October 2019 Open Thread

Welcome to October.

150 thoughts on “October 2019 Open Thread

  1. Eric Sundwall

    The town of Kinderhook is having a major party meltdown between two very mediocre candidates. So glad I’m not a NAPper in this race, now that we have ballot access. The fear of winning would be too great. Can’t imagine the line of supplicants, sycophants and scarred individuals who would be in my Universe right. Go big NY Libertarians the protest is better than the reality.

  2. robert capozzi

    BR and others,

    You might read up on the subject. Here’s a start:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

    You also might look into a recent Nobel Prize winning economist named Nordhaus who is advocating for a “carbon dividend.” It’s a view I’ve been toying with for at least a decade, and I don’t — at least — see anything fascist about it! 😉

  3. dL

    You might read up on the subject. Here’s a start:

    Economist Fred Foldvary is a definitive source on geolibertarianism. He was active in Cali LP politics at one time.

    Nordhaus who is advocating for a “carbon dividend.”

    We’ve had this argument before, but I don’t see any relationship between carbon taxes and the single land tax. A carbon tax is either a pigouvian tax or a consumption tax.

  4. Jared

    dL: “Economist Fred Foldvary is a definitive source on geolibertarianism. He was active in Cali LP politics at one time.”

    Seconded. There should still be a podcast uploaded to YouTube in which Foldvary debated (Rothbard proxy) Walter Block on the topic.

    Another great reference is Dan Sullivan, who was active in the Allegheny Co. or Pittsburgh LP–I don’t recall which–and who I’m convinced is some sort of LVT wizard. His knowledge of Georgism and related issues is staggering.

  5. dL

    There should still be a podcast uploaded to YouTube in which Foldvary debated (Rothbard proxy) Walter Block on the topic.

  6. dL

    btw, Block’s Laffer curve objection to the single land tax is ignorant at best, at worst a demonstration of the folly of consciously treating land like a standard capital good. Land is not a widget.

  7. robert capozzi

    I like Foldvary’s theoretical work as well. I find it politically unripe, however. The Geoists offer a more sellable construct generally than atomistic NAP Fundamentalists. In effect and as I understand them, they view a nation’s natural resources as the citizenry’s property. Individual property rights begin where a person or business IMPROVES those natural resources.

    A carbon dividend is a riper idea, politically speaking. It addresses the potentially catastrophic negative externality of air pollution and excessive carbon emissions in a sensible, market-oriented manner.

  8. NewFederalist

    Thanks, JR for introducing something other than “how many angels can dance on the head of a tax collector” into this thread!

  9. dL

    Thanks, JR for introducing something other than “how many angels can dance on the head of a tax collector” into this thread!

    I would say land injustice and homelessness is a pretty relevant political topic these days

  10. Jared

    RC: “The Geoists offer a more sellable construct generally than atomistic NAP Fundamentalists.”

    The NAP is not restricted to a single theory of property. I think most geolibertarians would argue LVT is consistent with the NAP. Deontological anarcho-capitalists don’t see it that way because they subscribe to a property philosophy that conflates land and capital.

    “In effect and as I understand them, they view a nation’s natural resources as the citizenry’s property.”

    Unownable commons, not jointly or collectively owned. It’s a subtle distinction, but one which makes a world of philosophical difference. For example, the people (or democratic government) have no legitimate authority to deprive an individual of his or her rightful share of land value.

    ,Individual property rights begin where a person or business IMPROVES those natural resources.”

    Locke might have provided the best way to determine how land titles are bestowed, but homesteading does not create a natural right to the land as allodial property. Ideally it would secure only the legal privilege of exclusive access.

    “A carbon dividend is a riper idea, politically speaking.”

    Maybe. But if the goal of this Pigouvian/sin tax is to reduce carbon emissions, then its success means the dividend value decreases, and people lose income with a reduction in air pollution. LVT is a much firmer foundation for a basic income guarantee, and fines targeting industrial pollution should be based on their devaluation of the natural commons.

  11. dL

    The NAP is not restricted to a single theory of property. I think most geolibertarians would argue LVT is consistent with the NAP.

    No it’s not, given that, say, the majority of the historical anarchist tradition views private property itself as aggression. Individualist anarchism(in the vein of Tucker or Proudhon) stays within the liberal tradition vis a vis private property but views any rent from such as a form of legalized plunder. Anarcho-capitalism is no longer something I take seriously. It’s just proven to be grift anarchism for people who hate the left . Geolibertarianism begins with the presumption of “land is part of the commons,” and I imagine most of its adherents could give a rats ass what Walter Block thinks are NAP violations.

    Unownable commons, not jointly or collectively owned. It’s a subtle distinction

    It’s not that subtle of a distinction. The commons is like, say, open source software. Collectivism is like requiring a real Id to enter a public building.

    But if the goal of this Pigouvian/sin tax is to reduce carbon emissions, then its success means the dividend value decreases, and people lose income with a reduction in air pollution.

    Yes. Tobacco taxes and vaping tells you all you need to know regarding the fate of pigouvian taxes that are relied upon as a source of public financing. Alternatives are either banned or taxed as a similar negative externality under a pretense of a manufactured moral panic.

  12. robert capozzi

    j,
    I don’t see a carbon tax and sin taxes as the same. A carbon tax taxes something that generally has trivial efffects on the individual level, but the cumulative effect could be globally catastrophic. Sin taxes are designed to dissuade individual behavior that could be catastrophic for the individual.

    A carbon tax rate could/should be increased over time.

  13. dL

    A carbon tax taxes something that generally has trivial efffects on the individual level

    A 20% increase in one’a utility bill and gasoline costs is not trivial for a lot of people, Bob.

    but the cumulative effect could be globally catastrophic.

    I would take claims of global catastrophe more seriously if folk weren’t trying to wrap some income redistribution scheme around a pigovian tax, and if the same folk went after the low hanging fruit of military spending. If one doesn’t advocate for severe reductions in the single biggest planetary polluter(US military), then I have to question the sincerity of one’s climate emergency convictions.

    Sin taxes are designed to dissuade individual behavior that could be catastrophic for the individual.

    One man’s sin is another’s healthy pleasure. Hail Satan!

  14. Eric Sundwall

    Richard,

    Town Supervisor position in this case. The Democrat kept a non-Democrat from attaining the nomination based on their bylaws. Folks are upset as a result.

    Unfortunately, my baiting of Mr. Capozzi didn’t work in this case, so the point is kind of moot. There has not been an insurgence of local office seekers since the LPNY obtained ballot access. My tease involves those who claim the baby steps are necessary to achieve “success” electorally. My assertion is that quality individuals in a bad situation, don’t really have a chance due to the jaded electorate, the immutable expectation of the conservative/liberal either/or and the utter banality of the offices in question.

    I’ll probably just keep working on my stand-up routine, rather than wait for Root’s Teeth Are Awesome to come back and inject some levity on IPR. Didn’t B. Holtz lay down the Foldavy tracts in 2006?

  15. robert capozzi

    J: Unownable commons, not jointly or collectively owned. It’s a subtle distinction, but one which makes a world of philosophical difference. For example, the people (or democratic government) have no legitimate authority to deprive an individual of his or her rightful share of land value.

    Me: Please clarify. Most — L and non-L — would say that land is ownable.

    Also, I’ve been toying with the idea of expanding the “tax” base for carbon dividends by having a second source of revenue: Carbon tariffs. Goods exported from, say, China and India would be tariffed at a higher rate, perhaps France at a lower rate. Products from nations that lowered their pollution levels would have their rate lowered annually, those whose emissions increased would have their tariff rate increased. This would allow citizens to defend themselves from the creeping assault that high-polluting nations are imposing on the RoW.

  16. Jared

    RC: “I don’t see a carbon tax and sin taxes as the same. A carbon tax taxes something that generally has trivial efffects on the individual level, but the cumulative effect could be globally catastrophic. Sin taxes are designed to dissuade individual behavior that could be catastrophic for the individual.”

    Pigouvian taxes are taxes on negative externalities. They’re intended to redress a market failure by ensuring market prices account for the full costs of production. Sin taxes are taxes levied on behaviors deemed socially undesirable, to lower demand. The former corrects market distortions, whereas the latter creates them. If a carbon tax is premised on internalizing externalized production costs, then it’s Pigouvian. If it’s designed to discourage or punish, reduce or eliminate carbon consumption because fossil fuels are “bad”, then it’s a sin tax.

    “Please clarify. Most — L and non-L — would say that land is ownable.”

    Ownership is not a right so much as a bundle of rights. For Georgists, a title to a lot does not entail exclusive rights to the land’s economic rent. Jefferson wrote to Madison, “The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.” Right-libertarians generally admit no degrees of property but take ownership to mean nothing short of unlimited, absolute control over the thing possessed.

  17. robert capozzi

    J,

    Yes, I don’t think fossil fuels are bad, per se. An individual burning fossil fuels harms no one else, for the most part. As I see it, the externality is a function of the cumulative damage done by billions of actors.

    For me, the Georgist construct has a lot of appeal and strikes me generally as a more serviceable model. But it IS a construct, just as any rule of law is.

    If we start with how we view the air, we can eventually make the same case for the ground. The case for the air being a shared resource strikes me as a stronger one, especially as a starting point.

  18. robert capozzi

    SG,

    Thanks for the link on Nordhaus. The argument is too in-the-weeds for me, at least. I simply appreciate the idea of taxing pollution and paying it out as a dividend. The specifics of how that might be enacted is above my paygrade. Which discount rate to use, ditto.

    And who the dude’s nephew is is — to me — completely irrelevant.

  19. Jim

    Jared: Jefferson wrote to Madison, “The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.”

    In that letter Jefferson said that if someone owned land and died while still owing debts, the living were not obligated to pay those debts. People should not take on debt for a longer term than they can reasonably be expected to pay in their lifetime. If they die before their debt is paid, the inheritors may pay the debt out of generosity, but not obligation.

    Jefferson said that, if someone with property dies, the land, by natural right, is then owned by the first occupant, which would generally be the wife or children. And by that natural right of being a new owner, the new owner has no obligation to pay the debts of the previous owner. It is not by natural right, but by law, that the inheritors of property are obligated to pay the debt of the deceased. A law with which Jefferson apparently disagreed.

    Jefferson said this was equally true for government debt. If one generation takes on government debt and uses the money to party itself to death, the succeeding generation has no obligation to repay those loans. And it was also true for government law. Government law is only valid on those who made the law while living. When they die, successive generations are not bound to that law. How that would work in practice, I don’t know, other than through Panarchy. I’ve never heard that Jefferson supported that, though.

    How does that Jefferson quote support Georgism?

  20. Jim

    SocraticGadfly https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-climate-catastrophe/

    “A striking new poll from Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that environmental protection is more important than growth—and this is true even in deeply Republican states. Another poll has found that 70 percent of people in middle- and high-income nations believe that overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. Similar majorities also believe that we should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our well-being.”

    Stated preference vs revealed preference.

  21. dL

    How does that Jefferson quote support Georgism?

    Jim, it is well known that the classical economists, Adam Smith et al, treated land as a separate factor of production from capital goods and generally favorably viewed the taxation of ground rent as the preferred fiscal sources of government. And the obvious “founding father” to peg georgism to is Thomas Paine. Georgism is hardly alien to the so-called classical liberal tradition.

  22. dL

    Stated preference vs revealed preference.

    I would agree. Americans certainly have a puritanical streak but not when it comes to consumption.

  23. robert capozzi

    As a general observation, I’ve noticed that NAP Fundamentalists will quote someone like Jefferson as if it’s “proof” of something. I did it, too, when I was in the cult challenging the cult of the omnipotent state. If someone whom we generally resonate with says something, however, it’s not “proof” of anything. For me, quotes can be a great device if someone of great wisdom said something that is so well put that paraphrasing doesn’t do the point justice, only the actual quote will do.

    It’s mildly interesting if Paine or Jefferson were proto-Georgists. That’s about it.

  24. Jared

    Jim,

    You wrote, “Jefferson said that, if someone with property dies, the land, by natural right, is then owned by the first occupant, which would generally be the wife or children.”

    Actually, to the contrary, he said no other individual has a natural right to take exclusive possession of the deceased man’s land. Societal laws govern land inheritance. In the state of nature, it reenters the commons:

    “The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject.”

    On that basis he draws his conclusions. Nothing here is incompatible with the Georgist approach, which I believe it actually implies. I’m happy to concede that, in an anarchic state of nature, something akin to a mutualist arrangement should prevail. Take that philosophy of real property, add political civilization, and you end up with a system like geolibertarianism.

    Thomas Paine is the go-to American founding father for Georgists, though, especially his pamphlet Agrarian Justice in which he couldn’t be more explicit.

  25. Jared

    RC: “As a general observation, I’ve noticed that NAP Fundamentalists will quote someone like Jefferson as if it’s ‘proof’ of something. I did it, too, when I was in the cult challenging the cult of the omnipotent state.”

    That has not been my experience with “NAP fundamentalists”, unless by “someone like Jefferson” you mean Murray N. Rothbard. You’re more likely to observe the apotheosis of founding fathers in the Constitution Party.

    “If someone whom we generally resonate with says something, however, it’s not ‘proof’ of anything. For me, quotes can be a great device if someone of great wisdom said something that is so well put that paraphrasing doesn’t do the point justice, only the actual quote will do.

    Nobody claimed it’s proof of anything. If I were paraphrasing, I wouldn’t have used quotation marks. The line is verbatim. (Your general observation is sounding a lot like a targeted reply…?)

    “It’s mildly interesting if Paine or Jefferson were proto-Georgists. That’s about it.”

    It establishes the intellectual pedigree of Georgist philosophy within the classical American political tradition, which is rhetorically powerful, especially to a conservative audience.

  26. dL

    It’s mildly interesting if Paine or Jefferson were proto-Georgists. That’s about it.

    I thought every school boy was familiar w/ Agrarian Justice. Btw, Bob, a lot of intellectual traditions claim Paine, including liberals, socialists and libertarians. Thomas Piketty has Agrarian Justice linked from his academic pages
    http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

    and SSA lists Thomas Paine as one of the heroes of social security!

    The binary NAP fundamentalist on IPR is pretty much you, Bob

  27. dL

    On a tangentially related topic, Pacific Gas and Electric apparently is going to shut off power to ~ 1 million customers in Cali for a week to limit the company’s property damage liability from wildfires. 21st century, indeed…

  28. robert capozzi

    J: It establishes the intellectual pedigree of Georgist philosophy within the classical American political tradition, which is rhetorically powerful, especially to a conservative audience.

    Me: I get it. “Pedigree” and “tradition” are moderately interesting for academics and those interested in theory. And it may well give comfort and cover who find your alternative construct, which is probably more obscure than NAP Fundamentalism.

    I’m more interested in ideas that move things in a more peacefujl direction and are saleable in the intermediate term. That’s where politics is played. My concern for Geoists is that they tend to fall into the same trap that NAP Fundamentalists do: Offering pie-in-the-sky ideas with no bridge for how to get there.

  29. dL

    My concern for Geoists is that they tend to fall into the same trap that NAP Fundamentalists do: Offering pie-in-the-sky ideas with no bridge for how to get there.

    Historically, it’s not pie in the sky; it has had is implementations. It’s just a non-starter when you have progressive taxation on income, an annual need for budget deficits to finance a permanent military industry and little faith that the government is capable of defining public use. There is no bridge to build. Perhaps the only practical use of Georgist knowledge today is to simply knock down consumption taxes being sold as Georgism.

  30. Jim

    Jared “Actually, to the contrary, he said no other individual has a natural right to take exclusive possession of the deceased man’s land. Societal laws govern land inheritance. In the state of nature, it reenters the commons:”

    Yes, he does say that any other individual has a natural right to take exclusive possession of the deceased man’s land.

    He said that in the state of nature land reenters the commons upon a man’s death, and is then appropriated by the first occupant. There is nothing in there about the first occupant needing to pay society for its exclusive use.

    He clearly disagrees with society’s laws of inheritance, with its obligations to pay dead men’s debts. That is what almost the entire letter is about.

    And just as the younger generations have no obligation to pay the debts of dead men, Jefferson also said that the laws of older generations do not bind any succeeding generation. Laws naturally expire with the generation that passed them, and younger generations are as free of old law as if the law had expressly expired, even without repeal.

  31. robert capozzi

    J: (Your general observation is sounding a lot like a targeted reply…?)

    me: Nope, a general observation, like I said.

  32. Jared

    Jim, I’m trying to locate a specific objection. Do you believe Jefferson’s views on debt inheritance are out of step with Georgist ideas about property in land? Or do you mean to say I’m taking him out of context by applying his stated principle to a matter that wasn’t the central focus of the quoted letter? — By natural right, we hold the earth only in usufruct. I think we can draw out the implications of his thought.

  33. SocraticGadfly

    Robert, others:

    It’s not Nordhaus’ mechanism that’s the problem. His problem is simple, as noted in the story, and it’s above nobody’s pay grade.

    His price points for where to set a carbon tax are WAY too low to actually deal much with climate change in any serious way. But, per Goldilocks, they’re “Just right” for capitalist big biz to feel comfortable pretending to do something.

    (And, that’s why, for people who know Ted Nordhaus and Breakthrough Institute, the family connection is indeed relevant.)

    ==

    That said, I know the “October open thread” has largely become the “October intra-Libertarian open thread.”

  34. paulie Post author

    That said, I know the “October open thread” has largely become the “October intra-Libertarian open thread.”

    No, you are welcome to talk about any subject, and invite anyone you think may be interested. Also, several of the people you may be assuming are in the LP…are not.

  35. robert capozzi

    SG,

    It’s above my paygrade to know where the price point should be. I just resonate with the principle that it makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels that we’d tax pollution and pay the proceeds out to citizens as a dividend. I think it could be sold, politically, and I could imagine that it would be helpful in healing a pretty sick society.

  36. dL

    it makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels that we’d tax pollution and pay the proceeds out to citizens as a dividend.

    It makes no sense to redistribute Pigouvian taxes as dividends. I can’t say you’ve actually failed to make that case because you haven’t even tried. What you have failed at is attempting to equate Georgism, or should we say, purest Georgism, with NAP fundamentalism.

  37. dL

    That said, I know the “October open thread” has largely become the “October intra-Libertarian open thread.”

    Yes, IPR Open threads are usually devoted to libertarian squabbles. You’re welcome to take aim…

  38. paulie Post author

    They are what people make of them. I can set up a separate non-LP one but it would be a hassle policing the comments and what’s the point if few people are going to use it?

  39. Jared

    I would think the Georgist land value tax and Pigouvian taxes on negative externalities are topics that Greens would feel comfortable weighing in on. After all, they’re in the GP platform.

  40. Nicholas Hensley

    So two former third party candidates are running against Trump for the GOP nomination with Wield and De La Fuente? How long will it be until one, or both, of them steps out for a third party run? My money is on at least one GOP primary person stepping out.

  41. FW Whitley

    “you are welcome to talk about any subject”

    If Darcy Richardson is monitoring this October open thread, please contact CP-Idaho regarding presidential debate and primary. We are beginning the planning on this event.

    The timing of the Boise Debate is three days in advance of the AIP California March 3rd primary, which is one week in advance of the Idaho Primary.

    Media-wise, that is a substantial block of subject time. Please advise.

  42. Be Rational

    “it makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels that we’d tax pollution and pay the proceeds out to citizens as a dividend.”

    Nope. It makes no sense at all.

    We should consider any money collected from pollution and carbon as fines … not taxes … fines with a purpose.

    The purpose of 100% of the money collected should be to repair the damage caused by the pollution. The funds should be used to clean up polluted areas and to remove carbon from the air. These things must be done and they will take substantial resources to accomplish.

    If you tax pollution and carbon and then turn around and give the money back to consumers, they will continue to buy the things that cause pollution and carbon – although maybe less, but maybe more – and the pollution and carbon will continue to threaten the human race. Many socialists favor such a redistribution of purchasing power through carbon taxes; the fact that this may actually increase pollution and carbon emissions matters nothing to socialists. They don’t actually care about people or the environment … just about gaining government power.

  43. robert capozzi

    BR,

    I’m fine with calling carbon/polluton taxes “fines.”

    I’m sure you agree that what makes sense to me and what makes sense to you could well be different, and apparently in this case, it is.

    I might agree that remediation might be the better solution, but I’m unaware of a reasonable means to do so. So, I don’t want the government getting the funds from the fines. As the fines were phased in over time, most economists would suggest/predict that this would incentivize people seek substitute goods and services that had lower/no fines embedded or explicitly charged. If you don’t understand this or you disagree, consider going to the library to find a good microeconomics text! 😉

    I would not to refer a carbon dividend as “redistribution.” I rather consider it a rough approximation of justice.

    Now, if you consider the CURRENT justice system to be perfect, it’s not a good use of our time to engage in conversation. Justice is not blind; there are HIGH costs to obtaining justice. A sound justice system is vital for a market economy’s operation. Since we don’t and I suspect cannot have a sound justice system (due to its costs and often prohibitive information costs to mount a lawsuit to right a wrong), a citizen’s carbon dividend would, in effect, correct for a highly imperfect justice system.

    If you think the US justice system produces perfect, “blind” justice, then, again, this conversation is futile for me. If you think the justice system is perfectable, I’d like to hear more, but I’m skeptical.

    If you think the fines should be spent by the government in another, better way, I’m open-minded.

  44. robert capozzi

    more…

    If a carbon dividend were put in place, this would do a few things:

    1) Dissuade pollution and human-made carbon in the atmosphere, helping the process of reversing the conditions that threaten further artificial global climate change.

    2) Address mammoth, endemic injustice due to an imperfect justice system

    3) Shift the “welfare state” model toward a “commonwealth” model where all citizens have a stake in the nation’s natural resources. Geoist LVT or other unimproved resources could ultimately be tapped to address unaddressed injustices and to undo the labyrinth-like welfare state.

  45. Be Rational

    We already have the means and technology to remove carbon from the air and clean up pollution sites. This is what the money should be spent on. True, right now some of the options are new and expensive, but with money there, more producers and investors will come forward, improving the technology and lowering the cost. Some options, however, such as preserving forests and buying land and planting more forests – some suggest 1 trillion trees as a partial solution – have no technological barriers to implementation.

    As to your misunderstanding of Economics, a brief lesson:

    If you charge fines on goods according to their carbon footprints – and the amount should be the cost of remediation plus administration – then all things being the same, there should be a reduction in sales of those items due to the higher cost and a shift to other non-fined items that do not have the increased cost.

    However, we are dealing with dynamic economics in this case.

    You want to redistribute this money to OTHER people, more specifically, low-income individuals.

    So, what will happen.

    High income individuals will continue to consume the products that are fined – because they can. Price elasticity. Only some people drop out of the demand curve as the price rises.

    But with the redistribution, lower income people will have more money. Since the non-carbon items will still have the same price, and they were already purchasing their desired mix of goods, these new funds will be spent on items that were left off their previous budgets. They will be able to buy the more expensive, carbon emitting or polluting goods … and they will.

    It is therefore quite likely that the consumption of some of these carbon producing goods will increase.

    Consider Beef: Maybe you impose a fine on its production.

    Higher income individuals will continue to buy it. A very large percentage will not reduce their consumption. Lower income individuals who consume beef might cut their consumption, except you plan to give out significant funds to a large portion of society.

    So, now, the new funds distributed to those who couldn’t afford beef before will allow them to buy more beef. Even at a higher price they are likely to add beef to their desired mix of goods and services they buy – because they can. Those who already purchased a small quantity of beef will also have new funds to allow them to continue to buy beef. As a result, total consumption may rise.

    So, given the thousands of products that would face increased prices, the likelihood is that a large portion would see increased demand. The result could be increased pollution. Of course there are too many unknowns to calculate in advance, which goods would see such increases.

    Since you are taking in funds from one group and paying out the funds to another, the total amount of money to be spent should be about the same. The recipients will have more money, so in the aggregate they will in all likelihood purchase more polluting and carbon emitting goods. The question remains as to how those who pay the fines through their purchases but receive no redistribution adjust their spending? Since they are not likely to give up their beef or drive less, they may instead choose to cook beef at home or go to less expensive restaurants. They may increase their beef consumption as a result. It’s possible that the only result will be a reduction in employment of service providers, while the consumption of the targeted goods remains the same or increases.

    The only way to use carbon fines to reduce carbon emissions is to spend the funds on cleaning up the environment and the damage already incurred. The amount of the fines and the total amount raised should be set to do just that. Producers will then see lower demand. Producers will look for lower cost – non-polluting production methods to avoid the fines. This is a desirable outcome, of course, and in the meantime, substantial amounts of carbon can be removed from the air, trees planted, old-growth forests protected from the collected fines.

    The government, however, should not be allowed to have the funds. We would need to set up some kinds of responsible groups: NGOs, trusts, citizen groups or what-have-you to administer and oversee the funds to clean up the environment – which is problematic in itself, but better than giving more money to the government.

    All of the fines should expected to be temporary, however, as over time – a fairly long period for some – all producers would work to find production methods and other means to reduce their carbon footprints to zero and to eliminate pollution.

  46. Be Rational

    Nearly all economics taught is economic statics. You need to study economic dynamics.

  47. robert capozzi

    BR,

    First, all citizens would get the dividend, not just the lower incomes. I’m pointing to a citizen’s dividend for all.

    Second, yes, people will continue to consuming polluting/carbon emitting products. All else equal, though, the relative costs would incentivize a shift toward low/no polluting activities. Yes, it’s possible that some might consume even more polluting activities with their dividends, but overall the dynamics suggest a shift away.

    Third, businesses would see the price signals, and they’d bring to market better and better ways to avoid the pollution fees, for the businesses themselves and with less-polluting consumer products. Rather than subsidize electric cars and solar panels, I suggest the market do the work by internalizing the negative externality of pollution and carbon emissions.

    Fourth, yes, I’ve heard that some have proposed mammoth carbon scrubbers. I’m skeptical that the government can efficiently fund such a massive undertaking.

    Fifth, you have so far avoided my view that the current rule of law is massively biased in favor of those who can buy legal services, and that a dividend is a way to address that profound injustice.

  48. Freeman

    I get the impression that carbon dioxide is taken as a pollutant in this discussion.
    It is no more a pollutant than oxygen is. CO2 is to plants as O2 is to us.
    You couldn’t ask for anything more “green” than carbon dioxide.

  49. robert capozzi

    Freeman,

    Sorry if I gave you that impression. CO2 is not inherently polluting, although burning it often releases other polluting substances, as I understand it. Climate science holds that excessive levels of CO2 is causing significant climate change, again as I understand their position.

    Dissuading pollution would also dissuade the excessive release of CO2.

    Unless you believe there’s a “right ” to pollute, I would think Ls would be drawn to the idea of fining polluters.

  50. Freeman

    Mr. Capozzi wrote, “CO2 is not inherently polluting, although burning it often releases other polluting substances, as I understand it.”

    It’s the other way around. When you burn hydrocarbons, fossil fuels, CO2 and pollutants are emitted.
    I reiterate that CO2 is not a pollutant but a substance essential to life.
    Soot is a pollutant produced by burning hydrocarbons. Soot is carbon. Soot, carbon, is a known cause of global cooling. Volcanic ash from big eruptions are a greater cooling influence than people, though, so man-made cooling needn’t be a worry.

    Mr. Capozzi wrote, “Climate science holds that excessive levels of CO2 is causing significant climate change, again as I understand their position.”

    Despite what media and politicians constantly tell us, climate observation shows that CO2 as climate control knob is not among the possible explanations for what is observed.
    It is also known that the more CO2 the less difference it makes.
    As for the man-made portion of CO2 production, it is 5% or less. Termites alone outdo people in that regard. Man-made CO2 is no cause for alarm.

    My intent is just to clarify that carbon dioxide and carbon are completely different substances, and that no crisis is about to occur due to human carbon dioxide emissions. Talk of climate crisis saturates the air, but fear not. We are not toast.

  51. Jared

    Capozzi: “CO2 is not inherently polluting, although burning it often releases other polluting substances, as I understand it.”

    CO2 is released when fossil fuels are burned. The CO2 itself doesn’t burn (alkali metals aside), which is why it’s used in fire extinguishers to displace oxygen. The problem isn’t the mere existence of CO2 in the air and water, obviously. It becomes a “pollutant” when rising levels begin to cause ecological disruption and destruction.

    Freeman, I’m sure you’d concede there’s nothing “green” about the Red Planet, even though the thin Martian atmosphere is pure CO2. Also, for the record, oxygen toxicity is real. It’s possible to have too much of a good thing. Elevated CO2 levels can have long-term detrimental effects on plant life and agriculture for a variety of reasons, such as a greater need for water as air temperatures rise as well as greater susceptibility to damage caused by insect populations.

  52. robert capozzi

    F and J,

    Thanks. I didn’t put that sentence well, but the point stands: burning “fossil fuels” (which is itself a dicey term, as I understand it) releases CO2 and other substances into the atmosphere. This is pollution. Some of what is released is toxic. Agreed?

    F,

    You may believe that climate change is a massive hoax or something. To which I say: Sure, anything’s possible. But personally I’d say that getting that many scientists to lie strains credibility. The projections they make are not especially reliable, however.

    Let’s get more radical: Is it your view that there’s a natural “right” to pollute the air? Can anyone spew whatever s/he wants into the air with impugnity?

  53. George Phillies

    “Despite what media and politicians constantly tell us, climate observation shows that CO2 as climate control knob is not among the possible explanations for what is observed.”

    Raving nonsense.

  54. dL

    But personally I’d say that getting that many scientists to lie strains credibility.

    They lied about marijuana for 80 years. They’re lying(at least US government science is lying) right now about e-cigarettes. Trust the scientists is not exactly a bulletproof argument. True, 97 out of 100 climate scientists are at a consensus RE: anthropomorphic climate change. Of course, I’m always amused when I peruse realclimate.org and read the economic central planning recommendations of climate scientists, as if being an expert in climate science suddenly makes one an authority in economics and political science.

  55. Freeman

    Jared.
    Naturally, Mars is not green. Plants have never lived there.
    Over the last few hundred million years on Earth, plants evolved in atmosphere with a few times more CO2 in it than what’s in the air today. Only for the last few tens of millions of years has there been so little CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere as we have now. In terms of the history of plants on Earth, these are times of very little carbon dioxide. CO2 is a trace gas, and the current level is .04%. If that level would sink below .015%, all plants would die. Many who cultivate indoors add CO2 to the indoor air to boost yield. Considering the history of plants on Earth, and how little of it there is in the atmosphere today, it should come as no surprise that plants thrive most in air with quadruple the CO2 in it.

    Robert & dL.
    The oft quoted figure of 97% consensus is made up.

    dL.
    You deftly illustrate the fact the we are constantly exposed to what you accurately describe as “government science” which comes to us with a political agenda and is a lie.

  56. robert capozzi

    To clarify, I don’t believe that rigorous scientific consensus cannot be ultimately wrong. My observation is that it is often imperfect, at least. Nor would I suggest that SOME scientists don’t actually lie or purposely misrepresent their findings. Nor would I defer to scientists who opine on matters outside of their expertise.

    In fact, even if there were NOT a consensus on human-made global climate change, I’d still suggest there is a case for fining behaviors that pollute the air. Even NAP Fundamentalists don’t generally believe there’s a right to spew into the atmosphere. The remedy I’ve seen from them is the completely unworkable notion that the matter be resolved in civil court. Sorry, but I can’t get my head around how they’d propose to establish who the plaintiffs and defendants would be, given that we pretty much all contribute to the spew stream.

  57. Be Rational

    “Raving nonsense.”

    Thank you George Phillies, climate change deniers need no further refutation.

  58. Freeman

    “climate change deniers need no further refutation.”
    No further refutation beyond just name calling? This is hardly being rational.

  59. robert capozzi

    F: The oft quoted figure of 97% consensus is made up.

    Me: Interesting assertion. Who “made it up”? And what is the correct number?

  60. Jared

    Freeman,

    The atmospheric conditions under which Silurian land plants evolved over millions of years might be of interest to paleobotanists, but they’re irrelevant to this discussion. The Mars reference was cheap, I admit, but my point was, “more carbon dioxide =/= more flora-friendly.” Plants also require nitrogen and oxygen. You can’t possibly believe that, because CO2 can be added to indoor plants to boost photosynthesis, the negative general impact of spiking atmospheric CO2 levels would be nothing but positive. I mentioned plants suffering heat stress from rising temperatures and greater vulnerability to insect damage. Another problem is nitrogen availability. Wild flora will be affected more than agricultural crops thanks to nitrogen fertilizer, but (1) fertilizer such as ammonia contributes a great deal to water pollution, and (2) it gets oxidized by microbes in the soil and released into the air as nitrous oxide, which besides depleting ozone, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. (Coincidentally, N2O is released when permafrost thaws from rising surface temperatures.) Not all crops react the same way to increased CO2, and for reasons not yet well understood, higher levels produce lower nutritional values. You said: “It is also known that the more CO2 the less difference it makes,” which is dead wrong. The fact is, slightly elevated CO2 levels generally benefit plant life, but–even in isolation–the more you introduce, the less beneficial it is.

  61. Freeman

    Thanks, Jared, for the added depth. One of the big mistakes in thinking going around these days is the comicbookish goodguys/badguys mentality of pure good versus pure evil. What is lost on folks of that mentality is a sense of wonder. From just the few examples you provide above, one can sense what a staggeringly complex, interlaced climate & biosphere we live in, full of uncertainties and unknowns. I wish more folks would gain that kind of perspective and appreciation of nature.

    To clarify, I’m not saying more CO2 is all benefit and no detriment. I doubt anything’s that simple about Earth’s climate (or about agriculture). I am saying that we are not facing a climate crisis in our lifetimes, at least not from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    I said, “It is also known that the more CO2 the less difference it makes.” You said, “The fact is, slightly elevated CO2 levels generally benefit plant life, but–even in isolation–the more you introduce, the less beneficial it is.” I think you’re right and I think you know a lot more about agriculture than I do. It’s just that I wasn’t applying the above statement to agriculture. What I mean is the more CO2, the less difference in temperature. The relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature is logarithmic. The temperature difference from increases in CO2 levels is not linear. It quickly approaches zero. Just how sensitive temperature is to changes in CO2 concentration is a matter of great dispute, but the fact that added CO2 makes progressively less temperature difference is not even disputed by alarmed climatologists. They just think we’ve got a ways to go before we get to zero difference, while other climatologists think we’re already somewhere near zero difference. Some say it’s always been nil.

    Atmospheric CO2 has been directly and reliably measured since about 1930. It went up from about .03% to about .04% since then for reasons unknown. This is slightly elevated CO2, and it has been generally beneficial to plant life in a very small way. From space they notice a slight greening of the Earth. As for temperatures, it remains climate as usual, within natural multidecadal variation. In the 21st Century so far, extreme weather has been below average. We are constantly told otherwise with dishonest, misleading and even fraudulent representations of climate. If CO2 levels continue trending this way it’ll rise to something like .05% by end of century. Observation does not lead to any reason to expect another such slight elevation in carbon dioxide to bring climate catastrophe.

  62. Freeman

    Robert. We get told by politicians things like “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” (quote from President Obama) This 97% figure comes to us from a few different papers, the first of which came out fifteen years ago. These papers have in common that they either cherrypick and misinterpret abstracts, or cherrypick scientists, and yield the desired 97% figure. The 2013 Cook et al paper is the most recent and infamous of them, but they all are based on flawed methodology, seemingly starting with the number 97 and working backwards from there. Further, these papers claim only that these scientists believe that more than half of warming over the last few decades is because of man, or else a weaker claim like “significant contributing factor”. These papers don’t even make claims about danger and urgency. That part politicians added.

    There have been some surveys that have made honest attempts at feeling out what scientists in climate-related fields think by sending out questionnaires and asking a variety of pertinent questions, but hardly do they even find majority opinions. The “don’t know” category is sometimes the plurality opinion, depending on the question. They find that a majority of climatologists think climate models are unreliable, and consider some processes such as cloud formation and precipitation too little understood for future climate to be predicted. Of course, there is considerable risk in expressing such opinions in public fora. Some climatologists have gotten harassed, even gotten their careers destroyed, for expressing skepticism, and that includes lukewarmists.

    You asked for a “correct number” though, Robert. Of course, numbers vary greatly depending on exactly what is asked and exactly how it is asked even if sampling is random enough, but I’ll give an example with the question I started with: “Do you agree that more than half of global warming from 1951-2010 was caused by human activity?” (they ask it this way because this assertion was made by the IPCC), This was asked in a survey done by PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency more recently than 2013, and the survey arrived at 43%. Generally speaking, climatologists agree on little other than uncertainties.

  63. robert capozzi

    F,

    Yes, empirical answers depend on how the question is framed.

    My sense of the issue is that there is something approaching a consensus that human activities are contributing to climate change. The models projecting future outcomes have no consensus, and the alarmists are engaging in all sorts of hyperbole.

    In short, there are uncertain risks from unchecked CO2 emissions.

    This is why I frame the issue as a question of whether there’s a right to pollute. I say no.

    Pigouvian taxes address both pollution and the potential risks from climate change.

  64. Freeman

    Yes, human activity exerts some influence on climate, and so do lots of other things. To what extent humans alter things in the troposphere is still a matter of rough estimation because far too little is understood about how the myriad factors interrelate. There’s too much chaos in it to cipher.

    The carbon dioxide obsession leaves other human influences neglected. Air and water pollution, and land use (clearcutting, monoculture farming, urban heat islands, and the like) must figure into the grand scheme of things too. Land use may well be our strongest influence on climate.

    Yes, I think there should be some consequences for pollution, Robert. If the factory upstream befouled the water on your land downstream or something like that, there ‘d probably be some way to assess damages fairly. But something like, say, ordinary land use, like just farming, or building buildings or causing “light pollution”, thus encroaching on the view of the stars, or, say, carbon dioxide production, or such, though, I don’t see how that kind of thing could be reasonably assessed for damages or taxed.

  65. Eric Sundwall

    Well, I’m certainly not going to address Pigouvian taxation until we know if Patsy Leader is going to debate Peter Bujinow.

  66. robert capozzi

    F: carbon dioxide production, or such, though, I don’t see how that kind of thing could be reasonably assessed for damages or taxed.

    Me: Yes, I agree that assessing damages seems impossible to me, too. Taxing/fining the burning of fossil fuels strikes me in the neighborhood of a rough approximation of an effort to dissuade the cumulative assault on us all.

  67. Be Rational

    RC: Yes, I agree that assessing damages seems impossible to me, too.

    The concept of assessing the cost of pollution – an oil spill for example – is actually very easy. The “damages” assessed should equal the cost of the clean up, removing the pollutant – or removing the CO2 from the air in that case – plus any direct damage suffered by any 3rd party (as in the oil spill), plus administrative and court costs (if any).

    For CO2, those who release CO2 into the air in amounts that exceed normal, background CO2 should be fined for whatever it costs to remove the CO2 plus administrative costs. Yes, it is expensive to remove CO2, so many industries will try to find ways to stop. Good.

    For those who don’t stop their emissions, the fines collected must be used to remove the CO2, since preventing climate change is the point of the fine. If you just leave the CO2 in the air and then redistribute the funds, those new funds will be used to purchase more CO2 emitting goods and services which will actually add to the problem, and the CO2 that could have been removed with the funds will still be there.

  68. robert capozzi

    BR,

    I thought you were an advocate for dynamic analysis?

    I’d agree that SOME of the carbon dividend might be used to buy CO2 emitting goods in the short run. Over time, as the fines increased, the demand and supply of lower emitting goods would increase. A carbon tariff might be folded in to replace the crazy-quilt tariff regime we currently endure.

    In addition, as the dividend worked over time, the precedent would be established for replacing the welfare state with a broader citizens dividend/negative income tax model.

  69. Be Rational

    RC, you are not capable of dynamic analysis.

    You have forgotten that the funds under your socialist redistribution program would increase the incomes of those most likely to buy more CO2 emitting goods. While you plan on giving this money to everyone, it would have very little impact on the wealthy as an insignificant contributor to their income. But the wealthy can afford to pay the CO2 fines, to pay the higher prices.

    So, the wealthy can continue to buy the CO2 emitting goods and services as they always did before.
    And those receiving a significant windfall can increase their purchases of CO2 emitting goods and services even if their percentage of income devoted to such purchases declines.

    And you will have not spent any money to actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the air.

    Your program does have the effect of making everyone equal … everyone will be equally extinct.

  70. Don Wills

    To those of you that are pro-carbon tax –

    How do you expect to collect the taxes from the largest CO2 producer in the world? Yep, China. And then for those of you in favor of divving up the proceeds to “citizens”, how do you expect to do that for China, US, India – the three largest producers?

    That the US-centric discussion here is myopic is an understatement.

    FWIW, China continues to increase its total CO2 production per year while the US continues to decrease its total production … WITHOUT a carbon tax. Ponder that.

    You folks are almost literally arguing over how many angels there are on the head of a pin.

  71. robert capozzi

    DW,

    Yes. In this thread, I wrote: “Also, I’ve been toying with the idea of expanding the “tax” base for carbon dividends by having a second source of revenue: Carbon tariffs. Goods exported from, say, China and India would be tariffed at a higher rate, perhaps France at a lower rate.”

    BR,

    I’m sorry you feel that way.

    All action is on the margin. If you believe that all income levels don’t respond to relative prices, then I do believe you’d need to rewrite all the econ textbooks on earth! Perhaps submit your theory to a peer-reviewed econ journal. You might even be up for a Nobel! 😉

    Sensing the growing demand for lower carbon emissions, producers would also bring to market products and services that limit their consumer’s carbon footprint.

    Why would someone spend their dividend on a Lincoln Navigator when s/he could get a far cheaper to operate Kia Sportage? Maybe the move to the exurbs looks less enticing when commuter costs of doing so are spiking? These are just a few examples of the action being on the margin.

    etc.

  72. robert capozzi

    more to DW,

    While it’s somewhat commonly referred to as a “carbon tax,” what I actually advocate is a “pollution fine.” The burning of “fossil” fuels releases CO2 and other polluting gases. I don’t believe that people have a right to spew shit into the atmosphere, and I’d venture to say that most would agree, even NAP Fundamentalists don’t generally believe in such a “right.”

    And, while I appreciate your feedback, such a position is nothing like angel pin dancing. It’s quite a current idea, and is roughly backed by a Nobel prize in economics.

    Ls and perhaps Country Partyists miss a great opportunity to marry a green sensibility with the power of markets.

  73. Be Rational

    Yes, Don, China is a problem.
    CO2 is not the only problem with China.
    We can’t wait for China to do the right thing for the rest of the world to do the right thing.

  74. Be Rational

    RC “Why would someone spend their dividend on a Lincoln Navigator when s/he could get a far cheaper to operate Kia Sportage?”

    Answer: Because they can and they want to.

    As even you should realize, people who have more money will spend more to raise their living standards according to their own tastes, not yours.

    Give them an extra $1000 per month and they can upgrade to an SUV. They can eat steak. It is a known fact in economics that most individuals WILL do this. People emulate those whose lifestyles and living standards they have aspired to achieve.

    SUVs have become one of the leading emitters of CO2. People have the money and they “upgrade.”

    Just because you don’t want to “waste” your money on an expensive vehicle doesn’t mean that others won’t.

  75. Freeman

    To suppose that the extinction of the human race is at risk due to human activity is alarmist thinking. It’s alarmist, even, to suppose that all-out nuclear war could cause the extinction of all humans, though otherwise rational people put this in writing routinely. Unprecendentedly catastrophic a full-on nuke toss would be, certainly, but even the worst-case scenario would fall short of killing most of the human population. To suppose that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions threaten the extinction of homo sapiens is beyond hysterical.

    The biggest popular mistake in thinking is anthropocentrism. It ain’t all about people.

  76. robert capozzi

    FM: Unprecendentedly catastrophic a full-on nuke toss would be, certainly, but even the worst-case scenario would fall short of killing most of the human population.

    Me: Interesting. Please elaborate.

  77. Be Rational

    Freeman, you can’t be that dense.

    An all out nuclear war would kill billions immediately and the nuclear winter that followed would last for years. Although there would be a few pockets of genetic members of the species homo sapiens who would survive, the modern human race would be extinct. Those few survivors would be unlikely to survive for many generations, and if their genetic descendants were able to adapt to the altered climate that followed, the dystopian world they would inhabit would be far worse than you’ve seen from Hollywood.

    The long-term effects of climate change being created by the socialists’ mismanagement of the environment are equally dismal, though they will come more gradually. The public has only been exposed to the mildly alarming threats posed in the first 100 years. What is to follow – unless we get rid of all of the socialism that has caused this impending calamity – will be worse than you or Mad Max or Kevin Costner ever imagined.

    Yes, extinction of the human race is a very likely outcome of the road we are on presently.

    This is not alarmist. It is a cool, reasoned expression of reality.

    What makes it a likely outcome is the irrational denial of those who are emotionally unable to face the facts in the real world.

  78. LibertyDave

    For all you chicken little’s out there, the sky is not falling!!! Climate change if nothing is done will not destroy the world and it will not make the human race extinct. It says that economic growth would slow down, it doesn’t say that it will stop or go backwards. If you all would bother to actually read the whole report it says as much.

  79. robert capozzi

    BR,

    I definitely strongly suggest you write an economics paper on the Perfect Inelasticity of Demand for Lincoln Navigators. I’m sure it will be groundbreaking stuff! You’ll be in Stockholm to accept the Nobel in no time! 😉

    And where the hell are you getting $1000/month? Have I said anything about the scale of the carbon dividend? My swag is that some may net maybe $100 net and others might NET a $(200) or so.

    Projection and mindreading are not a good path to truth, in my experience. You?

  80. Be Rational

    LD

    1. There is no single “whole report” to read, which tells us that you haven’t.
    2. The various research papers and prognoses seldom go beyond the near term during which, you are correct. However, a very long-term continuation of mankind’s destructive ways will be as calamitous as the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs. But, sure, life will go on without humans. We have had five major extinction events prior to now and the Earth survived, as did life on Earth, even when 96% of the species were wiped out.

  81. Be Rational

    RC, your elasticity reference is a static concept. But this is a dynamic issue. In one step, raising the price of a Lincoln Navigator would reduce demand – ceteris paribus, but that is obviously a single change in a totally unrealistic static example.

    But you would add fines or taxes to tens of thousands of items, raising all of their prices. You have now decided to add a caveat of a very low total amount of such fines – an amount that spread over all the polluting and CO2 emitting products and services would mean negligible change would follow in terms of demand reduction. However, the redistribution to lower income groups would still result in a consumption rise in the polluting and CO2 producing goods.

    Why you keep missing this is you are not able to see the dynamic steps.

    1. There are tens of thousands of items, not one.
    2. The money collected is redistributed.
    3. The money is going to a different group of people than the group it was taken from.
    4. The group receiving more money than they paid will be overwhelmingly made up of individuals at the lower income levels with standard of living and spending aspirations and preferences far different than the higher income groups who will be net payers.
    5. As a result, the static concept of elasticity of demand cannot be applied.
    6. As more money comes in, this money too will be spent.
    7. Other proponents of this idea have far greater numbers in mind which will lead to even greater distortions which cannot be determined with static economics.

  82. robert capozzi

    BR,

    Ah, well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree that the law of elasticity of demand is “static.” It seems QUITE dynamic to me. To say that it “cannot be applied” is an interesting assertion, one that I’m sure the Nobel Committee would like to hear your unique theory.

    Now I DO grant that it IS possible that every resident of, say, Harlem may wake up tomorrow with a burning desire for a Lincoln Navigator. I just don’t believe that’s the collective demand curves will all shift in that direction spontaneously.

    Question: When there’s a civil case, and the plaintiff wins, do you consider that to be “redistribution”? I don’t, for the record.

    Were the justice system to acknowledge the massive, cumulative aggression of air pollution to be roughly redressed with a carbon dividend, I’d say that’s more like a REMOVAL of a distortion: i.e., a profound negative externality.

    You may want to consider whether your version of “dynamic” economic analysis is more like a grandiose crystal ball. My dynamic economic analysis is that we’d see a shift away from polluting behaviors, but I’m skeptical that anyone can accurately predict the perturbations it would entail.

  83. LibertyDave

    For Be Rational

    1) I was talking about the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC). You know the one that governments are using to justify their plans to control businesses.

    2) I don’t know what you consider short term or long term but the report talks about climate change to the year 2100, and in that time regardless of what we do the world is not going to be destroyed by climate change. Anybody who claims to be able to predict what will happen past 2100 is either delusional or a fraud.

    I’m sure 50 years from now people will be wondering what all the fuss was about, like when in the 1970 everyone was saying we would be running out of oil and economic collapse was about to happen because of it.

  84. dL

    It’s alarmist, even, to suppose that all-out nuclear war could cause the extinction of all humans, though otherwise rational people put this in writing routinely.

    It would be the ultimate anthropomorphic climate change cataclysm. If the blast or radiation didn’t kill you, the extreme climate changes(extreme cooling) to the major global agricultural areas would do you in(i.e, mass starvation). 100% extinction? I dunno. But it would be in the 90 percentile.

  85. dL

    I’m sure 50 years from now people will be wondering what all the fuss was about

    yeah, but not in the way you think. More along the lines of “what was all that fuss about aversion to government central planning carbon quotas.” It is a bit perplexing why conservatives are so knee jerk about it. National carbon quotas would dovetail nicely with tight controls on human migration(mass immigration threatens the nation’s carbon quota compliance!). Once this stuff is enacted–and it will be–conservatives will likely learn to embrace it.

  86. robert capozzi

    LD: I’m sure 50 years from now …

    Me: Do you mean this literally? You are SURE. You’re SURE you’re SURE? No clue how old you are, but anything I might have been sure of 50 years ago was probably incorrect.

  87. robert capozzi

    LD: I’m sure 50 years from now …

    Me: Do you mean this literally? You are SURE. You’re SURE you’re SURE? No clue how old you are, but anything I might have been sure of 50 years ago was probably incorrect.

  88. Freeman

    Robert. You asked me to elaborate.

    Attempts to get an extinction, or near extinction, of the human race out of a full-on nuclear war is always done in one of two ways. Either it’s radiation or it’s fire. They picture death-dealing waves of radiation, fat and wide as the steppes and plains, leaving nothing in their wake but the hardiest of organisms, and maybe some mutants. In actuality, that kind of sweeping coverage is way beyond the radiation death in all the nukebombs combined. Or else they picture enormous fires raging on for months and months, dark daytime skies, massive plant die-off due to lack of sunlight and frozen corpses on the equator covered in dirty snow. This is the preferred one because a place has been secured for this image in the popular mind with the simple phrase “nuclear winter.” It’s also far beyond any realistic post-nukewar fire worst-case scenario. Each nuclear explosion will cause a local tragedy. Taken together, it will far surpass human horrors before it. May that it never happens. Still, if it does, it will not be the end. In the aftermath of a full-on nuke-toss war, the biggest threats to the human survivors in their billions will be hunger due to collapsed economy, pandemics, and each other.

    People grossly overestimate people.

  89. robert capozzi

    F,

    You know, as a radical, I do admit that I’ve never looked into the assumption that a full-scale nuclear war would end all life on Earth, and that there are already enough nukes to kill everyone many times over. Perhaps that assumption is false.

    I only vaguely assumed that those who were not in the blast zone would die from radiation poisoning over time. I’ve lived in the NY, DC, and now CA, and I always felt somewhat comforted that these are likely targets, so if there ever were a war, I’d die quickly.

    Perhaps all my assumptions were incorrect.

    However, I’m not inclined to dig more deeply into these questions, given that they are SO beyond my control.

    But if I ever find such a meditation of value, do you have a source for your stance?

  90. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You are absolutely correct when you said anything you might have been sure of 50 years ago was incorrect and what your sure of happening in 50 years from now will also be incorrect.

    I now this because your a doomsayer, constantly whining about how if we don’t do something right now the world as we know it will end. People like you pop up every 20 to 30 years with a new way for the world to end.

    Now you all are claiming climate change is going to destroy mankind. 20 years ago it was Y2K that was going to throw us back to the stone ages. 50 years ago it was peak oil and running out of fuel that was going to throw us back to the stone ages. 70 years ago it was nuclear winter what was going to wipe out mankind.

    You see it was history that convinced me that your belief, that climate change will destroy mankind, is a load of crap.

  91. robert capozzi

    LD: I (k)now this because your a doomsayer, constantly whining about how if we don’t do something right now the world as we know it will end. People like you pop up every 20 to 30 years with a new way for the world to end.

    Now you all are claiming climate change is going to destroy mankind.

    me: Really? When have I said any of these things? Can you find examples of me saying anything like that?

    I’m confident I’ve NOT said them, and I’m sure I don’t think them.

    Has anyone ever told you that you lack nuance? Because I advocate something like a carbon dividend, you are wildly exaggerating, associating my views with AOC or Al Gore or something.

    I wish I could help you with that.

  92. paulie Post author

    Predicting something five months or five years or fifty years in the future is tough, and ultimately a guessing game. I don’t know anyone who can do it consistently with any great degree of accuracy. Whether you doomsay, utopianize, predict radical changes or status quo, you are quite likely to be wrong.

    One thing I’ve noticed as a general pattern is that change often happens as a punctuated equilibrium. That is, there’s a long period of little or no fluctuation and then very quick change followed by another long period of equilibrium. This may well be true of the climate as well as any general predictions for the future.

    As for what human activity is doing to the climate, it’s a complex chain of reactions and balances. A very small action can cause several compensating reactions and lead to a very large change. A small alteration of a balance can lead to a chain of reactions which can change things a lot more than you can predict on a simple analysis of that thing alone. This doesn’t only apply to climate.

  93. robert capozzi

    pf: A very small action can cause several compensating reactions and lead to a very large change. A small alteration of a balance can lead to a chain of reactions which can change things a lot more than you can predict on a simple analysis of that thing alone. This doesn’t only apply to climate.

    me: Generally concur.

    Another pattern I detect is illustrated glaringly by LD. People have a tendency to overreact when someone takes a position different from their own, that is, to imagine that the other’s position is the polar opposite of their own. People want to simplify the world when there are always many different takes on things, and there can be an array of combinations of views. Positions can also be conditioned on another position.

  94. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi, your so funny.

    How is me pointing out that your letting your fears overcome your common sense, me overreacting? I’m not the one calling for the government to create a new tax that won’t do anything to fix what may or may not be a problem 100 years from now. If anything I’m under reacting to your fear filled rants about climate change.

  95. Freeman

    Robert doesn’t seem especially alarmist about climate to me, really. Not like some folks.

  96. paulie Post author

    It’s not necessary to reject the evidence of humans causing climate change to oppose massive government spending and regulation allegedly designed to address that issue. Likewise, it’s not necessary to deny that drug abuse, poverty, terrorism, Muslim extremism, or any number of actual problems exist to believe government doesn’t actually solve these problems, only makes them worse and creates new ones.

    This happens in other areas too. Many of us opposed the US invasion, occupation and bombing of Iraq, but some took it to the extreme of denying that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and mass murderer. Some people are drawn to positively assess the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the holocaust did not happen, because they don’t like government policy that has been sold as a response to 9/11 and/or the holocaust.

    You can spend the rest of your life poring over the mountains of evidence for any of these theories, but the case against government intervention should never be staked on the answer, either way. Government “solutions” to problems are about as good and effective as letting a drunk monkey with a chainsaw do brain surgery on a cancer patient. To consider this a bad idea it’s not necessary to deny that the cancer is there. At best that would leave in place the idea that if cancer were in fact proven to that person’s satisfaction to be present, having a drunk monkey operate with a chainsaw might be a legitimate way to deal with it.

    I would rather argue against the idea that a drunk monkey with a chainsaw would ever be a good idea to perform a medical procedure on a human patient than to learn how to diagnose cancer and try to prove the case that the diagnosis was erroneous, especially if that’s extrapolated to many different fields of specialized knowledge.

  97. robert capozzi

    pf: It’s not necessary to reject the evidence of humans causing climate change to oppose massive government spending and regulation allegedly designed to address that issue.

    me: Also concur.

    But, then, the question gets more complicated. The justice and property rights systems are “government regulation” at least until the Frankel Singularity, when worldwide nonarchy spontaneously springs forth. I submit that there’s a glaring flaw in the current setup, in that there are no property rights over the air, so there’s no practical way to protect humans from cumulative human behavior, both from spewing toxins into the atmosphere and from any potential damage done by the release of co2.

    NAP Fundamentalists might agree that this IS flawed, and still decide that it’s better the government do nothing, despite the risks.

    Unyoked from rigid application of the NAP and yet wishing to see an abatement of the negative effects of the endemic flaw in a property rights system, TAAALists and other lessarchists can use their discretion and judgment to at least entertain a carbon (pollution fine) dividend.

    The goal is NAP congruent, since it would tend to minimize aggression. But it does throw off the unworkable single-constraint shackles that sets the NAP Fundamentalist community into a self-imposed political exile.

  98. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I’m please to see that FM recognizes that you are completely misunderstanding my view. Until you demonstrate that you understand as well, it’s probably not worthwhile for me to respond to your obvious confusion on the matter, frankly.

    Are you old enough to remember smog? And leaded gas? Well, if not, look into it, because I’m pretty sure you’ll find it was a pronounced problem in the 60s and into the 70s.

    Burning “fossil” fuels continues to spew carcinogens into the air, as well as excess CO2. Now, the banning of lead did work, but I would have preferred to have seen the more market-oriented Pigouvian approach applied.

  99. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I’m pleased to see that FM recognizes that you are completely misunderstanding my view. Until you demonstrate that you understand as well, it’s probably not worthwhile for me to respond to your obvious confusion on the matter, frankly.

    Are you old enough to remember smog? And leaded gas? Well, if not, look into it, because I’m pretty sure you’ll find it was a pronounced problem in the 60s and into the 70s.

    Burning “fossil” fuels continues to spew carcinogens into the air, as well as excess CO2. Now, the banning of lead did work, but I would have preferred to have seen the more market-oriented Pigouvian approach applied.

  100. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    Sure, I’m old enough to remember smog. I also know there is a difference between smog and CO2.

    With smog it is possible to prove that the smog was damaging property and making people sick. The clean air act was passed to protect the energy companies from being held liable for the damage they were causing.

    So far nobody can prove that CO2 has harmed anyone or anything. CO2 is not toxic until it reaches 5 times the level it is now. Submarines operate with twice the CO2 in the air with no ill effect on the people living in the sub.

    You all claiming that any damage will happen 50 to 100 years from now, don’t understand the ability of people to adapt and create.

    On one thing I know for a fact is that the government has never solved any social problems in the past, they only make them worse so that they can collect more money to fix the problem they won’t do anything to solve.

    Demanding that the government fix something that you can’t prove is harming anyone because of some irrational fear about what might happen in the future is letting your fear overcome your common sense.

    And while your not as bad as some people, your the one who keeps bring it up over and over.

  101. robert capozzi

    LD: You all claiming that any damage will happen 50 to 100 years from now…

    Me: I am making no such claim. If you don’t acknowledge your error, I’m done with you.

  102. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    You called CO2 pollution. The definition of pollution from dictionary.com is as follows;

    pollution
    [ puh-loo-shuh?n ]

    noun
    1 The act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
    2 The introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

    That means your claiming that CO2 is or will cause harm. Since CO2 isn’t toxic, or causing harm, at current levels that means your claim of harm from CO2 will come in the future after it builds up to a higher level.

    The only error I have made is putting an actual time frame to your vague implications.

  103. paulie Post author

    The justice and property rights systems are “government regulation” at least until the Frankel Singularity, when worldwide nonarchy spontaneously springs forth.

    Probably, because I think the “Frankel” singularity is perhaps a decade or two away and plausibly less than that. But not necessarily: it’s plausible that support for government regulation could collapse earlier than a technology-driven evolutionary event occurs.

    I submit that there’s a glaring flaw in the current setup, in that there are no property rights over the air, so there’s no practical way to protect humans from cumulative human behavior, both from spewing toxins into the atmosphere and from any potential damage done by the release of co2.

    There are ways to address this, starting with the property right to air inside your own lungs and material harm from it being carcinogenic. Increased risk of catastrophic climate change also obviously puts people’s lives, health and property at risk, thus is subject to torts. Insurance is a way to mitigate against torts, and an effort to control insurance cost can be more effective than any government regulation in causing companies to clean up their act.

    “it’s better the government do nothing, despite the risks.”

    This is universally true. Government actions always cost way too much, are usually poorly executed or bungled altogether, and often involve secondary consequences worse than the original problem. Even if that is not the case in some particular instance, having a government big enough to solve any problems worth talking about always means that it will try to solve a whole bunch of other problems and bungle them in the process. As a whole, the price of government involvement is just not worth any payoff that can be hoped for.

    TAAALists and other lessarchists can use their discretion and judgment to at least entertain a carbon (pollution fine) dividend.

    I’ve entertained it, but kept that larger picture in mind. The government’s nose under the tent is not a good thing, even if it sometimes accidentally nudges something in the direction you want it nudged.

    since it would tend to minimize aggression.

    At best, only if seen in isolation. But a government big enough to even conceivably be of any service here will be doing lots of other things, and screwing them up quite spectacularly.

  104. robert capozzi

    LD: You called CO2 pollution.

    me: Nope. I’ve said things like: “Burning “fossil” fuels continues to spew carcinogens into the air, as well as excess CO2.” The former is “pollution.” The latter is something that I consider to be a risk that climate scientists have identified. I have great skepticism about the models that suggest impending doom from global climate change. It strikes me as sensible to be aware of the range of risks, knowing that the outcome is uncertain.

    My primary interest is, first, in fixing the glaring flaw in a property rights system that cannot deal with atmospheric aggression, second, in undoing the ubiquitous harm through a pollution fine dividend; third, in addressing the risks posed by excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

    LD: The only error I have made is putting an actual time frame to your vague implications.

    me; Thanks for admitting that. I’ll play a bit longer. I’ve been, I think, pretty careful to not specify what the outcome might be to the excess release of co2 will cause in the future. Or, you might say I’m being purposely vague, given my skepticism about the range of models on offer.

  105. dL

    Submarines operate with twice the CO2 in the air with no ill effect on the people living in the sub.

    The issue of C02 vis a vis climate change is greenhouse gases, not air quality. Yes, poor air ventilation with a lot of breathing people can be a health hazard, but that is not what is meant by C02 being a “pollutant.” Obviously, the greenhouse effect is necessary for earth not to be an ice cube, but industrial production of C02 over time adds to the effect. Unlike other man-made pollutants, atmospheric C02 dissipates very slowly(taking decades or centuries). This gradual accumulation of atmospheric C02 over time intensifies the greenhouse effect which then bumps up the global mean temperature. Increases in global mean temperature will cause a change in climate. Climate itself is merely the long term average of weather. By definition, climate change thus is not a sudden thing. So we are talking about the 22nd century until these major climate shifts would show up. The political discussion usually revolves around we have to take action before time=T to prevent X at later period P. With varying degrees of alarmism, of course.

    The libertarian critique of climate change collective action should revolve around a simple precept: governments are not the organization of justice; they are not the organization of thoughtful long term planning for the avoidance of consequences down the road. The State is the organization of plunder. Period. Whatever the scientific validity of:

    “we have to take action before time=T to prevent X at later period P”

    any political action around the mitigation of climate change will be a anthropomorphic rent-seeking boondoggle. To deny that is to be a political science denier. It is also wise to be on the lookout for those who use climate change as a pretext to attack consumption, immigration, human mobility, etc. “We must learn to be content with less” is the bromide of the totalitarian statist.

    Instead, many libertarians seem to follow the conservative strategy to attack climate change as fake science, leftist, socialist conspiracy, etc, throwing their lot in with an anti-intellectualism that has lost all credibility in the age of Trump.

  106. dL

    atmospheric aggression

    Bob, casting climate change as a NAP violation might have a bit more credibility if you didn’t spend 99% of your time on this forum trolling the non aggression principle.

  107. LibertyDave

    robert capozzi,

    If I were you I would go see a doctor. Your having trouble remembering what you wrote in your comments on this thread.

    On October 20, 2019 at 10:36 you wrote;

    “In short, there are uncertain risks from unchecked CO2 emissions.

    This is why I frame the issue as a question of whether there’s a right to pollute. I say no.”

    That is you calling CO2 pollution.

  108. Starchild

    The latest from Randy Rainbow, with something for everyone (and Rudy Giuliani in particular):

    Rightists can appreciate that Randy’s flaming gay mannerisms are off the charts on the annoying scale and his humor can be viciously mean-spirited, which should make him terrific fodder for fundraising pitches to the dwindling but still important in certain conservative circles anti-gay demographic (some of whom will also secretly find him cute).

    Meanwhile leftists and libertarians, along with those on the right who aren’t fans of the disgraced former mayor, can appreciate a takedown that will hurt because it’s mostly true and funny as hell.

  109. Jim

    A property right to the air in your lungs doesn’t work well. Someone wouldn’t have homesteaded it until the air was already there, pollution included.

    There are, in fact, property rights over the air. That is already recognized in law. Just as the ownership of property does not include just the surface, but also extends into the earth for a usable amount (not to the earth’s core), property rights extend upwards by up to 500 feet.

  110. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Help me understand single-constraint NAP Fundamentalism better. You prefer torts to criminal law solutions and to things like Pigouvian taxes, yes? You would also prefer privately mediated tort resolution to torts mediated in government courts, which are paid for with “stolen” money, correct?

    If so, do you oppose new laws that govern government-court tort proceedings? Do you advocate for abolition of government courts?; (I assume yes.) Do you advocate for immediate abolition of government courts, regardless of the sequencing of such a project? Do you advocate for the immediate abolition of government courts that referee criminal law as well, also regardless of that initiative’s sequencing?

  111. robert capozzi

    LD: That is you calling CO2 pollution.

    Me: Nope, sorry. Allow me to clarify. The key word is “frame.” OTOH, there are uncertain risks from CO2. OTO, it’s uncontroversial to acknowledge that burning “fossil” fuels emits OTHER substances, many of which are polluting.

    To be clear, I am NOT saying that CO2 is a pollutant. I am saying that excess CO2 has been identified as contributing to climate change, which I surmise to be an uncertain but plausible risk.

    Fining people for burning “fossil” fuels, if well structured, would disincentivize people from both polluting AND emitting excess CO2. I know of no market mechanism to address this widespread negative externality.

    If you know of a better one, I’d like to hear it!

  112. robert capozzi

    Jim: property rights extend upwards by up to 500 feet.

    Me: OK, so if the world’s population were to drive, say, 20 miles today in different vehicles that emit 7B in volume of pollutants, who are you going to sue for the particles that waft into your airspace? How could you possibly conduct discovery?

  113. Elementary school my dear Watson

    It’s difficult to read posts when basic literacy is consistently absent:

    your = possessive – whose is it?
    you’re = you are
    yore = a time long ago

  114. dL

    Meanwhile leftists and libertarians, along with those on the right who aren’t fans of the disgraced former mayor, can appreciate a takedown

    Too long. I only have a 30 second tolerance for Ghouliani on screen

  115. dL

    It’s difficult to read posts when basic literacy is consistently absent:

    Basic grammar, but the your/you’re mistake is a common one that usually only impedes the discussion of the written post on more active boards by triggering grammar nazi flame war interruptions

  116. dL

    There are, in fact, property rights over the air…property rights extend upwards by up to 500 feet.

    Legal precedent for that figure relates to noise pollution. CO2 as a greenhouse gas refers to carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere. CO2 only makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of atmospheric gas. A very minute percentage. It’s role vis a vis climate essentially is a water vapor regulator. Humans are responsible for roughly 1/3 of atmospheric CO2. There is no way to apply traditional torts to climate consequences due to changes in upper atmospheric CO2.

  117. Jim

    robert capozzi “if the world’s population were to drive, say, 20 miles today in different vehicles that emit 7B in volume of pollutants, who are you going to sue for the particles that waft into your airspace? How could you possibly conduct discovery?”

    There would be no lawsuits against those with normal pollution levels because everyone wants to pollute a little and not be sued. The only lawsuits would be against high level polluters. High sulfur coal power plants, not Joe Smith mowing his lawn. High level polluters are easier to identify. As technology improves and pollution is better controlled, the tolerable level for pollution is reduced.

  118. Jim

    dL “Legal precedent for that figure relates to noise pollution.”

    My point was only that their were property rights in air. It wasn’t some outlandish concept.

  119. paulie Post author

    Help me understand single-constraint NAP Fundamentalism better.

    Not what I do anymore, I prefer to focus my efforts on more short term stuff now. I’ve given you the links before which address the exact questions you keep asking. If you wanted to know, you would have read up on it by now. Playing this same game over and over eventually loses its appeal. I’m past that point.

    As for what I advocate…get the ball rolling in the freedom direction and see how far it goes. I’ve quit trying to guess how far that will be. It’s a pointless thing to argue about at this point. But good luck with whoever wants to spar with you. I no longer have the bandwidth for that.

  120. robert capozzi

    J: The only lawsuits would be against high level polluters.

    Me: Not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that developing a case is nearly impossible, given the ubiquity of the atmosphere, the winds, etc.

  121. Freeman

    dL said, “Humans are responsible for roughly 1/3 of atmospheric CO2.”

    For the human contribution of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, estimates vary along about 4% or 5%. As for how much of the increase in the CO2 levels over recent decades is attributable to human activity, that remains one of the many great climate unknowns.

    dL said, ” [CO2]’s role vis a vis climate essentially is a water vapor regulator.”

    Whatever warming effect CO2 may have, the effect diminishes rapidly with increases of CO2. Therefore, they don’t get the future warming they want from their climate models (their computer simulations), so they add on water vapor effects(H2O in gaseous form is by far the biggest warmer-upper in the atmosphere) into their code in the climate models, even though it’s nothing more than an assumption that water vapor levels vary with carbon dioxide levels. It’s just an ad hoc attempt to salvage the flimsy case for high “climate sensitivity” (the going term for how much or how little difference CO2 makes).

    To present these mere assumptions as if they are known fact is misleading and unscientific.

  122. dL

    For the human contribution of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, estimates vary along about 4% or 5%.

    The 1/3 figure referred to atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the human percentage contribution to the amount of carbon that gets exchanged into the atmosphere per annum as part of the global carbon cycle. That is indeed ~ 4%. The carbon cycle involves of exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere. Carbon in the atmosphere binds to oxygen, forming CO2. There is no necessary linearity to the carbon cycle that stipulates that an X% increase in carbon moving from the lithosphere to the atmosphere as the result of fossil fuel industrialization results only in an X% increase in CO2 that remains in the atmosphere to function as a greenhouse gas. That 4% figure is a fact , but it is not a conclusion nor a demonstration.

    As for how much of the increase in the CO2 levels over recent decades is attributable to human activity, that remains one of the many great climate unknowns.

    Not really. Scientists can measure historical CO2 levels in the past from polar ice core samples. If one measures an ahistorical change from the mid 19th century to present day, I’m not sure one is presented with a mysterious anomaly with that observation.

    Whatever warming effect CO2 may have, the effect diminishes rapidly with increases of CO2. Therefore, they don’t get the future warming they want from their climate models

    What exactly is your expertise with climate math/computer models? Granted, only 3 or 4 out of 100(the rough percentage of the population that has taken a course in differential equations) who blather about climate change could sport a climate model from a model airplane, but I doubt your basic meteorology bona fides with statements that that the only relationship between water vapor, temperature and non-condensible gases is a socialist conspiracy. I don’t have much patience for arguments from authority(if Bill Nye says it is true, well, then it is science), but neither do I have much tolerance for rebutting the consensus with crackpottery.

  123. Freeman

    Did Jacob Hornberger file with the Federal Election Commission a few days ago to run for president as a Libertarian Party candidate?

  124. Freeman

    dL said, ” many libertarians seem to follow the conservative strategy to attack climate change as fake science, leftist, socialist conspiracy, etc, throwing their lot in with an anti-intellectualism that has lost all credibility in the age of Trump.”

    And dL said, ” I don’t have much patience for arguments from authority(if Bill Nye says it is true, well, then it is science), but neither do I have much tolerance for rebutting the consensus with crackpottery.”

    I see that the topic of recent climate is not a scientific one, but a political one to dL. Therefore I will just repost an apt comment I wrote elsewhere on IPR two months ago.

    Climate change is debatable. Climatologists do it all the time. Nonscientists can do this too, but researchtime and critical thought must be invested for gainful debate. Rational, observation-based talks are gainful if they keep leading to more pertinent questions. Unfortunately in the political realm, climate talk remains heated, insubstantial and ungainly because political climate talk is not treated scientifically. It doesn’t get past identity politics.

  125. dL

    I see that the topic of recent climate is not a scientific one, but a political one to dL.

    It’s political board, brutha, lol. Let’s not pretend we are on physics forum DOT com.

    Climate change is debatable. Climatologists do it all the time.

    I imagine the number of climatologists skeptical of climate change rivals the number of physicists skeptical of the theory of relativity.

    Nonscientists can do this too, but researchtime and critical thought must be invested for gainful debate

    I asked you about your research time spent with climate models, given your definitive claims regarding the ineffectiveness of such. You only responded with a petulant whine about political bias. The scientific method indeed is open to anyone, but knee jerk criticizing any evidence that supports the opposing position while embracing any blog post or random fact that purports to refute it is not the scientific method.

  126. Freeman

    dL “I imagine the number of climatologists skeptical of climate change rivals the number of physicists skeptical of the theory of relativity.”

    If by “climate change” you mean whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the climate control knob or not, the answer is most climatologists are skeptical of that. The consensus the politicians are always talking about is a myth.

  127. dL

    whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the climate control knob or not, the answer is most climatologists are skeptical of that.

    Well, that’s categorically not true. There are scientists in other fields who are either skeptical of anthropomorphic climate change and/or climate change alarmism(e.g, Freeman Dyson), but climate change is a scientific consensus in the field of climatology. That being said, I haven’t a clue what percentage of climate scientists are on board with Al Gore, Green New Deal or UN mandates. But who cares? It’s not like politicians give a rat’s ass what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists thinks about nuclear weapons.

  128. paulie Post author

    Did Jacob Hornberger file with the Federal Election Commission a few days ago to run for president as a Libertarian Party candidate?

    Dunno, but you should be able to find it at FEC.gov if he did. Jo Jorgensen also participated in a debate a few days ago so that is also official. BAN reports that Hornberger is officially running.

  129. paulie Post author

    Let me know if anyone has questions for them, or any other candidates. I can attempt to contact them with a list of general or specific questions once I have such lists. I already have answers from Kokesh, will try to post them soon.

  130. paulie Post author

    Here’s something that could start it off or be a standalone article…

    Yes, it probably should. Would you like to be signed up to be able to post it?

  131. NewFederalist

    I feel so badly for paulie. He seems to be carrying the weight of this dead carcass on his shoulders alone. When will Warren finally put this poor thing out of its misery?

  132. paulie Post author

    I don’t want it out of its misery, I’d like it revived. But I’m not going to do it single handedly. People will either step up or they won’t. If not, I’m fine it with it primarily being an archive of past discussions.

  133. paulie Post author

    And there’s no need to feel bad for me. I have more than enough to do. It’s fine. IPR will do what it will do, it’s no longer the focus of my life.

  134. paulie Post author

    Meanwhile: I’ve made contact with the Jo Jorgensen campaign. Let me know if anyone has any questions they would like to ask for an interview.

  135. wolfefan

    I’d be willing to post it. I would not be a very active poster – I’m not a very active commenter! – but I would be happy to have those privileges if you wish.

  136. paulie Post author

    You’re added. If you don’t get the email – it can look like spam and some email providers treat it as such – add /wp-admin after the IPR main page URL and hit the forgot password link below the name and password. Let me know if none of that works.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *