You just did the exact thing I was complaining about!  The fact that warming also occurs naturally does not prove that mankind is therefore NOT causing any warming.  It doesn't matter which planet you talk about, there's no logic there!

and good examples of Government screw ups. I'd also like to add that if it really were that important then they wouldn't be making it so political. The recycling programs are a good example of how something works when you don't make it political. No one is forced to but almost everyone recycles now. Most cities can't even keep up with the recycling.

I`m very grateful you are willing to engage, rather than giving me the reflexive and hostile “you`re a LIBERAL!” brush-off that others here seem inclined to.

Sorry for my delay, as I was both preoccupied and felt the need to prepare a worthy response

Not sure about the Casablanca reference, but if I can choose I prefer to be Lazlo!

1. Skeptics like myself are by no means advocating inaction. Far from it. … I’m all for higher CAFE standards, and think our country should be doing much more to expand alternative energy sources whilst reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Why do you favor higher CAFE standards, and why should the government be doing anything to expand alternative energy sources and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels – particularly if you think the government should be doing nothing about climate change (perhaps not a problem, or one that we`re causing, to put words in your mouth)? In such case, what could possibly be the justification for government to be telling the market – millions of free individuals and corporations – what to do? Does the government know better, is there a problem with “market failure”, so that it is desirable to have the government boss us around? Who will benefit, and who pays the cost of whatever policies you support in this regard? I prefer that our governments simply not get in our way, unless there`s a pressing reason and the “cure” will be effective and not more costly than the disease.

2. I’m totally against carbon cap and trade programs,　… Because all government will do is raise taxes, punish the successful, and redistribute to those who aren’t successful all to advance socialism which the left has been striving for since the ‘30s. Sadly, AGW is now the in vogue formula to take from the productive and give to the unproductive.

Sorry, but aren`t you missing something basic, that as an economist should be readily apparent? The remarkable success of market economies in creating wealth is founded on property rights and the ability of individuals and groups to freely transact. So tell me how that works for our atmosphere?

As I noted above, we have developed sophisticated property rights institutions to deal with natural resources - particularly as increasing usage has had negative impacts and as technological advances have made "privatization" of common, open-access resources possible. However, surely you`ve noticed that there are big exceptions to this – there are various free-for-alls underway that are destroying important fisheries worldwide (the great cod fishery off the Grand Banks has crashed, tuna is crashing etc.), and in most third-world countries various forms of kleptocracy, government mismanagement and lack of clear or enforceable property rights is the norm, resulting in widespread theft of private or “public” natural resources for the benefit of elites – surely examples of this are legion. These are the so-called “tragedy of the commons” situations. It is this absence of enforceable property rights that lies at the core of all environmental issues. Do you disagree? Now tell me what effective private or common property rights exist in the atmosphere, and what private mechanisms – contracts or common law enforcement mechanisms – exist in the atmosphere and climate system. Obviously there are none globally.

So what is the consequence of not paying attention to these infrastructure deficiencies? Parties will be unable to engage in private transactions that reflect their preferences – and so have no economic incentives other than to use resources before others do, ignore any negative impacts on the resource or others, and to adapt to a degraded resource.

Is noticing and acknowledging that there are many and significant tragedy of the commons problems fundamentally a dishonest endeavor of muddle-headed or evil “socialists”, while clear-sighted thinkers on the right courageously pretend that there are no such problems?

I will concede that there are enviros and leftists who really don`t understand capitalism, but I believe that they are concerned about real problems – problems that those on the right have not bothered themselves to address, as Stephen Hayward of AEI has said. I certainly don`t see our academies of science, the major religious groups, Republican Greg Mankiw (former head of Bush`s, CEA), Nordhaus and other leading economists who are members of his “Pigou Club” (of carbon taxers), the long-time corporate members of Pew Business Roundtable, Hank Paulsson, George Soros, Ruppert Murdoch, or our military and defense communities as “socialists”. How about addressing them, instead of just the “socialists” you are afraid of?

3. Of course, if there are companies who, likely for purely political and economic reasons that I will address later, are opting to present themselves as being green to placate the greens, that’s fine. … I don’t begrudge those who currently see a benefit to pretend that they are going along with the green tide in order to maximize revenues or minimize expenses. That’s their choice. That said, I am also astute enough – as well as cynical enough – to recognize what they’re doing. Aren’t you?

I am fully aware that our continuously expanding government provides ever more opportunities for rent-seeking, and that if we don`t simply want to be fleeced, we really have to pay attention. What has cost more, the money we`ve spent on trying to understand the global climate system, or our defense establishment and the little off-budget war that has been underway for 5+ years? I presume that you are astute and cynical enough to recognize the rent-seeking that underlies this, and the threat to our own liberties that it poses. It is what our Founding Fathers loudly warned against, and Eisenhower as well already fifty years ago.

4. I have written in detail about just how much the left in our nation are conflating facts surrounding this issue in much the same way they accused the Bush administration of cooking the books in Iraq in order to bring the nation to war. With that in mind, assuming you didn’t like what occurred then, why aren’t you similarly disgusted with what the left is doing with AGW now?

But the left hasn`t been running our government for the last 6+ years; all they`ve been doing is fighting an uphill battle to get attention for a problem that requires genuine cooperation globally – from an American people who have been distracted by a unilateral “war against terror” and to make Iraq safe for fundamentalist Iraqis. But like that war, the public debate on climate change is inevitably abbreviated; it`s fair to complain about that, but I think that outside the mass audience very many have sophisticated views.

5. I do believe that anyone at this point in time who claims to know all the answers concerning climate change, its causes, and what will happen in the future is indeed either intellectually challenged or a charlatan.” … the current predictions about future climate are based on untested computer models lacking any veracity or proven predictive qualities whatsoever. And, scientists can’t even agree on what caused HUGE climate changes in the past. As such, since they’re still debating what caused that which has been observed, how can anyone claim to be 100 percent sure of what’s causing climate changes today, or what will occur in the future?

I`ll agree with you 100% your first sentence, while noting both that it is a strawman – who, exactly, is claiming to be “100 percent sure of what’s causing climate changes today, or what will occur in the future”? - and is not the question I posed, which was whether all of those who think "we know enough" to make a political decision to act are "intellectually challenged" or "charlatans"? As I pointed out, we will never have perfect knowledge, on anything. It is forever our fate - and responsibility - to make decisions based on imperfect knowledge.

And while we use computer models to help make predictions, like predictions of weather/hurricane tracks and intensity, etc., those predictions are fundamentally grounded on our growing understanding of the physical world. Even while there is uncertainty about the affects of other factors that influence climate, no one disagrees that CO2, methane, CFCs and atmospheric water have a greenhouse effect, or that changes in albedo also affect climate. The trouble is with making long-term predictions as to pace and degree of change. That uncertainty doesn`t absolve us from recognizing that our net impacts are pushing the climate in a particular direction.

6. [H]have you ever considered why the left has solely focused on CO2 whilst ignoring water vapor and methane, both of which are considered to possess significantly greater greenhouse potential? Well, assuming you haven’t, the reason is because methane and water vapor can’t be tied to industry. By focusing on CO2, and ignoring water vapor and methane, the left have been able to make corporations and man responsible for all planetary woes regardless of how insignificant their contributions to real or imagined GHGs. If the left and the IPCC were in any way genuine with their concerns about this issue, they wouldn’t go so far out of their way to either ignore or disingenuously discount GHGs which are not emitted by industry.

You are partly right, but there are also strawmen here. At home, methane and GHGs other than CO2 don`t require the same attention, because methane has a value to capture in its own right (so industrial and agricultural emissions have tailed off) and other GHGs are already regulated. And internationally, cross-border transactions outside of Europe have largely focused on methane and GHGs other than CO2, since these are more powerful GHGs and there is a bigger bang for the buck in controlling them.

There is certainly awareness and concern that methane (from melting permafrosts and seabed clathrates) and water vapor can be potent feedback factors, that already seem to be kicking in.

But of course other factors for what you see as a rather simple public debate should be understandable without ascribing “evil motives” to those you disagree with: a general lack of sophistication on a complex topic is not surprising, and government policy should focus on those aspects of the problem that are actually most tractable – and we can essentially do nothing about either water vapor or methane releases, and very little about albedo.

7. As for China and India, aren’t you defeating your purpose by bringing them up? …If we require them to be part of the solution, given statements from both of these governments, haven’t we doomed any chance to “deliberately moderate this uncontrolled climate experiment?”

No – “my purpose” is to openly and rationally discuss what I see as a potentially very serious problem and what, if anything, should be done to redress it or to get ready for it. China and India must be a part of any solution, just as we must be. Since there`s no international government, that solution must be voluntarily reached. Are we and our allies powerless to persuade or entice China and India? Do we have no incentives or trade tools that we can use? Of course there are.

But you correctly point out that reaching an effective international agreement is extremely difficult – all the more reason for us to be concerned that the clock is ticking (as well as to dismiss fears that “the UN” is going to be dictating to anybody). So is the correct approach to have an open dialog and to start building international bridges – which need very serious repair after we`ve thrown away hundreds of billions in Iraq (for temporary political gain and the benefit only of the defense industry, Kurds and Shiites)?

8. While we’re on that subject, do you actually believe that man can control the climate? Honestly? My understanding is that something like six percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade. If man ceased to exist tomorrow, and all of his factories stopped emitting CO2, do you think the absence of this six percent would end the warming that has supposedly been happening?

Noel, I`m an optimist. Mankind has tremendous abilities to make use of and shape nature. Just look at all we`ve accomplished (along with various abuses resulting from ineffective ownership and government mismanagement). The fact that a problem may be complex doesn`t mean it is intractable - it just means we must approach it with a measure of humility, caution, flexibility and persistence. We should hav eour eyes wide open.

But surely you are aware that our government has long been investing in weather and climate modification? I am concerned that we are falling behind the curve and need to be seriously considering ocean fertilization and other geoengineering approaches in addition to carbon pricing (that would encourage sequestration and cleaner alternative energy sources like natural gas, nuclear and fusion).

If we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the warming effect of those we`ve added to the atmosphere would continue on the scale of half-centuries and centuries – until they are naturally removed and sequestered. The oceans will continue to slowly warm and albedo changes from melting will continue to produce further warming affects. Making a serious dent in this will not be easy. Sure, there are natural inflences on climate, but humans own the ones resulting from our GHGs and albedo changes, and the ongoing feedbacks from them.

9. Sadly, I do believe alarmists are using this issue to divide the nation, and spread socialism. And, as I stated before, the business leaders who are turning green are largely doing so for business reasons, not because they believe in global warming. Think about it this way: in the past couple of years since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, global warming has been a hot topic. In November, the Republicans lost both chambers of Congress. Do you think business leaders missed this? Since September 2005, there’s been a pronounced movement to the left after 25 years of steady movement to the right. Do you think business leaders missed this? ... As it pertains to AGW, it is rather obvious that anything government does will likely create opportunities for businesses to receive funds. Do you think businesses like to receive funds from the government?

Look, I am also concerned about rent-seeking, but I really don`t think it is the driving factor here. Even though some naturally exists at the national level, it can be minimized – and there is simply NO international government to dole out favors. The government CAN, and likely will, waste money by trying to favor or fund particular technologies, but doesn`t need to in order to address the problem, which is one of the absence of a market pricing feedback to GHG and other climate forcing factors. The primary policy tool will not be direct governmental expenditures, but direct or indirect pricing, either through taxes that should used to offset income taxes or through the assignment of tradable emission rights.

Your concern about “division” is a good one, but one that perhaps is influenced by instinctive tribal suspicion. Surely you can recognize that this Administration and Republicans also made very liberal use of alarmism and division (fear of Islamofascists, Godless atheists and socialists, enviros, gays and babykillers) to seek to control the political debate and the all-important federal pork spigots – and that the primary beneficiaries have been defense piggies? We can be cautious and cynical about recognizing rent-seeking, without concluding those with disagree with are men of bad faith who are only trying to rip us off (while self-serving self-deception may remain a possibility).

By the way, I don`t really see so much a turn towards the left as a turn away from clear government mismanagement by Republicans, and a growing recognition that climate change is occurring, that it is likely that we are contributing to it, and that there are similar “tragedy of the commons” problems that require international cooperation to redress the lack of clear and enforceable property rights in global resources and in the lesser developed countries that are more clearly kleptocracies than the developed economies).

And as I noted above, concern about climate is coming from many, and not solely companies that would benefit financially from whatever policies are adopted.

Sorry for running on here.

Sincerely,

The Blind One

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.