Climatism vs. Humanism
Posted by rbroberg 8 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
Alex Epstein covers this in detail, but I would like to ask your permission to muse.
Climatism uses humanism as a stolen concept. It advances the idea that we abort our productive activities in order to live a better life. The claim goes like this: the better life climatism envisions is sustainable. In his book The World Without Us, Alan Weisman shows that a natural world devoid of human beings would result in a matter of a few centuries. Irrevocable damage is, says Weisman, nothing beyond mythical. We can imagine a world without us, or a world where human beings cower in the shadows of caves, digging into dirt with bare hands, fighting for scraps of raw meat, or even conducting incestual relations. How is that for sustainable! Of course, when humans become animals fighting for resources rather than producing them, it is indeed a meager existence. The IRS makes this point clear.
Climatism as a principle cannot be justified. The concept relies on humanism but requires sacrificing production and rationality. It brands as human the thought that nature is some god, that our opponent is anti-nature. But if our ultimate value is life and reality is what it is and nothing else, then only altruism can confuse life with sacrificing oneself. Only the end of altruism can enable a proper humanism, and only rational egoism can provide the antidote to climatism.
Climatism uses humanism as a stolen concept. It advances the idea that we abort our productive activities in order to live a better life. The claim goes like this: the better life climatism envisions is sustainable. In his book The World Without Us, Alan Weisman shows that a natural world devoid of human beings would result in a matter of a few centuries. Irrevocable damage is, says Weisman, nothing beyond mythical. We can imagine a world without us, or a world where human beings cower in the shadows of caves, digging into dirt with bare hands, fighting for scraps of raw meat, or even conducting incestual relations. How is that for sustainable! Of course, when humans become animals fighting for resources rather than producing them, it is indeed a meager existence. The IRS makes this point clear.
Climatism as a principle cannot be justified. The concept relies on humanism but requires sacrificing production and rationality. It brands as human the thought that nature is some god, that our opponent is anti-nature. But if our ultimate value is life and reality is what it is and nothing else, then only altruism can confuse life with sacrificing oneself. Only the end of altruism can enable a proper humanism, and only rational egoism can provide the antidote to climatism.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Just one aspect is that CO2 absorbs specific frequencies of the electromagnetic system. There is now enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make it opaque at those frequencies. So any increase in CO2 will not change the AMOUNT of heat absorbed, just where in the atmosphere this will happen.
Taxing pollution does not keep people from suffering from pollution, it does not compensate those damaged, it enriches and empowers government -- and gives it a vested interest in the pollution continuing!
This is bizarre. You're saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, i.e. it does not absorb a significant amount of heat (itself, not interacting with other gasses) that would otherwise radiate into space. That would be be amazing. It doesn't make sense that every mainstream publication, though, would conspire to mislead all non-experts on this basic and highly inconvenient fact.
I'm saying:
"Science suggests that water vapor is causing AGW (not sure the physics is completely done here). Many scientists think the water vapor is being caused by CO2 somehow (physics not established), due to the correlation. Science rejects CO2 is the direct cause of AGW through its greenhouse contribution. However, most people believe that is what science and scientists say.
I knew this was a common reference that I just hadn't heard before.
Does this mean if chemicals from my property leak to someone else's property, I should pay for the costs they incur on her and the burden of proof is on her not me since we're talking about the court taking my money by force to make her whole?
Regarding the science, which one are you saying:
a) The science actually does not show even a preponderance of the evidence that CO2 is a significant cause (among all other causes) of global warming, but the media focus on the CO2, instead of things like procession of the earth or solar output, because CO2 emissions are a key part of modern life. As a result people outside the field completely misunderstand the science.
b) The science does show human-emitted CO2 being a predominate cause of global warming, but funding colors the whole field of study. Even a technical person outside the field can read the research and work out that an unbiased inquiry would show little effect of human emissions.
Or is it some C I'm not understanding.
I mean that if AGW is real, the actions of one person compel another to servitude. This is like air or noise pollution. If one plays loud music at 2 am, this is not just an individual freedom in many cases. Other people are affected and compelled to deal with it. Milton Friedman called this involuntary servitude. This is a powerful, insightful means of dealing with issues resulting from high population density and significant affects on the environment. A cost can be assigned and the capitalist system does it's job.
However, the burden of proof of affect is on the compelled, since they seek to limit the rights of the affector.
"My most recent study" - really means "My most recent studies of the subject". I did not say AGW was false. I did say, and I stand by what I said. ALL models that correlate with the climate, ALL, include water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas. ALL. Go look for yourself. ALL.
CO2 is modeled variously as a precursor, in various ways causing the water vapor. However, I am an engineer, and a very good technical one. I learned a long time ago, that if someone says I something is too complicated to explain, either they are lazy, lying or don't really know the subject. There is nothing I've experienced to date that I can't understand if I want to, and I can understand this basic effect. There is a set of calculations to establish the steady-state temperature of a planet from the atmospheric constituents using their absorption and emission coefficients versus frequency against the incident radiation. This tested calculation will show you that CO2 is nowhere near a strong enough affect to cause the warming we have had.
AGW may be real. I doubt it. You believe it. However, when someone as smart as you doesn't understand the basic fact that CO2 itself cannot be the first order cause, I know (not believe) that at least 90% of the believers are similarly uninformed, and are making decisions like lemmings. The other fact, that this is so obscured in media and papers is damning to the entire group of objective "scientists".
Go try to find what I just told you. If you are very good on the web, or you enroll in a senior climate elective or a first-level graduate course, you will find this equation. I found it at the University of Arizona, and after my hard drive crashed, it took me two months (at night while drinking) to find another equivalent source. The common case shown is to calculate the temperature of Mars (your favorite), and the first-order calculation under predicts the temperature slightly.
BTW, I said it should be revenue neutral, so the the part about giving the gov't money is a response to someone else.
That's close. I accept the science. It like accepting that the mitochondrion is the site of cellular respiration. I'm not going through biology abstracts with the goal of convincing myself that ATP is produced in other locations of the cell. The nature of science, though, is to look for new evidence. I would not be surprised at all in my lifetime to read about scientists finding evidence that revolutionizes how they view cellular energy storage. I wouldn't say "I believed" in what they taught in undergrad biology, and now "I believe" it's wrong. I accept the evidence as new evidence comes in.
"I accept setting a tax on carbon if the emissions meet the conditions of "involuntary servitude""
What does this mean? Who's serving whom? I think I missed something that will suddenly be clear when you explain what you're referencing.
"my recent study has uncovered, unequivocally, that CO2 itself, is not the first order cause."
I don't think you're really saying you're a climate scientist. If you were a scientist with a minority view, I'd love to see you overturn current theories. I like new discoveries in general, but I would especially like if the new discovery were something I wish were true, e.g. Taco Bell is good for you or CO2 emissions are not harmful the environment. I don't think you're really saying you're an expert in this field. I think you're saying you started with a claim you wish were true, read some abstracts far outside your field, and concluded, contrary to the opinion of experts in the field, that the truth is exactly what you wished for.
I think of it as a scientific fact. The rest of that is wishful thinking.
I think it should be revenue neutral. Ideally there would be some legal framework to send the money from the activity doing the harm to the people who will pay the costs, as in the simple case of someone using chemicals that run off into the adjacent properties and cost their owners money.
I accept setting a tax on carbon if the emissions meet the conditions of "involuntary servitude". However, this is where we disagree. I have not seen the physics behind this, and you are willing to accept the word of experts (I paraphrase).
FYI, my recent study has uncovered, unequivocally, that CO2 itself, is not the first order cause. The greenhouse function of CO2 can not cause the warming that was seen. Every single model showing correlation has water vapor as the dominant greenhouse gas, every one. The assertion, which is not communicated to the public, is that CO2 causes some affect that causes additional water vapor which is the culprit. I find it VERY disappointing that the AGW community has not made this clear to the public, and "believe" their motivation is not to weaken the strength of their argument.
AGW does not exist so there cannot be a threat from it.
AGW is a scam involving fraud and pseudo-science intended to enable governments to take more money to spend on do-good causes that do nothing and to give to cronies. It is supported by billionaires and sheep.
Cronies v. workers. Altruists v. humanity.
Just hope for lots of volcanoes to spit out CO2 if the concentration gets much below 200 parts per million when the main type of photosynthesis, which evolved when there were many thousands of parts per million of CO2, will begin to shut down. There are not enough plants with later types of photosynthesis, which evolved in much lower CO2 concentrations, to feed the world's population. If the object is to feed people then get the concentration up to about 1000 parts per million,.
Of course, I don't really believe there is a serious problem -- but it if will get nuclear going again I'll pretend with you. Of course while the CO2 that coal generates is plant food, the particulates are not good to put into the atmosphere.
Thanks for the interesting exchange. Nuclear is the right immediate solution and right for the foreseeable future. AGW is a grave threat. Nuclear is the only thing we have to make the energy that runs modern society w/o hastening global warming. I'm confident people will find other solutions. Right now nuclear is what we've got. We should make rules that are allow people to make nuclear power and charge a tax on burning carbon-based fuels equal to estimated environmental costs. People will supply the energy the market demands without any central planning.
BTW, I was suggesting vegetable oil for transportation in the near term, not so much power production. The math is for transportation only. It would have to roughly double again for power production. Nuclear is the right immediate solution for power production...if one buys AGW.
Fine about Brayton cycle power production being more than 50% current production, but that does not make it the panacea for future power production using vegetable oil when the oil runs out, maybe in the next millennium.
Brayton cycles are already slightly more than 50% of the power generation in the US, at least the large prime movers in combined cycle plants, which are just now out producing coal and nuclear.
We do not need to establish "higher". The numbers I calculated include the effect, and I am too busy to do any more looking though my files on this. I have already done an order of magnitude more technical work on this here than others. Not accepting more assignments, Somebody else can do some technical work, rather than just poking and asking questions.
I have little issue burning all the fossil fuel, as long as we have a solution for when it is gone. My main interest is to crush the Islamist Extremists' funding.
"Straight vegetable oil is even higher, but interestingly very hard to find in literature." So quantify that "even higher" statement! Then there may not be much argument about it and the turbines will pop into existence and the Brayton constant pressure cycle will appear from hill to dale across this great land and all will be well with the Middle East raking in cash selling their oil for making chemicals for plastics, etc., when the West runs low on oil.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I do have a BS in chemistry and used to consider whether it was a good idea to burn up the source of petrochemicals. Of course, oil from plants works too for petrochemicals.
Load more comments...