Rambling Rhodes

You know, when I was a wee boy in Seattle the mountains to the east and west of my city were covered in snow pretty much year round. The snow pack receded in the summer, certainly, but it was pretty much always there.

Nowadays? Not so much.

There's a bit in Moby Dick that I still find fascinating, where Melville argues against these crackpots who are concerned about the decimation of the whale population by human hunting. He describes seas so full of whales that a man can practically walk across their backs; pods of whales larger than any navy in history. Now, do we still have whales? Sure we do. Has the loss of all those whales significantly impacted our lives? Are people dying because there are so few whales? Of course not. But that sight is also gone -- certainly not to be seen again at any point in the next hundred years and probably not ever. Like the fish-choked rivers of my childhood and the forests full of old growth trees my dad took me to when I was 7. Or the forests and swamps that used to live across Lake Washington, where the sprawling suburb of Bellevue is now. Etc, etc, etc.

I often find it funny that people who claim the market as their guiding star have so much trouble with the idea that the earth has what amounts to a resource flow, and that if you consume resources faster than they're produced you affect not only the available pool of resources on hand but also the volume of the flow in the future. Humans have been spending beyond the earth's means for tens of thousands of years, which is the textbook recipe for personal bankruptcy. This seems fairly obvious and straightforward to me, and there's ample evidence to support that interpretation. But here's you and Lileks telling us we'll always be able to afford the basic necessities. Economics (which is basically the study of the disposition of resources) doesn't work like that, Ryan.

It doesn't need to be a disaster and it probably won't be. It's just that as time passes there are more and more things we can't "afford" anymore. We've spent them: timber, buffalo, fish, whales. Then it'll be clean water. Then clean air. Then drinkable water. Then breathable air. Not all at once, but it's basic economics and the trend lines are already pretty obvious.

Why's that so hard for you to believe?

None of that's hard for me to believe. But, I'm also not going to whip out the Opus Dei lash and flog myself in pennance, as so many guilt-mongers seem to think all humans should.

(shocked silence)

Um.

Okay. Don't do that then. I'll just, uh, be over here-- also not flogging myself, as it happens. Maybe we can, uh, not flog ourselves together someday.

But I'm just wondering-- are you by any chance (and this is an honest question, I swear) conflating "not consuming at an unsustainable rate" with "flogging yourself"?

Because, I mean, if your definition of "flogging yourself" is, like, using mass transit and recycling and just generally trying to bring my resource consumption into line with what the planet can actually support then maybe I've been flogging myself for years without even realizing it.

You know what Lileks' little paragraph, elegantly written though it may be, reminds me of? Something like this:

"All my life people have been telling me that someday I'll die, and yet here I am. Therefore, I am immortal!"

Whole species have gone extinct and continue to go extinct all the time. Nothing could be more natural. The human belief that this can't happen to us because it hasn't happened yet, and that our lives will continue as usual regardless of what actions we choose to take vis-a-vis our environment, is pure hubris. Which is Greek for "bullshit."

I'm not saying you should sit around feeling guilty about it, although if I thought that would help maybe I would. I'm just saying pardon me for trying to assess risk in the future by using the best available facts rather than relying on (very eloquent) wishful thinking (with a generous dash of fairly pedestrian sarcasm) from the likes of Lileks.

Funny. What Lileks reminds me of is that we've seen an endless parade of catastrophy theorists for quite some time now. The kind of disaster sure to come always changes, but other details don't:

The elevation of status for somber scientists.

The moral superiority of the early adopters.

The relatively quick abandonment of skepticism - not because we don't understand the need - but rather because we simply Dont. Have. Enough. Time.

The condemnation of those who brought us to this unfortunate point by their ignorance.

I could go on, but you get the point.

And then the imminent catastrophe de jour falls out of favor, and we're off to the next one. You might be fascinated by the scientific details, or worried by the doubt that one of these days it will really be true. I don't begrudge that.

But my interest is in the social structure suggested. Something about modern society seems to need an imminent catastrophe, and it isn't all that particular about what kind of catastrophe.

That's why we can move from certain scientific predictions of an imminent Ice Age to certain scientific predictions of Global Warming without missing a beat. Science is flexible enough to whip around on a dime like that. Plug in some new data and run with it, baby! Social structures aren't like that. They're slow to change. But we're not observing social structures changing at all in this regard. We just plug one catastrophe in after another.

This doesn't suggest dishonesty, or fraud. It does suggest an inevitable tendency to exagerrate in a certain direction to fill a social need over a cold hard reading of the facts at hand though.

Thing is, experts have been using "the best available facts" for years and years and years and years now, all of them predicting social and environmental calamity within xx years. xx years pass time and again, and social and environmental calamity irritatingly refuses to cooperate. I'm not saying there's no reason to practice certain behavior that can possibly benefit the planet. I mean sure, go ahead. Hey, I even recycle, noble steward of the earth that I am (even though recycling anything other than aluminum cans pretty much requires more energy and prompts more pollution than it's worth, but whatever). I think a lot of humans spend a lot of time telling other humans how bad humans fuck everything up, and you'll just have to excuse me if, on some days, I throw up my hands in disgust at the endless stream of pessimism and doomsday scenarios. Tomorrow I may feel differently, and I'll be ready to burden myself with the perpetual negativity that is mankind. Today? Not so much.

Doug:

So let me see if I'm getting this-- you've expressed no particular opinion about whether or not the environment is actually in danger of degrading to the point where its ability to sustain human life is significantly impaired. Your argument is that, regardless of what's actually going on, so-called catastrophe theorists are basically conmen, exploiting a cultural proclivity for disaster scenarios in order to further their own self interest.

So, rather than escalating the argument you're not addressing with a bunch of facts that you'll clearly ignore, let me just give you a little something to think about, and then we can go to our corners: you seem perfectly credulous-- enthusiastic even --about threat scenarios that jibe with your worldview. Did the Bush WMD threat scenario include all the incentives on your self-interest hit list: status elevation for the forecasters, moral superiority for early adopters, relatively quick abandonment of skepticism because we don't have time, condemnation of those who brought us to this unfortunate point b their ignorance? Weirdly enough, that seems to be a point-by-point outline of your support for Bush during the last election. So I don't know if this attitude about catastrophe theorists is some kind of backhanded expression of regret for your support of Bush or just garden variety solipsism, but it's not exactly consistent.

Ryan:

Whatever. Obviously I'm not going to waste both our time chasing you around insisting you care about things. All I'm trying to say is that you seem to be conflating "attention to and mitigation of credible dangers," with "blind panic fueled by moral outrage".

Sheeee-yit, I wish I didn't read this stuff after work on a Friday night, plus I have a sign blu-tacked to my monitor that says "Don't blog-post while drunk", so I'll keep it brief.

Fact is, right, that scientists, although not perfect, are the best shot we've got. Religion? HAH! The difference is that scientists don't claim to know everything (they exist to find out, it's their ethos) whereas your 'rulers' claim to know everything. OK, scientists have been wrong with predictions, but with more science and more data comes more accuracy - it's the nature of the beast. With global warming, much like any theory that's been against the grain of the political will since Galilililileo, science hasn't been 100% accurate - we are after all still finding out things about our own solar system, let alone any form of unified theory. But the more data that's collected, the more accurate the predictions become, and right now, well, oh fuck it I need to piss.

The inspiration for this rant is mainly due to an inability to comprehend the stupidity of those who see a wall blocking the freeway yet keep their feet pressed to the pedal, hoping that someone else will come along and demolish the wall before they get there. It ain't gonna happen. There is no god; if there was, do you think he made us this stupid on purpose?

Oh, and Joshua?

I can understand why you'd think I'm a nihilist, and it almost flattered me to be included with such luminaries (har har), but in reality I'm an active anti-theist. All I need is certification as an active religion and the circle will be complete.

Before I go to bed, I just gotta say this:

Those that endeavour to preserve the status quo in a changing world are taking steps backwards, against the true nature of events.

Galileo wasn't totally on the right track, yet his courage and inspiraion caused the next generation of scientists to question and expand on the concepts central to his initial theroies that the universe doesn't revolve around us. Fresh minds amd more accurate data have led to a greater understanding of the universe around us, yet there are still those who attack the new information as if it had come from his own ideas, because older theories are easier to debunk than newer ones.

Personally, I believe the world is divided on this subject: Those who want to preserve as much of the world as possible for future generations, and those that don't give a fuck - they'll be dead by then anyway so it doesn't really matter, so they'll do everything they can to make their own lives more comfortable.

Anyway, I'm going to stop writing now 'cos I have a "thing" on my monitor telling me not to blog-post while I'm drunk.

*HIC*

I do find it interesting that someone who chicken-littled over 9/11 and terrorism and was (is?) such a gung-ho supporter of the war to protect us from Osadama now thinks boxcutters are harmless and if not wanting to see another Katrina means driving 55 then that's just crazy hysteria.

Do you think that there really never was a danger of worldwide nuclear armegeddon, or that there was and it was mitigated by cooler heads on each side who RECOGNIZED THE DANGER AND DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Do you think there really never was a danger that Y2K could have really fucked a lot of shit up (not necessarily the doomsday scenerios and airplanes falling out of the sky, but the more realistic scenerios of problems with communications, transportation, and massively affecting the economy), or was the problem avoided because people RECOGNIZED THE DANGER AND DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

So do you think that global warming just doesn't exist, or that the threats from it are nonexistent? Or do you think that there's nothing we can do so you might as well not worry about it, because worrying about stuff is for suckers and liberals?

Cuz me, I look at what humanity has been able to accomplish when present with staggering problems, and I'm encouraged. But I don't think anything was ever accomplished by pretending there was no problem.

Joshua,

"Your argument is that, regardless of what's actually going on, so-called catastrophe theorists are basically conmen"

Umm... no. My point doesn't require a single con-man (though it would certainly provide opportunities for such people). More than anything it requires true believers - both among the researchers and their audience. Con-men couldn't provide the social impetus required.

I'm going to guess, since you drove immediately into an anti-Bush tirade while in the process of missing the point, that you're more of an "us versus them" thinker on this topic than terribly introspective about it.

I'm going to guess, since you drove immediately into an anti-Bush tirade while in the process of missing the point, that you're more of an "us versus them" thinker on this topic than terribly introspective about it.

Sigh.

I didn't miss your point Doug. Nothing in your rebuttal actually contradicts my summary. I paraphrased your statement as, "So John is lying when he says the sky is blue?" and you responded by saying, "You missed the point! It doesn't matter if John is lying. The important part of my thesis is that everyone wants to believe the sky is blue, whether it is or not." Which is cute in a clever-13-year-old kind of way, but hardly the decisive riposte you seem to think it is.

All information is framed by context. You seem to be suggesting that by taking your abstract point to a more specific level that I'm missing your point. The reality is that I'm just not very impressed by your attempted display of objectivity. If the phenomenon you described (the catastrophe theory paradigm) is interesting to you in the abstract-- if it's something you actually think about objectively and keep an eye out for regardless of the subject matter or the parties involved --you show remarkably little awareness of the phenomenon when you're perpetuating it. Which is why I mentioned the Bush thing. This leads me to conjecture that you're-- without using too man fifty-cent words --full of shit. It's not so much that you're a pot calling the kettles black. You're a pot who doesn't seem to know he's a pot, standing around saying, "Boy, you know what I can't help noticing? How darn black cookware seems to be. I'm not making any judgments, I'm just observing-- cookware certainly does seem to be awfully black," while looking pointedly at a group of kettles.

To which my response is, A) you're a kettle, and B) if you were really paying attention to the color of cookware without any agenda for what the cookware is called, you'd know you're a kettle.

Thing is, DG, no one proposed that we shut down all of the computers while we took care of the Y2K problem. Kyoto-like restrictions, if fully implemented, would basically do that to the economies of the developed world. That's one reason why a lot of us see Gore and his ilk as Chicken Littles.

Steve--

You know, the first part of your argument doesn't support the second part. You're basically saying that the solution proposed to the problem (turn off all the computers) is affecting your belief in whether or not the problem (Y2K) exists.

Steve: If you believe that global warming is happening then you have to balance the cost of inaction against the cost of action. Here's an article about the response of the insurance industry to the projected future costs of climate change. Hardly an industry dominated by crazy liberals, their cost-benefit analyses are more and more coming down in favor of reducing emissions now to reduce future losses from increased flooding, more severe storms, more intense wildfires, widening ranges for tropical diseases etc. If you just start doing the math and ask yourself how much recovery from a Katrina-size hurricane costs and figure out what even a one or two percent increase in such events would cost over a few decades you might reach the same conclusions they're reaching. I'm talking cost in dollars and cents, not human lives by the way.

On the other side, conversion to non-greenhouse-gas-producing energy would not be a complete loss. It would generate considerable growth in certain sectors of the economy to offset some of the additional costs imposed on current fossil-fuel based industries. In fact, whichever nation develops alternative energy sources first will be in a highly advantageous position in the next few decades as demand for energy in Asia runs up against fuel scarcity and worsening air quality. I daresay lessening our dependence on middle eastern oil might have some other benefits as well.

If, conversely, you do not believe that global warming is really happening, the way to go about refuting it is with facts, and at this point the research you present would have to be pretty dramatic to contradict the overwhelming body of evidence supporting global warming. As for Lileks and all the posters here who are saying that global warming isn't a real problem because it reminds them of another problem that didn't turn out to be such a big deal, that's very clever but does absolutely nothing to substantively refute this particular point. Arguing against some other theory that you can refute because you can't refute this one doesn't prove anything, other than that you know how to employ a straw man.

Also: A theory can be proposed by the snottiest, most superior-acting, "somber," annoying person in the world and still be true. Argue the point not the pointer.

*image of flamingbanjo beating someone over the head with a pointer while saying that*

Ummm, yeah, what Flameboy said.

"I didn't miss your point Doug."

No offense Joshua. But this makes twice in a row that you did. And when I pointed out that your attempt to restate my point amounted to the opposite of my point it certainly did negate your "rebuttal" (which I wouldn't actually call a rebuttal, since you essentially talked about another topic while believing you were addressing something I said, but, I'll cut you a little semantic slack there.).

The truly elemental thing you're missing (over and over and probably will once again) is that my post wasn't intended as a refutation of anything another poster said. It was what we call a tangent. I may not believe the contentions of other posts, but I really wasn't speaking to any of that just then.

The bulk of both of your responses to me amount to little more than ad hominem. You want to go after my motives and character. Fine. Enjoy yourself. I have no problem embracing the fact that I may as much at the mercy of the social phenomena I'm describing as anyone else. That only makes my speculation more interesting. It certainly doesn't refute it.

Maybe Bush really is the new Hitler, and I'm a dupe. To the extent I don't see that and it's true, I am well and truly such a dupe. I can live with that. It's not nearly as interesting to me or important to the discussion as your obsession with Chimpy McBushitler leads you to believe.

The post Ryan initially reacted to, and which both he and I seem to put more stock in than you, is that we've lived under a series of "end of the world" disaster scenarios since birth, and none of them have panned out. Could Global Warming be the real deal? Sure. One day something will after all. But to be honest I'm as worn out as the villagers who got tired of hearing the boy crying wolf.

I know people who really do believe in global warming for completely serious reasons. I don't think they're stupid, even though I think they're likely wrong. If they can walk away thinking the same of me, I call that a win-win.

So let's put this misunderstanding behind us. You apparently have a difficulty admitting error ("I restated something completely opposite of its meaning, but that surely doesn't mean I didn't understand it."), have trouble thinking about social issues in terms that aren't politically partisan, and I suspect smell bad. But I still love you like a brother. Not, like, a brother I want to hang out with or anything. And I'm not hoping to draw your name in this year's Christmas gift exchange. But if you want me to pass the gravy on Thanksgiving, dude, I'm totally there for you. (Sorry about that little spill on your shirt. My arm slipped.) Why should we continue to argue when we have that to build upon?

By the way... the previous response was mine. And that thing on Ryan's blog that pretends it will "remember personal info"? All lies!

The truly elemental thing you're missing (over and over and probably will once again) is that my post wasn't intended as a refutation of anything another poster said.

Yeah, no. I'm not missing that-- I just don't believe you. That's what you seem to be missing: I understand what you're saying, I just think you're lying. And let me be really clear about this because we seem to be struggling against a learning disability here: the thing you're lying about is your alleged disinterest in the implications of your statements on the subject matter at hand (global warming) and the people who are concerned about it.

In other words, it obviously wasn't a tangent, and I'm unimpressed that you would try to pass it off as such.

Now, maybe I should be saying "I just didn't believe you," because this paragraph:

Maybe Bush really is the new Hitler, and I'm a dupe. To the extent I don't see that and it's true, I am well and truly such a dupe. I can live with that. It's not nearly as interesting to me or important to the discussion as your obsession with Chimpy McBushitler leads you to believe.

Suggests that you might actually be too thick to apply your "cold hard reading of the facts" to your own behavior. That was the component I initially found unlikely but you finally addressed it and I'll take your word for it. So congratulations, you're not a liar-- you're a moron. Thanks for the gravy.

Because there really could NOT be any other reason for global warming other than human activity.

Any other possible reason has been scientifically proven 100% to NOT be of any significance.

No possible way we could be in any kind of slight warming period between galacial advances, because, you know, the last "ice age" happened so long ago, geologically speaking.

No possible way those ice ages/warming periods happen because solar output could fluctuate over time.

Couldn't happen.

Scientists have conclusively proven otherwise.

It could only be humans. Well, Americans in general and Bush in particular.

Back in 1990 the official denialist talking point about warming was that it just ain't happening. Translated into Reagan-era Republicanese, it "required more study."

Well, now they've done the studies and pretty much nobody who can read a thermometer believes that the planet isn't getting warmer. So one of the new fallback positions for those who prefer that nothing be done is "well it might be a natural occurrence. You can't prove causation!"

This argument hinges on the notorious difficulty of establishing causaution beyond a shadow of a doubt. The kinds of data we can gather establish correlation very well: The graph for global temperature rise pretty much follows the upward spike in greenhouse emissions due to human activity. This doesn't prove that one causes the other, but it sure seems like a gigantic fucking coincidence. Sort of like how the predictive computer models are getting better and better at estimating tomorrow's changes based on today's emissions.

I am always amazed how the same people who are so impressed with human ingenuity and the triumph of technology over nature, when faced with a problem like this fall back on pretending that human activity has negligible effects. Dude, if we can put a man on the moon we can sure as hell warm the planet up a few degrees.

But no. The planet warmed up on its own. I'm picturing a kid next to a broken lamp, saying "It was like that when I got here! I'm not cleaning it up!"

It ain't just a river in Egypt, people.

Since the 19th century, as the number of pirates on the high seas gets fewer, the average/mean temperature of the planet gets higher.

Gigantic fucking coincidence?

My commie little brother's 2nd favorite Latin phrase is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc."

I'm picturing someone wearing a loin-cloth, beating a drum and dancing around a fire.

A week later it rains.

Gigantic fucking coincidence?

Yeah, except that unlike the pirates/temperature comparison, there's actually some fairly basic science supporting the connection between an increase in greenhouse gasses and an increase in the average temperature of the planet. So your analogy-- both your analogies --are bullshit.

I hit a ball with a bat. The ball goes flying through the air. Coincidence? In Rob's world, yes.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

WOLF! WOLF!

I hit a ball with a bat. The ball goes flying through the air.

Nice one, Josh.

Did you knock down that strawman with the same bat?

A straw man is mischaracterizing one's opponent's argument and then arguing against the mischaracterization. What Joshua did to your argument is make an analogy, and a fairly apt one at that. There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between presence of certain gases and effects on climate. This relationship is well established and, as far as I can tell, is not something that even you are disputing. Unlike the relationship between pirates and global temperatures. But I suspect you know this and are just being oh so clever.

And as for Chicken Little and Boy Who Cried Wolf people: Hi-larious. You know what it reminds me of? The Three Little Pigs. What does that prove? That's right, nothing. See my point?

When my argument is NOT about the correlation between greenhouse gases and global temperature, that makes Josh's analogy a strawman.

You see, he mischaracterized my argument, then argued against the mischaracterization.

Try to keep up here.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

You see, Chicken Little caused quite the scare amongst the other barnyard critters by raising a panic over nothing.

And our friend the Boy Who Cried Wolf caused quite the stir amongst the other shephards by raising the alarm over nothing. Then, when a real emergency came along, the other shephards ignored the boy because they thought he was joking again.

If you plead ignorance of the stories, you can play the 'victim' card and blame it on being the product of a public school.

Or, and I know you want to, you can blame BUSH!

If not, then you are just being obtuse.

And the story of the three little pigs is about how only the third little pig grasped the seriousness of the danger at hand and took adequate measures to prevent getting eaten by a wolf. The first pig's house of straw didn't even slow the wolf down and so that pig got eaten in short order. The second pig's house of sticks, which he believed represented a reasonable compromise between the slipshod house-of-straw design of his lazy brother and the labor-intensive house-of-brick design favored by his other brother (who he considered an alarmist) in the end proved little better than the house of straw at protecting him from wolf onslaughts. Only the third pig survived because he wasn't a complete shit-for-brains like his two brothers. The end.

Hey this is fun! I see why you prefer debating using folk tales instead of boring old facts!

you prefer debating using folk tales instead of boring old facts

OMFG.

Don't you see that was the point of my posting the argument with YOU?

And there I was; giving you the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant or even obtuse.

But you're really just three-little-pig-fucking stupid.

Now, now, now...

Let's settle down and debate this like rational anthropomorphic barnyard animals.

Let's just take a look at the statistics side of things...

You're taking a sample size of a couple hundred out of a population size of a couple dozen billion and making assumptions.

And you know what happens when you make assumptions, right? You make an ass out of U and Umption.

(And no, Honkey Donkey, we're not mocking your species identity.)

This thread is just becoming too damned weird.