We’ve all heard about Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning to us about the “military industrial complex”. It’s practically iconic. But what I didn’t know was that same farewell speech contained a second warning, one that hints at our current situation with such figures as Dr. James Hansen. This is from the blog “Big Hollywood” It’s worth a read. – Anthony
Ike’s Not So Famous Second Warning
by Dwight Schultz “Big Hollywood blog”
On Saturday January 17, 2009, during the Fox 4 0′clock news hour, Shepard Smith recalled the anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous 1961 farewell address to the nation, but he only mentioned one of Ike’s threat warnings, the one that reminded us to beware of the “Military Industrial Complex.” This warning came from a military man, so it’s been a turn of phrase that slobbers off the lips of suspicious lefty infants shortly after they’re forced to abandon the nipple and accept Marx.
So I shouted at Shepard, “What’s wrong with threat number two, you big beautiful blue eyed capitalist! What’s wrong with Fox News and your staff? There are only two warnings in that speech for God’s sake, if you’re going to honor a historical document maybe somebody could at least read it, and maybe for once in almost fifty years remind us of Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Does anything come immediately to mind when you read that? Ike goes on, “…Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” And, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Do you think Ike was warning us that politicians like Al Gore and Barack Obama could cuddle with the scientific technological elite alike and, oh, I don’t know, maybe get behind Obama’s plan to tax your breath? Do you think that perhaps some time in the near future you might not be considered a person but a carbon footprint … does something like that sound ridiculous?
Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government. So how is it that one of Ike’s warnings became famous and the other a historical ghost note?
Above: Watch Ike’s farewell address in its entirety, 46 minutes
It’s really not hard to grasp. Our educational institutions monitor and control historical information and also educate and train the future guardians of public discourse — the indispensable journalists we read, see, and hear every day. By definition both the media and our nation’s scholars digest information and parcel it out in what should be an honest and thoughtful way. They digested Ike’s warning about the military and saw fit to warn us 10 billion times that the military is bad and needs to be feared and pushed off campus. They digested Ike’s warning about universities, scholars, federal money, science and policy, then gave it to Helen Thomas to scatter on some hot house tomatoes in the Nevada desert. It doesn’t get any simpler.
Think about this: How many times have you heard that the debate over anthropogenic global warming has ended? When and where was this debate? The mere recitation of the words, “the debate has ended” closed the discussion without you having ever heard it because, get it! It’s ended! Get It! Neat trick! Gore says the debate has ended….McCain says the debate has ended…Obama says the debate has ended …Hanson says the debate has ended, and no one in the media wants to ask, “What debate?” When? Where? Was there a scientific or political debate… or, God forbid, both, and who was for and who was against?
Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” has by now been proven to be almost a 100% big fat lie, and yet there is no media outcry against it or price for Gore to pay because he is supporting the scientific technological elite who want to hold public policy captive to the carbon tax that Socialists and Democrats have wanted since the 1992 Rio summit.
This is a clear example of years of liberal bias in protective favor of the university media structure. It just takes a lot of repetition and a strong ideological preference for saying: American military bad! American university good! CO2 bad! Tax our breath! Raise the tuition! Kick the Marines off campus! Long live man made global warming and the tax dollars we shall inherit from it. STING shall be our band and “Every Breath You Take” shall be our song … revenue streams for eternity.
Repeat after me this slogan … or, if you would rather stick this on the backside of your transportation vehicle , please do and remember, paying higher taxes is patriotic, so breathe baby, breathe for your country, just don’t breathe behind our back and not let us see you, ‘cause we’re talk’n money now, baby! The debate has ended!
…Hmmm?
Warning number two? What warning? Oh, you mean the military thing? We’ve taken care of that. Here’s Matt Damon’s number, he’ll tell you all about it. He went to Harvard you know. Remember, be upscale, don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, breathe! And did I tell you to pay your taxes and act patriotic, especially when they’re going up?
Gotta run, I’m meeting Tom Daschle, Laurie David, Tyrano-Soros and secretary Geithner for lunch.
Roger Sowell:
Webcast is like Broadcast. You broadcast something, you webcast it. And the past tense of webcast is webcast.
Just an FYI 🙂
In hindsight, Ike’s warnings seem rather presentient. He also seems closer in spirit to Revolutionary War figures than our current crop of politicians.
Right now I’m into reading histories of the American Revolutionary War era written by the actual participants. It seems those events were as much about resistance to Mercantilism as they were about the usual simplistic chants of taxation and representation.
Today, our new version of Mercantilism comes to us not from London, but Washington, DC. and it goes beyond ties between business and government, and now includes ‘guiding’ the direction of scientific inquiry. It would be wise, I think, to remember Ike’s warnings, even if it’s true that such ties resulted in DARPA’s invention, or laying the foundation, of the internet {sorry Al, you really need to clean up that little detail on your resume}.
Walter Cronanty (12:43:15) :
I must respectfully disagree. While I certainly would not expect this site to devolve into one where politics is the majority, or even a sizable minority, of posts, to ignore politics would be like a political site which never mentions AGW – seriously incomplete.
I agree with this. The politics is important. My point was that we need to be taken seriously by the politicians, MSM, and scientists. If they look at the best skeptic blog we want them to see the light, not the political name-calling. The AGW side will be looking for excuses to ignore what we say. Don’t give them any.
CodeTech: thanks! I am always grateful to learn from the more technically savvy. Who knew? It is proper to say, “They webcast that hearing yesterday.”
Leon B.,
DARPA may have been the first to come up with the concept of the internet, but the history of scientific inventions is replete with simultaneous discoveries.
Left alone, the free market will provide better than government direction, and at a tiny fraction of the cost to taxpayers.
Steven Goddard (12:01:44) :
Ric,
Apologies for getting this started, but I beg to differ.
The reason why RISC failed on the desktop was because x86 processors were able to keep up performance wise – which was not predicted by academics. Your comments about Intel come from the same school of thought which led IBM and others to waste $5 billion on Power PC.
You’re both wrong. X86 won because the public wanted backwards compatibility of software and peripherals. My first net-connected computer was a Risc based sun sparcstation IPC. It’s screen has a resolution of 1152×900. In 1992, when my well heeled friends had 80286 PCs running 640×480 screens, I ran NCSA mosaic and a 14400 modem. It’s still running Red Hat linux, 15 years later.
@ur momisugly Smokey (13:48:41)
Thanks for that bit of clarification. That pretty much sums up what I was getting at in that paragraph. While we got DARPA’s networking concept, it is more important that we heed Ike’s warning; the internet would have happened eventually, with or without DARPA.
Hey, I don’t know why you wouldn’t know this speech — I posted it repeatedly in comments on this very blog over the past year (more often last spring).
Google search lists at least 4 times, making the same point as the Hollywood blog, but at least the warning is getting out there!
If you read the entire speech or watch the video above it would sound like it was written today. Amazing prescience for a man of the 1950’s.
David
tallbloke — “In 1992, when my well heeled friends had 80286 PCs running 640×480 screens…”
Huh? 1992 was the i486 era. The pentium chips came out the following march.
As for evaluating RISC processors, find out what NASA is using in mars rovers and satellites and such. If RISC based then the academics were likely right and CISC dominated in part due to backwards compatibility. If CISC based then the academics were probably wrong. Generally the winner in the academic world finds use in the high end applications. One assumes that mars rovers may qualify as high end enough for our purpose here.
So, does anyone here know what powers rover brains? Let’s end the sidebar before someone shouts “BigEndian Jerk!” at me.
Ah well, I’m from the sticks see. :o)
Dunno about the mars rover, but I do remember the debacle over metric/imperial conversions which crashed a mars lander. If only they’d used those Texas Instruments sci-calcs with the built in conversion tables…
Barry at 8:45 wrote: That is incorrect. The scientific-technological elite comment is part of the first threat – that of the military-industrial complex and associated institutions being powered by its own momentum instead of service to the nation – to liberty and democracy.
That is a very skewed interpretation of what Ike actually said, which is the following:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.
In other words, he apparently thinks the technical/government complex, which is “largely responsible” for the military industrial complex, is the larger, more pervasive problem. Time has born him out, no? While the military/industrial complex is largely under control, we now have a scientific/technical/governmental complex that has spun out of control. And to make it even worse (this is something Ike did not forsee), it is now an <b international problem with politicians, scientists, activists and radicals all joining up around the world attempting to impose solutions that have yet to be proven warranted.
Don’t forget the imminent danger of Jackson and the EPA. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared CO2 an atmospheric pollutant and that is a consensus that will be forged into increased taxes.
Nature is not reality. Political agendas are reality.
Let us HOPE the CHANGE wrought by this Keystone Kop administration will be survivable.
————————————————————-
Obama’s energy secretary surprised to learn he’s in charge of oil policy
At a forum with reporters on Thursday, the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.
“I’m not the administration,” the Cabinet secretary replied. “I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president’s position is.”…
The day before, reporters asked him about OPEC output levels after a speech to a group of utility regulators. He responded that the issue was “not in my domain.”
———————————————————-
“Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government.”
this article is essential to understanding what is going on behind the scenes
This article refers to a particular paradigm articulated by Dwight D Eisenhower in his landmark speeach. If we are to understand what is ‘going on behind the scenes’, we need to see the evidence for it. I am a skeptic by inclination, and so recoil from assumptions forged from little on either side of any debate. IMO, the conspiracy theory about climate scientists is a convenient argument that has little basis, yet is is a woeful staple of the skeptical canon, just as the “9/11 inside job” has captured the interest of a great many people.
Eisenhower’s parting remarks are sound comments for all time, but that does not mean they pinpoint any old topic.
The rhetoric is highly laudable. Now show us the substance as it applies to this debate. Although I stick mainly to the science, this political argument seems to be a product of disaffection with the mainstream view on climate change rather than any material evidence. Remember, in the US the consensus on global warming (whether or not you agree with it) has survived successive governments completely antithetical to its conclusions. That is, AGW theory long predates any government enabling. This does not fit within the paradigm Eisenhower warned of – the governmental enabling of a science/technolgy sector for specific purposes that gathers its own momentum beyond its prescribed utility.
While the military/industrial complex is largely under control, we now have a scientific/technical/governmental complex that has spun out of control.
I see no evidence for that other than innuendo.
The logic apears to be this – the alarmists are wrong but have great influence, therefore the technical/science sector that deals with climate has spun out of control. There is a large piece missing to this logic, and that is sound evidence. I don’t buy that the (US) government (I am Australian) is largely responsible, because until the recent change of government, US governments have hardly promoted that sector. The Bush administration was eventually won over by the climate scientists. Or surely you’re not suggesting that the previous administration kowtowed to ‘political pressure’ of the UN and the climate science/technology sector. (That’s going to be difficult to make fly)
“I see no evidence for that other than innuendo.”
I see little evidence for AGW and that which I do see is highly suspect. And because we have no hard evidence, my contention that a cabal of politicians, international bureaucrats, scientists and environmental groups are pushing us toward adoption of disastrous policies, is– given Eisenhower’s warnings– credible.
Richard deSousa et al, regarding
Smokey (11:17:58) :
Yet Another Pundit,
I disagree, this article is essential to understanding what is going on behind the scenes. If you want a relatively straightforward explanation of whether the climate is acting abnormally, or is acting as it always has, here’s a reasonable recap of recent climate history: click
Just so no one here (I hope I’m not too late) offers to “help” Dan Gainor out by contacting him about his “typo” (hundreds before already have), it was an intended misspelling of “whether” as “weather.” In other words, Mr. Gainor did not slip on Sigmund.
Well, I had two entirely reasonable posts directly on the topic deleted. No snark at all.
I’d be interested to know why. (Particularly as there has been much repetition of arguments above and even off-topic discussion of computer history! How did my posts fall below the standard?)
I’ll try to reiterate.
Eisenhower’s comments were about the government enabling of science/technology sectors for specific purposes (ie, WWII), that gather their own momentum beyond their prescribed utility, thus serving their own interests instead of the nation’s.
This would seem to be at odds with the history of AGW science, which was antithetical to the desires of previous governments. Indeed, the Bush administration may have been the forerunner of successive US governments that did not like what they were hearing, and yet the Bush administration eventually capitulated.
Referring to a comment above on international ‘pressure’, Is it really reasonable to accept that the Bush government caved in to agitation from the UN? Precedent (Iraq war is just one example, Israel another) would belie that view. Domestically, scientists from many disciplines (not just climate) publicly complained (via petitions etc) that the Bush government stifled scientific findings.
Eisenhower’s comments are luadable for all times, but that does not mean that they apply to this situation. Here, the AGW bandwagon was under way well before any US government endorsed it – AGW theory arose despite a lack of political enabling from the executive. This is entirely at odds with Eisenhower’s concept – where the government enables a science/technology sector first, and then it ‘spins out of control’.
Having read much on the matter (despite being more interested in the science rather than the politics), it seems to me that there is little more than innuendo to substantiate the paradigm Ike enunciated. Where is the solid corroboration of US governments first enabling the climate alarmists? Rather, scientists from a great range of discilines (not just climate) complained of political interference and muzzling from the previous administration.
It is not enough to say that the alarmists are wrong and have much influence therefore the climate science sector has ‘spun out of control’. There is a piece missing to the logic – and that is sound evidence. Otherwise the admontion could be applied to any sector enabled by government. Might as well say the war in Iraq, a costly enterprise of which the central cause was plagued by erroneous assumptions, and of which the execution was deeply flawed in the first 4 years, is therefore a product of an overbearing military-industrial complex. I don’t believe that, but if I was a bleeding-heart liberal, I could as conveniently brandish this ‘logic’.
Let’s have some substantial details instead of appropriating rhetoric.
REPLY: We’ve had quite a spam barrage recently, it is possible they ended up there. On long comments like the one you’ve written, the chance of triggering the spam filter increases. But this one is fine. – Anthony
I see little evidence for AGW and that which I do see is highly suspect. And because we have no hard evidence, my contention that a cabal of politicians, international bureaucrats, scientists and environmental groups are pushing us toward adoption of disastrous policies, is– given Eisenhower’s warnings– credible.
‘Credible’ would seem to be in the eye of the beholder.
“1. John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859, from lab work, that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas.
2. Carbon dioxide has been rising. This was suggested theoretically by Arrhenius in 1896, backed up tentatively by Callendar in 1938, and shown definitely by Keeling et al. in the 1950s and ever since.
3. The new carbon dioxide is coming from fossil fuel burning. This is shown by its radioisotope signature. The r.s. of fossil fuel CO2 was first demonstrated in ambi-ent air by Hans Suess in 1955.
4. The globe has been warming. This is shown by land surface temperature records, sea surface temp. records, borehole temp’s, balloon radiosonde temp’s, satellite temp. observations, melting glaciers, rising sea level, tree lines moving toward the poles, earlier hatching dates for eggs of insects, frogs and birds, and tropical diseases moving into temperate zones.
5. The output of sunlight and the flux of galactic cosmic rays have not changed for approximately 50 years. But global warming turned up sharply starting 30 years ago.
So in short, we have theoretical reason to think it’s carbon dioxide, the evidence backs it up, and there’s no competing hypothesis with good evidence.”
(Quotes added because this comes from a blog, not written by me)
This is a correlative argument. There is also an empirical basis to the theory of AGW – which is the well-verified lab test of infrared absorption by CO2 –> heating of a volume of atmosphere.
Though a skeptic must always keep in mind a shred of doubt about even the well-verified phenomena (ie, doubt everything, it is cynical, not skeptical, to proceed as if the well-verified stuff and correlations are entirely unfounded.
My own position is this: there is strong evidence that industrial emissions of so-called greenhouse gases are warming the global climate. Where I part company with the mainstream view is about the degree to which this is happening. I am no scientist, therefore, in line with reasonable skepticism applied to my own cpabilities I must and do doubt that I am in a strong position to state anything categorically. To do so would mean I am no skeptic, but rather peddling a particular point of view.
What I find reasonably questionable is the soundness of projections. If I was to align with a particular skeptical climate scientist, John Christy would be the one. Also, in line with Pielke Snr’s comments, I consider that there is not enough emphasis placed on regional change (if any). To paraphrase that eminent and reasonable skeptic, it is not that we know what will happen that should impel us, it is that we do NOT know what may happen. The argument devolves to risk management, for me, not absolutes. I distrust absolutes – from both sides of the fence.
To bring it back to topic, speculation on a possible overweening science/technology sector must therefore be calculated against plausible risks, not some ‘yae’ or ‘nae’ view on a complex subject. The ‘us and them’ paradigm serves the debate no boetter. The contention that there is a concerted effort from thousands of climate scientists worldwide – in various related disciplines – to pervert the course of science for political/personal/financial gain, is, while remotely possible, just too unreasonable to be sustained.
Wow!
Barry,
I read your posts and am quite amazed.
You seem to be trying to figure out for yourself how much societies should curb free markets and decrease standards of living, on the premise that AGW might be true.
If I have failed to understand your point, you may need to write another essay for me to read.
markm
barry,
Every point in your #4 above is questionable. Every single one of them. [citations on request].
And since #4 is the crux of your argument, you have the burden of showing strong — not flimsy — evidence that you are right about each of those points, and that the current climate is not well within its natural parameters; which is the long-held and well established theory that must be decisively falsified by those believing in the new AGW/CO2 hypothesis, in order for them to gain credibility. So far, they have failed.
You further state:
Please explain how that is not happening right now under the current Administration. Don’t you understand that’s why Eisenhower’s quotes are so newsworthy today??
Barry:
It’s not a question of “risk management” since no one even knows if the warming, which has apparently stopped for the time being, will have deleterious effects. How can we conceivably as a race, the human race, spend trillions of dollars and handcuff our most crucial industries when we don’t even know what the result of warming will be? You cannot base massive interventionist programs on speculation. It’s crazy.
As for the science, I fail to see how the increase of any gas in the atmosphere in the amount of 100 parts per million can have world-wide catastrophic effects. It just seems highly unlikely to me.
If there is a problem, I would like to be proven wrong. But there doesn’t seem to be much interest in the ruling climatological clique to actually do engineering-grade studies that would determine exactly how much influence on global temperatures tiny increases in man-made CO2 have.
In debate, its’ customary to identify those who you are quoting. I’d be interested to know who it is you’ve quoted.
Duke,
I quoted Barton Paul Levenson from here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/#comment-25383
It’s not a question of “risk management” since no one even knows if the warming, which has apparently stopped for the time being, will have deleterious effects. How can we conceivably as a race, the human race, spend trillions of dollars and handcuff our most crucial industries when we don’t even know what the result of warming will be? You cannot base massive interventionist programs on speculation. It’s crazy.
Risk management is entirely about potentials, not ‘knowns’ – otherwise it’s not rsk management. If we ‘knew’ what would happen, we’d implemet policies strictly accordingly.
Goverments worldwide implement risk management on a range of issues with less data, and with uncertain forecasts. What is economic policy based on? What is military contingency planning based on? Infrastructure development? Billions of dollars are poured into these and other portfolios, whch collate data and make projections. It is hardly ‘crazy’ to speculate. It is central to prudent governance. It is crazy to make policy on speculation absent any foundation. This is not the case with climate science.
As I said above, the militaries of various countries have spent millions on contingency planning for climate-related potential conflicts. There is rarely ‘proof’ that the concerns of the military planners will inevitably eventuate, yet who would gainsay their prudence?
As for the science, I fail to see how the increase of any gas in the atmosphere in the amount of 100 parts per million can have world-wide catastrophic effects.
Well, this now devolves to an argument over the science (on which grounds I would happily engage), but that is not the thrust of this thread. I can only repeat (paraphrasing) Pileke’s comment – it is not that we know, it is that we do NOT know what may happen that should impel our actions – that means more funding for climate science (including for the skeptical climate scientists), and until we have a better resoluton on the future, the precautionary principle carries some weight.
If you can agree with that, then there is much meat for a conversation on what policies are prudent and what are profligate. I am not sufficiently conversant with economic verities or with the science of emissions reductions to contribute intelligently, but I would read with interest a well-informed and reasonable discussion on that.
I will offer a few points, though.
1) Oil and coal are not infinite in supply. There will come a time when we have need of alternative energies. The question is not ‘should we’, but ‘when’?
2) We are reliant on our energy sources in part from unsavoury regimes, who we enable by buying their products. The sooner we wean ourselves, the better.
3) Industry grows not only by exploiting the resources and technologies that exist, but also by discovering/inventing new resources and technlogies. I am amazed that erstwhile proponents of economic rationalism advocate some sort of ‘protectionism’ for fossil fuel industries. How did these industries grow so fast? With help from government (as well as the hard labour of entrepreneurs). Oil, coal, nuclear – you name it – there has been and is government subsidies to help these industries grow. No reputable capitalist seems to be calling foul on this sort of government ‘intervention’. So let’s deal equally with emerging energy industries and technologies.
4) All industries are subject to regulation. Industry (in developed countries) does not have carte blanche to pollute rivers, over-harvest the land and sea or expel toxins into the air. Whether it’s mercury in the water table, chemical dumping, nuclear waste, SO2, or CFCs, sensible government regulation balances the needs of societies with the ambtion of businesses. Again, there is much meat for an argument over what s sensible on this topic, but the principle is sound.
As for the science, I fail to see how the increase of any gas in the atmosphere in the amount of 100 parts per million can have world-wide catastrophic effects.
An excellent analogy is CFCs and related, ozone-depleting gases. While land-based effects may not have been catastrophic, ozone depletion has made a hole (a deep ‘dent’, really) in the atmosphere above the Antarctic roughly the size of my home country – Australia. This significant effect has been caused by an increase of CFCs and the lke in a few hundred parts per billion.
The analogy is qualified, of course – it’s a different process (catalysation). But I can easily see how a small change in atmospheric gases can have significant effects.
And in response to the science on that, which itself was uncertain, internationalprotocols were initiated (Montreal) that did NOT gut the economies of the world. Again, the analogy is qualified – CFCs are not as central to our economies as fossil fuels. But the principle is sound enough. When the government restrained industry – in this case heavily constrained industry – entrepreneurs stepped up and created new technologies and industries that flourished. Are we so feeble that we could not meet the current challenge with hard work and innovation (regardless of whether it may be ‘catastrophic’ or not)?
There is a dubious ‘alarmism’ amidst the critics of AGW theory – that we are being dragged into some kind of economic Armageddon. This, too, is mystifyingly unfounded. Numerous economic projections on curtailing GHG emissions in line with, say, the Kyoto protocol posit a worldwide loss of GDP of 1% – 2%. Where is all the economic alarmism coming from? I suppose there must be a cataclysmic report somewhere that the uncritical doubters have latched on to – who completely disregard the numerous other reports that posit a more modest loss.
This one-eyed ‘skepticism’, this economic alarmism adds little of substance to the debate. Hand-waving. Please, cite a credible economic report that projects economic devastation from implementing GHG-reduction policies. I would like to read it. And I wil add it to the canon of economic reports, comparing and contrasting, rather than singling it out and proclaiming “here lies the TRUTH”.
Completely disregarding AGW, there are sound reasons to encourage a shift to alternative energies. The question remains – “how soon?” It is a pity that more was not done when the economic climate could absorb more vigorous polcies more easily. What if the depression lasts for ten years and fossil fuels become scanty? We may well regret governemt inaction of yore. Then, with AGW on top – because we do not know what may come – I think emissions controls are prudent. How all this is implemented, and to what extent, is the discussion i think we should be having.
Hopefully, resounding evidence that there is no need to worry about global warming will come along. Until then, I remain skeptical and favour prudent policies.
Barry: Risk management is entirely about potentials, not ‘knowns’ – otherwise it’s not rsk management. If we ‘knew’ what would happen, we’d implemet policies strictly accordingly.
I would suggest you start looking into managing the economic risk of implementing all these increasingly drastic programs to regulate industries.
Read the following:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071213/news_lz1e13lowe.html
It tells me that the state of California is “warming” up to assume control over all building projects in the state and can deny permission to build to local authorities and private developers if the state can somehow “prove” that development of any kind threatens to contribute to “global warming.”
This is not what you have chosen to describe as “dubious alarmism.” This is a threat to the very existence of freedom, property rights and local control of land use in California.
When you deprive people of control over local land-use decisions, you are talking about dictatorship.
I cannot think of Ike’s MIC warning without physically shaking in rage at the incalculable damage it did to America–and especially to its allies in need.
I would guess it was worth perhaps three trillion dollars (uninflated 1960 dollars) in value to America’s enemies over the next thirty years alone. Not to mention excess loss of human life. “Just words.”
America’s “Military Industrial Complex” did more to preserve world freedom (such as it is) than any other agency in modern history.
Our sailors, airmen, marines, and soldiers with goods produced by the MIC have kept us free and created a world economy whose communication of goods around the world has been unknown before our time. Our standard of living has been increased by the MIC.
Thanks evanjones for making your point — it is right-on!
markm
I don’t consider the second warning applicable.
Gore? Hansen? Ehrlich? Mann? These sanctimonious bozos are neither particularly scientific nor technological. And “elite”? Elite?! Elite, my Aunt Fanny! They are about as elite as W. J. Bryan or Elmer Fudd.
The real threat–a scientocracy led by REAL minds exploiting technology to its full potential to violate and intrude has NOT developed. No clone armies. No Big Brother. No “obedience chips”. All fully possible. None of them actually done.
In fact I’m surprised, what with modern technology’s astoundingly dangerous potential, how little actual damage (and what immense material good) it has done mankind so far.
“The real threat–a scientocracy led by REAL minds exploiting technology to its full potential to violate and intrude has NOT developed.”
Podesta is running around the cable shows as we speak going on about the smart grid technology going forward because of the stimulus. You know, the capability to know how much electricity you use at any moment.
I’ll need one of gosselin’s permission slips to work all night at the pc, which is my wont, instead of the times other folks do because I might have the heat one degree higher than if I were sleeping at this time.
Tell me what good this technology is as opposed to our current meters? If they want us to do our laundry at 2AM that’s fine with me, but it won’t be fine with my neighbors and would violate local ordinances.
It’s not enough to control our total use of energy, now they’re going to dictate time-shifting.
This certainly feels intrusive to me.
I agree with the specific point. And I object to that sort of intrusiveness.
But that is pretty small potatoes compared with what the government could be doing if it wanted to. (They could just look at all our electric bills for a start, but they don’t bother.)
Take GPS. They could–if they so desired–be tracking every move we make. But they don’t. To say nothing of Big Brothering all communications: the gummint has managed (Mostly. So far.) to adhere to the fine line of tapping in when appropriate and staying the heck out when not.
So far, tech. has been an (almost) unanswered benefit to mankind. None of the real nightmares we have read about have ever developed, including but not limited to nuclear or bio-war or even effective BIG-scale, “James Bondian” terrorism. That may not always be the case, of course, but so far, so good.
REPLY: there are those who would argue that CO2 driven by technology is the nightmare result of the MIC. – Anthony
Anthony: Har! Har!
(I’ll be back to bugging poor citizens at work in furtherance of knowledge now . . .)
“But that is pretty small potatoes…”
It may be, yes, but a small potato here and a small potato there and soon you’re talking about Mr Potato Head controlling your life.
True. But the ratio of actual techno-intrusion to potential techno-intrusion has been exceedingly small. (So far.) Smaller than I would have thought, and I tend to be optimistic about these things in the first place.
I do concede that being on guard against such intrusion helps prevent it from happening.
As I said, Duke, I am for prudent policies. If the Californian land use policies are imprudent (and they seem so to me), and even ethically unsound, then take the fight to city hall. I have no argument with you on this. Case by case.
This is not what you have chosen to describe as “dubious alarmism.”
Quite so. I appreciate that you have taken the time to understand me.
I am not too much in disagreement with you (some, but not too much) until you get to resource depletion. My guess is that we will have (at our leisure) voluntarily departed from heavy fossil fuel use long, long before we even being to run short of it.
Don’t make the same errors concerning resource depletion that the Club of Rome made: Since 1975, it’s a “Next 200 Years”-type future (or better), not a “Limits To Growth”-type future. Even with expanded use of fossil fuels, we have around double (using the pessimistic wiki estimates) the potential reserves of fossil fuel we thought we had in 1975. We are find it (or finding out about it) twice as fast as we are using it.
Peak oil: Peek and ye shall find.
Once again we have people not really comprehending the words of a leader with insight. Ike warned of politicians becoming captives of the scientists. Ike had genuine insight on this matter, probably because of the Manhattan project.
Yet nearly all of the scientists on this blog want to blame or partially blame the politicians for becoming captives. Why not consistently put the blame the captors where it really belongs? The politicians, of what ever political stripe, are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If they act they are damned, if they don’t act they are damned. But let’s not blame the scientists too much who put them there.
Here is the problem Ike was really pointing out. Government, either directly or indirectly, becomes the source of money for scientists. And Ike worried that scientists would be compromised and not speak out for fear of the financial effects.
He was so right. I just see so many scientists who have sold their soul. Until we get a scientific community that speaks up loud and long and puts their fortunes on the line, we will continue to have politicians who are captive to bad science.
“Apologies for getting this started…”
To this day I miss my Commodore 64 and all my Amigas.
1994 was a very bad year. I got my first PC and Commodore died.
It’s all my fault.
Sigh.