDeleteI agree that big government has resulted in a devastating erosion of individual freedom in some cases (the communist world), what evidence is there that this is universally true? What criteria is used to decide that the unintended consequences of a well meant government action more than offset the good of the intended action? And I imagine even Ayan Rand would agree that there must be a limit to the degree that individual rights override group rights. How does a rational society decide what that limit should be? How much freedom do I have to pollute before it is too much? Do conservatives accept that "The Rape of the Commons" is a problem a society needs to deal with? If so, how would a true conservative government deal with this dilemma?
My sense of it is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that conservatives wish this problem did not exist, so they think if they wished hard enough, it actually will go away. I really would like to see a hard headed conservative proposal for dealing with this.
Thank goodness this is intended for KH since I do not even know who Ayan Rand is? ok I could research that and "The Rape of the Commons" but I will leave it all to KH, I am bowing out like the rest of the family who says they do not feel they could keep up with the two of you to comment.
ReplyDeleteThough I wish the rest of the family would,if I am commenting anyone can, after all we are all family, opinions welcome and new topics too.
Even my "friend" Hans Olaf Henkel here in good old Germany says the crisis was due to the housing market and the policies way back to Carter and through all the Presidents after that democrat or republican. Mr Henkel always stands alone as the man with "vernunft", gentlemanly coolness and knowledge of the facts. He is often on these right vs left talk shows.
ok I will let Karl find the proof since he probably has it in his back pocket.
You could goggle for Ayan Rand, and Karl could say more, but to me Ayan Rand is the person who wrote a novel "Atlas Shrugged" (very readable), and a philosophy "The Virtue of Selfishness". I read both books during my university years. Basically she says that when we all make our decisions in terms of what is in our own best interest, we all achieve the greatest benefit. She has been very influential within the conservative fiscal right.
ReplyDelete"The Rape of the Commons" or "The Tragedy of the Commons" is an extremely important concept. Our survival as a human race depends on our ability to deal with it! No overstatement, in my opinion. Suppose there are ten farmers, each of whom has one cow grazing on the village common pasture. Each farmer thinks: having a second cow would slightly reduce the pasture available to my first cow, but would nearly double my profits. Therefore each farmer acquires a second cow, the pasture is overgrazed, and finally can no longer even support ten cows. The tragedy is that by pursuing their individual interests, the farmers all end up worse off than where they started.
ok thanks for info .. something to think about.
ReplyDeleteI had to leave a comment so that I could unsubsribe to comments so sorry, false alarm.
I thought we discussed, that the lesson of the "rape of the commons" is not more government/regulation - but more private property. When people own their own land, they take care of it better than when its common land. This theory is proven in practice, as nations that adopt a collectivist approach, and then try to solve "rape of the commons" through legislation fail.
ReplyDeleteAnd you again use apocalyptic language when say "our survival as a human race depends on our ability to deal with it! [tragedy of the commons]". Yet, you still have not provided any evidence, that the world is on a fastrack to destruction any more than it was 100, 1000, 100,000 years ago (whereas looking at prices of commodities or survival rates of humans, suggest we are far from destroying the earth, and perhaps healthier than ever). For now, I believe we have far more pressing issues in the world - like deficits (due largely to bloated liberal social programs) that I believe will absolutely, mathematically require dramatic government overhauls at best, and complete economic collapse at worst.
As far as conservative solutions to being more environmentally responsible? Conservatives have suggested abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a consumption task. The current income tax system is broken (with 1% of Americans paying 50% of all tax). I think a consumption tax, and possibly having some higher taxes on energy if implemented properly could work. I am very skeptical politicians can properly implement however, just like the yacht tax. They placed a luxury tax on yachts in the US in order to punish the rich as well as curtail consumption presumably. What happened? They simply purchased their yachts outside the US, yacht manufacturers in the US laid off their workers, and the net consumption of yachts didn’t change as Americans simply bought foreign-made yachts instead. But yes, I think a consumption tax (and eliminating the income tax) is where we may have some important common ground.
This is becoming quite annoying. I just lost another comment to cyberspace. Now to recreate it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that on the whole, assets privately held are treated better than assests publically held. But that does not deal with the "Rape of the Commons". How do you deal with the factory that pollutes (the air or the stream) thereby gaining the competitive edge on the factory that does not pollute? Or indeed, how do you deal with the factory upstream or upwind, that pollutes and seriously interferes with my ability to enjoy life?
My appocalyptic world view deserves a post of its own. :)
And I agree with your assessment of the deficit and the dangers inherent it it, but I do not think you are helpful attributing that deficit to liberal social programs. For one thing, it could just as easily be the result of conservative aversion to taxation. But more seriously, surely George Bush's decision to finance the wars with deficits during times of enviable economic growth had very much to do with the growth of the deficit. Wars cost money, and to pretend otherwise is simply short-sighted.
And replacing the income tax with a carbon tax and a consumption tax -- Karl that would be getting very close to fiscal heaven for me. And I think this is very doable and practical. I would just add to that yet, a 100% (or maybe 99%) inheritance tax, but this may not be practical or doable.
I think its a fair question on how does one deal with factories emitting, but emission regulations set 30+ years ago seem to be working. The water and air quality in most western economies are doing much better now than 40 years ago. I fail to see the need to fundamentally transform this strategy now.
ReplyDeleteOn Bush, you are correct that Bush spent far too much money, on both social programs and the war in Iraq - we agree and I frankly have always called Bush a liberal. Spending outside the war increased rapidly for entitlement programs (albeit Obama as i have shown is vastly more fiscally reckless). As a conservative, I am against social security, medicare, and most of these big government programs that will bankrupt the west. However, it is also a misconception, that lowering taxes contributed to the deficit.
When taxes go above 30%, governments take in LESS money. Perhaps non-intuitive, but think about if taxes were at 100%, clearly no one would work. Its like any business including monopolies, at a certain point raising prices reduces profits as your unit sales go down. History consistently shows that 30% or so, is the rate above which you get LESS money as a whole when you raise taxes beyond that level. Bush screwed up in not lowering taxes on the wealthy further. Doing so would have lowered the deficit.
But it is very good that you and I agree on replacing the income tax.
I'm still trying to understand how "the world according to conservatives" would be organized. You have said that emissions are being regulated in an acceptable manner, so why fix it. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteThere are individual rights and group rights [to live without pollution]. Your concession above indicates that you acknowledge group rights and that these need to be enforced by government. But government is a bad thing. I am still looking for an understanding how and when, in the conservative mindset, group rights need to be protected.
I don't think liberals would accept Bush as one of them. A true liberal would not allow deficit spending during a boom period.
Furthermore, you imply that the only way to avoid a deficit [in good times] is to reduce spending. I say there is a second way -- increase taxation. How that tax is raised, is another matter. It need not be through income tax.
Yes, conservatives believe government in general is a bad thing. However, unlike anarchists, we believe that a minimal amount is necessary. I think the US constitution, or the founders writings are a good place to get a profound understanding of conservative thought. So conservatives are for environmental protection, armies, and a few other essential areas protecting group rights. However, we also believe liberals take "rights" too far, at the expense of personal responsibilities. For example, i don't believe healthcare or education is a right, but rather a personal responsibility. Moreover, i believe that when governments get involved, they typically destroy things. In the US in 1850, before compulsory education and public schooling, the literacy rate was higher - 99% -and the test to detect literacy was far more stringent.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to look at those recessions in history that were solved most quickly, they came from cutting government spending and cutting taxes. Deficits went down, and the economy boomed. When we deploy Keynsian economics (increasing government spending to boost economy), it fails. Look at 1921 in the US, the economy declined more than it did in the 1930s. However, the solution to the problem in the 1920s was cutting spending and taxes, and hence the economy improved dramatically. Roosevelt decided to deploy Keynsian economics and other measures of government interference, and the result was the great depression. Obama is a student of Roosevelt, so little doubt in my mind this strategy will fail (as evidence is already showing).