If any issue illustrates the inadequacy of utilitarianism aka consequentialism as a moral philosophy it is the issue of global warming. Worse: if any issue illustrates the inadequacy of moral philosophy tout court it is global warming. How can we expect individuals whose motivation for action is supposedly their pleasure/happiness/preferences (take your pick) and whose timeframe for action rarely extends beyond next year (or their next paycheck?) to think about the pleasure/happiness/preferences of future generations whose happiness is so much less vivid than their own? And how can we expect them to deny themselves happiness NOW (a bigger car, a better salary, a trip to Las Vegas) for the sake of some vague abstraction such as the "greatest good of the greatest number," especially if that greatest number includes a great many people (how shall I say this delicately?) who move in alien circles? The answer should be obvious to anyone who hasn't read Bentham, J S Mill or one of their many epigones. Utililitarians have never been able to explain why egoistic hedonists should prefer the greatest good of the greatest number (let alone the future good

Haven't seen the diavlog yet, but I'll take the risk of replying to what look like self-contained points before I have.

Quoting Francoamerican: If any issue illustrates the inadequacy of utilitarianism aka consequentialism as a moral philosophy it is the issue of global warming. Worse: if any issue illustrates the inadequacy of moral philosophy tout court it is global warming.

Utilitarianism and consequentialism, at least as I'm used to seeing them used, are not the same. Consequentialism is a broader category of moral theories that includes the various forms of utilitarianism. Consequentialism is the view that right action is to be defined in terms of the promotion of good states of affairs. Utilitarianism adds to this a set of more or less subjective theories of the good -- pleasant experiences, happiness or satisfied preferences. It is actually this theory of the good that you then go on to attack in your next paragraph. Consequentialist theories need not regard all goods as subjective.

How can we expect individuals whose motivation for action is supposedly their pleasure/happiness/preferences (take your pick) and whose timeframe for action rarely extends beyond next year (or

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: But I'm really not sure how the fact that people are more selfish and short-sighted than morally they should be is any objection to any moral view at all..

Gibberish. This sentence means nothing. What I said was that utilitarianism is both a moral psychology (hedonistic egoism) and a moral theory (virtuous action=contributing to the greatest good of the greatest number) and that there is no reason to think that egoistic hedonists would necessarily prefer the good of others, present or future, to their own. Do you deny this?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: You misunderstand Mill if you think he believed people were egoistic. He did hold on to hedonism of some sort, while attempting to liberalize it so as to avoid the usual objections. But hedonism does not imply egoism -- you can think that pleasure is the only good without denying that other people's pleasure is just as good as yours..

Pointless quibble. Hedonism does imply egoism. And hedonist egoism is quite compatible with recognizing that other people are also hedonistic egoists.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Mill was not as great a moral philosopher as Kant, but as a moral and political thinker, he stands the

I would have liked these two gentlemen to have discussed the real ethical dimensions of the global warming debate: how much global warming can we expect, will it be good or bad for us, and what can we do about it (if anything) at what cost to other ethical issues that are competing for our dollars? In other words, the issues raised by, among others, Bjorn Lomborg, Arthur Pielke, Jr. , Freeman Dyson at Princeton, William Nordhaus at Yale, and Richard Lindzen at MIT. These are the real issues, not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore, ipso facto, all other things being equal, will cause at least a modest amount of warming. That nobody denies. On the UN sponsored IPPC reports, these two seem unaware that the summaries are written by non-scientists (with their own agendas possibly?) and are released months ahead of the scientific chapters themselves. For example, the introductory chapter in the latest IPPC report that was actually written by a scientist -- on the history of climate science -- emphasizes the many unknowns about this very young science, including what caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and whether or not increased cloudiness caused by increased water vapor

Quoting Francoamerican: Gibberish. This sentence means nothing.

Well, I'll admit the sentence could have been formulated more perspicuously. I should have said that it isn't an objection to any particular moral view that people are often too short-sighted and selfish to follow it -- since just about any reasonable moral view would have to say the same thing.

What I said was that utilitarianism is both a moral psychology (hedonistic egoism)

I never paid much attention to Bentham, but I think you might have a point about his particular view. Mill did not believe that people were egoists and I think you'd have a hard time finding a modern utilitarian who believed in psychological egoism.
Modern utilitarians all regard utilitarianism as a definition of right -- the moral psychology has dropped out, if it was ever regarded as an essential part of utilitarianism.

and a moral theory (virtuous action=contributing to the greatest good of the greatest number) and that there is no reason to think that egoistic hedonists would necessarily prefer the good of others, present or future, to their own.

Do you deny this?

I don't deny that egoistic hedonists would prefer their own good. I do

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: I would have liked these two gentlemen to have discussed the real ethical dimensions of the global warming debate: how much global warming can we expect, will it be good or bad for us, and what can we do about it (if anything) at what cost to other ethical issues that are competing for our dollars?

In other words, the issues raised by, among others, Bjorn Lomborg, Arthur Pielke, Jr. , Freeman Dyson at Princeton, William Nordhaus at Yale, and Richard Lindzen at MIT.

They did address Lomborg at the end of that discussion, when they talked about the justification for discounting the future. One (not sure which, since I was listening) pointed out that the Lomborg's discount rate was extremely high.

These are the real issues, not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore, ipso facto, all other things being equal, will cause at least a modest amount of warming. That nobody denies.

Have you listend to about half the senate lately?

On the UN sponsored IPPC reports, these two seem unaware that the summaries are written by non-scientists (with their own agendas possibly?)

The mere suggestion that they may have their own agendas doesn't count for anything. What agenda do you allege? In

PS I should point out that hedonism is completely irrelevant to the "utilitarianism" that Craig was talking about. He was using it in the broad sense of "consequentialism" that I described above, where rightness is defined in terms of maximizing the good -- where the nature of "good" can be filled in later. Some would regard pleasure or preference satisfaction as the good, but others would have different (and less "subjective") senses of the good.

I really wished they had gone into more detail with respect to the discount rate. They pointed out that people could differ in setting such a rate but they made no attempt to elucidate. I haven't read Lomborg but from what I know about his views, I am quite sympathetic. I worry about the poor of the world and I find the argument that the best way to reduce environmental harm is to reduce poverty pretty compelling. Also, with respect to ends justify the means propaganda, I was personally turned from being a "rah rah stop global warming" believer to a "what am I supposed to think when they all lie" skeptic due to my attempt to learn more about global warming and being confronted by massive amounts of unscientific propaganda. This isn't to say that propaganda is a bad play since I'm a skeptic and an atheist and so probably make up a very small portion of the electorate.

Puck said "This isn't to say that propaganda is a bad play since I'm a skeptic and an atheist and so probably make up a very small portion of the electorate." These two would advise that none of us be skeptics and instead listen to the professionals when it comes to "climate change" aka "global warming"aka "we can stop this with enough regulation". But what is true is that there are many scientists, some mentioned in the comments, who are not on board with the hysteria and who question such things as the efficacy of the modeling which has been done. Personally I think climate changes, always has and always will. I do not trust people who are in politics, and that includes those who get their grants and therefore their marching orders from politically interested parties, to offer prescriptions to ameliorate the inevitable. Hell, we all might just have to move.

Quoting themightypuck: Also, with respect to ends justify the means propaganda, I was personally turned from being a "rah rah stop global warming" believer to a "what am I supposed to think when they all lie" skeptic due to my attempt to learn more about global warming and being confronted by massive amounts of unscientific propaganda.

Sorry to hear that the denialists are winning with you. For all the unscientific stuff you might hear regarding AGW, ranging from "It's the end of the world" to "It's a complete hoax," the current best thinking really is readily available. Here are a couple of places to start. Links to, and an excerpt from, the latest report from the US government can be found in a post I put up on the last AGW thread we had. You might also have a look at the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the fourth one they have released so far. As with the US government site, there is a good navigation sidebar on most pages of the site that will lead you to as much additional information as you'd care to review. Also, it looks like Wikipedia has a guide to the IPCC report, which may

I was disappointed that the segment on the role of dissent within the science of climate change opened up with three consecutive misleading claims of climate science orthodoxy. 1) The 2004 essay by Oreskes (indicating that, among exactly 928 papers, not one scientist denies man-made climate change) was later investigated in 2006 by Benny Peiser. He was not able to replicate her results. What’s even worse is that the essay was predicated upon a logical fallacy. Many climate change research papers do not address the causes of climate change per se. Therefore it is a non sequitur to count papers uncommitted to the issue of cause towards a consensus view about it. 2) Odenbaugh asserts that “the basic physics” of greenhouses gases “have been settled” as long as “all else is equal.” This last necessary caveat is an impossible assumption for a vast thermodynamic system as complicated as the Earth. There is in fact no consensus about how much climate forcing is brought about by additional atmospheric CO2 content, hence the astonishingly wide range of computer climate model predictions. There is precious little understanding about the relative strengths of negative-feedback mechanisms which

The denialists aren't winning me over. I don't quibble about the truth of AGW. My problem is with the Pascals Wager argument w/r/t what should we do about AGW. How does one work the calculus over whether to spend a dollar on poverty reduction or carbon reduction?

Quoting themightypuck: The denialists aren't winning me over. I don't quibble about the truth of AGW. My problem is with the Pascals Wager argument w/r/t what should we do about AGW. How does one work the calculus over whether to spend a dollar on poverty reduction or carbon reduction?

OIC. I don't think it's correct to think of it strictly in terms of the dollar either goes here or it goes there. Seems to me (1) a lot of the steps we could take to mitigate our impact on the atmosphere could also be beneficial for other concerns, (2) over the long run, much of what we do to reduce emissions should turn out to be cost-neutral and could even be cost-saving, (3) if we don't address AGW and its effects turn out as currently predicted, then we are going to have even more poverty-related problems, due to flooding and reduction of agricultural yields, especially in many parts of the world that are already poor, and (4) as a separate issue, mitigating poverty does not, in principle, have to be a crushing financial burden. I've seen estimates that suggest we could more or less wipe it

It does seem right to me -- even before addressing the AGW denialist claims -- to look at the ethical issue: Should we care about unborn future generations? Do they have the same type of claims on us that democratic people have gradually (and unevenly) extended to other groups in an awakening of inclusiveness: people of other "races" and cultures, women, slaves, GLBTs, sentient nonhuman animals, etc ? Of course, we say yes regarding our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but is it also reasonable to reach out 7 or 70 generations to future cultures and perhaps trans-human species we cannot currently even imagine? Should our working assumption be that we would love and care for these future creatures and owe them a habitable planet (to the best of our ability, standards and values)? I think the answer is yes, but if the answer is no, then denial or acceptance of AGW is basically moot. Have most citizens even addressed the question? Is it fair for politicians to refer to our "children and grandchildren" when they really mean our fairly remote descendants and future intelligent species?

Pascal's Wager is a bit hyperbolic (see below for what I was aiming at). That said, I have friends who think of it that way. There is some pathology that seems to force people into either/or positions. With respect to your points, I agree strongly with (1) and (2) and less strongly with (3) and (4). The problem with (3) is that I'm skeptical of the models: I don't think we really know what is going to happen (hence the Pascal's Wager jab). The problem with (4) is simply politics (which cuts both ways--a dollar not spent on AGW or defense doesn't mean a dollar spent on poverty). In the interests of full disclosure, one of my "things you believe with no evidence" is that our planet is approaching the number of people who can happily live on it for some sustainable future. Another of the things I believe in is that existing life is worth more that possible life. For these reasons (and plenty of reasons any evpsych expert can lay out), I tend to skew for people who live here now over people who will live here later.

To throw an ethical question out there: is having 3 kids worse than driving a Hummer and having one kid?

It's July in Chicago with a high of 67. I hope summer gets here before I return to FL. I know it's on whether but it has cooled since 1998; that is a fact not a computer model.

Quoting themightypuck: Pascal's Wager is a bit hyperbolic (see below for what I was aiming at). That said, I have friends who think of it that way. There is some pathology that seems to force people into either/or positions.

True. I would say, in defense of the people who go sometimes go overboard in insisting that we address AGW, that a lot of that is driven by a (perceived?) necessity to combat the extremists on the other side. When you have a lot of rich and powerful organizations first doing their level best to deny the problem exists and then later (when they pretty much were forced to stop doing that) to introduce FUD into the discussion of what we should do to address the problem, it's understandable that the reaction sometimes goes overboard. It would be nice if that didn't have to happen, but once what should have been a purely scientific issue became so politicized, it was inevitable. You get emotional reaction to those lying fuckers from some people, and you get other people who calculate that you have to supply a counterweight, if for no other reason than to deal

Quoting piscivorous: It's July in Chicago with a high of 67. I hope summer gets here before I return to FL. I know it's on whether but it has cooled since 1998; that is a fact not a computer model.

I know you're not dumb enough to believe the temperature in one place on one day has anything to do with global climate trends. Why do you even say these things? I also know you're smart enough to look at a graph of global temperatures over the past century and easily see that 1998 was an outlier, and that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to think that you should use that year as a reference.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

I don't think the problem lies as far in the future as you suggest. At least not all of it -- some of the consequences could well be felt by your children and grandchildren, and certainly much of it long before "7 or 70 generations" from now. Also, the nature of the problem is that it will only get harder to deal with the more we put off starting to deal with it, so we ought to look at it in terms of doing our bit, rather than thinking of solving the whole thing once and for all.

I don't think the problem lies as far in the future as you suggest. At least not all of it -- some of the consequences could well be felt by your children and grandchildren, and certainly much of it long before "7 or 70 generations" from now.

That's true, but it just kicks my question down the road: Should we care about the unborn for whom we have no real mental representation? To what extent? For example, if I inherited $10,000 tomorrow under the provision that I had to give it all to the charities of my choice, how much should I give to people who will exist in the 22nd and 23rd centuries? How much should we sacrifice now for them then? It is easy to agree that I shouldn't drive a Hummer or fail to recycle, but should I also reduce my contributions to Oxfam and Human Rights Watch? Part of my point is that politicians, economists and environmentalists are not necessarily equipped to address these issues of equity. There is no formula to follow. This is not an issue that McCain and Obama can debate on television. I think it's a hard ethical question.

Shorter climate change concern trolls: poverty is worse than climate change, so let's address neither.

Quoting Wonderment: That's true, but it just kicks my question down the road: Should we care about the unborn for whom we have no real mental representation? To what extent?

For example, if I inherited $10,000 tomorrow under the provision that I had to give it all to the charities of my choice, how much should I give to people who will exist in the 22nd and 23rd centuries? How much should we sacrifice now for them then? It is easy to agree that I shouldn't drive a Hummer or fail to recycle, but should I also reduce my contributions to Oxfam and Human Rights Watch?

Part of my point is that politicians, economists and environmentalists are not necessarily equipped to address these issues of equity. There is no formula to follow. This is not an issue that McCain and Obama can debate on television. I think it's a hard ethical question.

On the personal level of charitable giving, I have no answer for you, except to do whatever you think is best. Meantime, as you note, there are plenty of choices you could make that would contribute towards mitigating AGW that are more or less cost-neutral, or maybe even cost-saving over

Quoting claymisher: Shorter climate change concern trolls: poverty is worse than climate change, so let's address neither.

To channel my inner Ole Perfesser: Heh, indeed.

Quoting Erik Anderson: I was disappointed that the segment on the role of dissent within the science of climate change opened up with three consecutive misleading claims of climate science orthodoxy.

1) The 2004 essay by Oreskes (indicating that, among exactly 928 papers, not one scientist denies man-made climate change) was later investigated in 2006 by Benny Peiser. He was not able to replicate her results...............

.........Climate orthodoxy dissenters have been conspicuously absent on BHTV. Why not invite people like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, or Philip Stott to participate in a Science Saturday show?

Great post - and yes others can see it.

Quoting bjkeefe: I know you're not dumb enough to believe the temperature in one place on one day has anything to do with global climate trends. Why do you even say these things?

Umm, wasn't there an exchange just in here recently regarding how hot it was somewhere in the US, followed by a statement about the idiocy of agw deniers?
My biggest problem with the agw crowd is not the science, because I understand very little of it (other than the sun seems to be problematic because it can't be taxed), it's more with

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Well, I'll admit the sentence could have been formulated more perspicuously. I should have said that it isn't an objection to any particular moral view that people are often too short-sighted and selfish to follow it -- since just about any reasonable moral view would have to say the same thing..

True, but a deontological theory like that of Kant (or common sense morality for that matter) may have a better answer to people who are short-sighted and selfish. It is a very serious objection to a theory that the moral psychology underpinning it offers no counter to egoism. Although you say in your next paragraph that Mill didn't accept hedonistic egoism it would be truer to say that he accepted it but added to it some not altogether coherent modifications after his mental breakdown and reading of Coleridge. To the original Benthamite framework he tacks on the notion of the free development of "individuality."

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I never paid much attention to Bentham, but I think you might have a point about his particular view. Mill did not believe that people were egoists and I think you'd

Quoting Erik Anderson: I was disappointed that the segment on the role of dissent within the science of climate change opened up with three consecutive misleading claims of climate science orthodoxy.

1) The 2004 essay by Oreskes (indicating that, among exactly 928 papers, not one scientist denies man-made climate change) was later investigated in 2006 by Benny Peiser. He was not able to replicate her results. What’s even worse is that the essay was predicated upon a logical fallacy. Many climate change research papers do not address the causes of climate change per se. Therefore it is a non sequitur to count papers uncommitted to the issue of cause towards a consensus view about it.

2) Odenbaugh asserts that “the basic physics” of greenhouses gases “have been settled” as long as “all else is equal.” This last necessary caveat is an impossible assumption for a vast thermodynamic system as complicated as the Earth. There is in fact no consensus about how much climate forcing is brought about by additional atmospheric CO2 content, hence the astonishingly wide range of computer climate model predictions. There is precious little understanding about the relative strengths of negative-feedback mechanisms which

Quoting Wonderment: That's true, but it just kicks my question down the road: Should we care about the unborn for whom we have no real mental representation? To what extent?

For example, if I inherited $10,000 tomorrow under the provision that I had to give it all to the charities of my choice, how much should I give to people who will exist in the 22nd and 23rd centuries? How much should we sacrifice now for them then? It is easy to agree that I shouldn't drive a Hummer or fail to recycle, but should I also reduce my contributions to Oxfam and Human Rights Watch?

Part of my point is that politicians, economists and environmentalists are not necessarily equipped to address these issues of equity. There is no formula to follow. This is not an issue that McCain and Obama can debate on television. I think it's a hard ethical question.

I wish they had gone into some of the other reasons for discounting the future. Certainly it seems illegitimate to regard future people as less important than current people. And the way we actually behave surely does slight those future people. And I agree with them that

Quoting harkin: Umm, wasn't there an exchange just in here recently regarding how hot it was somewhere in the US, followed by a statement about the idiocy of agw deniers?

I don't remember it. Perhaps you could give a link? Are you sure it wasn't a joke? I will say in general, assuming that you're not going to bother supplying a link, that of course I reject a statement along the lines of "Because it is unusually hot today in my backyard, global warming is real." This is no less stupid than what piscivorous said.

My biggest problem with the agw crowd is not the science, because I understand very little of it (other than the sun seems to be problematic because it can't be taxed), it's more with shell game of pollution credits and those seeking to acquire power and/or make a buck off it (agw altogether) while they do the opposite of what they preach (democratic congress and the Obamas spanning the globe on shopping sprees, Al Gore and his energy use, Ariana Huffington, the crowd at Conde-Nast etc).

If these people practiced what they preach regarding this 'crisis' I might actually listen to

Once again BJ I am grateful to you for providing a most revealing context to this so-called controversy. Experts indeed!

Quoting Francoamerican: True, but a deontological theory like that of Kant (or common sense morality for that matter) may have a better answer to people who are short-sighted and selfish.

It is a very serious objection to a theory that the moral psychology underpinning it offers no counter to egoism. Although you say in your next paragraph that Mill didn't accept hedonistic egoism it would be truer to say that he accepted it but added to it some not altogether coherent modifications after his mental breakdown and reading of Coleridge. To the original Benthamite framework he tacks on the notion of the free development of "individuality."

It's one thing to say that utilitarianism is committed to egoism and quite another to say that the moral psychology that you believe must be behind it "offers no counter to egoism." In the former case, you can pretty much refute utilitarianism and have done. In the latter case, there are many many premises that come in before you get to the point of saying that it "has no counter to egoism." And even at that point, there

Quoting Francoamerican: Once again BJ I am grateful to you for providing a most revealing context to this so-called controversy. Experts indeed!

Thanks.

Frankly, I am unable to understand some of your points, so I only will only address those I do understand.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Sidgwick is hardly the last word in consequentialist thought. Methods of Ethics is certainly a big comprehensive defense, but it was published in 1874 (the last edition in 1901). Consequentialists have been thinking about it since then. Peter Railton, for example, would distinguish between consequentialism as a decision procedure and consequentialism as a definition of right. The latter position puts a good deal of distance between his position and any particular moral psychology. That's not to say that moral psychology won't come in at some point -- but it's going to involve large amounts of argument, not an easy back-of-the-hand dismissal..

I brought up Sidgwick because of Rawls' attempt to wed utilitarianism with Kantianism, which seems to me to follow logically from Sidgwick's acknowledgment that it is difficult to build a theory of moral obligation on hedonistic egoism. Universalistic hedonism would work....if only men were more rational and could see that their own happiness coincides with the happiness of all others. Alas, they are rather stupid. If you think that utilitarianism, in any form, is compatible with

Certainly it seems illegitimate to regard future people as less important than current people.

Do you think there's is any countervailing force to our tendency to devalue them -- in the same sort of way we (used to?) devalue people of other tribes, races, etc? We don't see them as real people with legitimate interests, not simply because they and their living conditions are hypothetical but because they are an Other we are unaccustomed to including in our circles of concern.

However, there are some good reasons to discount the future, I think. For example, you can have a pretty high degree of confidence that your Oxfam contributions really are doing good.

Yes, that criterion -- bang for my buck -- was my highest priority when we recently made out our will. I mentioned HRW and Oxfam in the previous post because we included them in (meager) estate. I gave not a dime to the future environmental concerns, however, including nothing to promote rational population growth. Despite railing against AGW for years, when push came to shove I ignored it. I did give a lesser percentage to a group whose purpose is the protection of the species of animals I most love/admire/find

On the national and international policy level, I don't agree that it's a "hard ethical question." Seems to me it's just the right thing to do. And, as I have indicated elsewhere in this thread, I think many or most of the steps we should take to address AGW are good investments for the future, that will also pay dividends in other ways including helping the less fortunate, and I think that we could easily be doing more to alleviate poverty without having to take those dollars away from initial investments in AGW mitigation.

I'm sure you do recognize that we have finite resources and have to make choices about their allocation to address problems. Budgets, as they say, are moral documents.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm sure you do recognize that we have finite resources and have to make choices about their allocation to address problems.

Yes.

Budgets, as they say, are moral documents.

Okay. I find this so vague as to be almost meaningless, but okay.

To my knowledge Freeman Dyson does not believe in Intelligent Design and is not a network TV meteorologist. But he does have a few things to say about climate change in this interview with The Edge. http://www.edge.org/documents/archiv...19.html#dysonf A sample of his insightful analysis is this quotation: Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have accurate measurements of sea level going back two hundred years. We observe a steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last fifty years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the rise from 1800 to 1900 was probably not due to human activities. The scale of industrial activities in the nineteenth century was not large enough to have had measurable global effects. So a large part of the observed rise in sea level must have other causes. One possible cause is a slow readjustment of the shape of the

Quoting badhatharry: To my knowledge Freeman Dyson does not believe in Intelligent Design and is not a network TV meteorologist.

While I have a world of respect for Dyson, I'll point out that he will acknowledge that he is not a climatologist and that enjoys playing the contrarian. So, while he's worth listening to, in my opinion, the fact that he is less convinced about the reality (actually, the severity -- he acknowledges the reality) of AGW than thousands of other scientists better qualified to judge doesn't carry as much weight as I think you would like to suggest. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, consensus does not mean unanimity, and it strikes me as unreasonable that a voice that doesn't share the consensus view should be excessively weighted. You guys keep doing this -- holding up one person or another, as though it's supposed to be some sort of trump card. I just don't get why you think that's at all rational.

TO BKEEFE: My comment was more geared as a rebuttal to the person who posted the dubious distinctions of other "deniers". Interesting that you use the term, "you guys". But I guess it really has come to that... the deniers and the believers. It has a religious quality, much as Crichton predicted. I don't deny climate change. I am absolutely sure it is happening, has happened in dramatic ways in the recent and not recent past and will continue to do so until the earth ceases. It is the notion that we have the slightest idea what to do about it is what I deny. Mankind suffers under the illusion that we can solve every problem we can identify. Not only that, but we often think that every thing we identify is a problem. The reason I brought up Dyson's ideas is that he asks us to think about this in perhaps a different way. Someone mentioned that if Pelosi, Obama and Gore practiced what they preached by curtailing their junkets, they'd have more credibility with him. I say if scientists and politicians really believe that oceans are going to rise the way they predict, they should

Quoting badhatharry: TO BKEEFE:

My comment was more geared as a rebuttal to the person who posted the dubious distinctions of other "deniers".

Interesting that you use the term, "you guys". But I guess it really has come to that... the deniers and the believers. It has a religious quality, much as Crichton predicted.

If that's who you're relying on for your information on this topic, no wonder you're so sadly misinformed, and no wonder the only thing you can offer is that idiotic cliché. If you would take the time to read what else I have written in this thread, you would see that I am hardly a mindless "believer." What I am is someone who thinks that we should make the best judgments we can, based on whatever understanding we have, while bearing in mind the costs of the possible consequences of taking or not taking various steps.

I don't deny climate change. I am absolutely sure it is happening, has happened in dramatic ways in the recent and not recent past and will continue to do so until the earth ceases. It is the notion that we have the slightest idea what to do about

Quoting Wonderment: It does seem right to me -- even before addressing the AGW denialist claims -- to look at the ethical issue: Should we care about unborn future generations? Do they have the same type of claims on us that democratic people have gradually (and unevenly) extended to other groups in an awakening of inclusiveness: people of other "races" and cultures, women, slaves, GLBTs, sentient nonhuman animals, etc ?

Of course, we say yes regarding our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but is it also reasonable to reach out 7 or 70 generations to future cultures and perhaps trans-human species we cannot currently even imagine?

Should our working assumption be that we would love and care for these future creatures and owe them a habitable planet (to the best of our ability, standards and values)?

I think the answer is yes, but if the answer is no, then denial or acceptance of AGW is basically moot.

Have most citizens even addressed the question? Is it fair for politicians to refer to our "children and grandchildren" when they really mean our fairly remote descendants and future intelligent species?

I'm a true philsophical dilletante, but I don't see how how it is a defensible ethical position

Quoting bjkeefe: ...
I also know you're smart enough to look at a graph of global temperatures over the past century and easily see that 1998 was an outlier, and that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to think that you should use that year as a reference.

That's almost hilarious. I seem to recall that for quite some time 1998 was was used as a confining event, when the fear being sold was labeled Global Warming, and showed the models were right. Now the fear, being sold, is Climate Change and 1998 is an outlier!

Quoting harkin: ...
Umm, wasn't there an exchange just in here recently regarding how hot it was somewhere in the US, followed by a statement about the idiocy of agw deniers?...

I see someone reads enough of the comments of have interpreted the irony of my comment correctly.

Isn't to only care for our own generation, and perhaps our children and grandchildren, a form of tribalism in itself, the kind of dogma that ethical systems are devised to defeat?

Yes, I think that's right, but it's a challenge. At some point, the ethical choices become very difficult. Let's say, for example, that we knew beyond dispute the human carrying capacity of the Earth. Should you abstain from having children in order to reduce population pressures a hundred years from now? What sort of sacrifices are reasonable to expect of people? Peter Singer delves into a lot of these issues.

Quoting piscivorous: I seem to recall that for quite some time 1998 was was used as a confining event ...

When, in 1999? And for, say, three years more? Good for you. And by whom? Or is "I seem to recall" wingnut-speak for "I don't actually have anyone credible that I can name who's been saying that for the past half-decade?" I repeat, I know you're not so stupid that you're unable to look at the temperature data for the the past hundred years and see both why 1998 would have been especially alarming right afterward and why it's meaningless to use it as the starting point for claims about "recent temperature." Or maybe you are that stupid. But I'm gonna stick with my bet on your intellectual dishonesty for the moment. Now go make up another lie about how you were only being "ironic" again.

I'm in your camp as well. My thoughts on the matter are the same. I like what Michael Crichton had to say about it as well.

Quoting Lyle: I'm in your camp as well. My thoughts are on the matter are the same. I like what Michael Crichton had to say about it as well.

Quoted for the record.

Oh no!

BKeefe said:"The rest of your post isn't worth responding to." I'm not sure there is anything left to respond to, except the bit about New Orleans. I read from a lot of sources, although I have not read absolutely everything you, yourself have written on this subject. I don't agree with everything I read either. I rely on what I have learned to date about the world and science and form my very own ideas about things, not like these two philosophy professors suggest I should do. I would like to say a few things about your rant. First, I read State of Fear by Crichton and I was not impressed. In fact for the longest time I compared it to Atlas Shrugged with its idiot proof plot and cardboard cut-out good guy/bad guy characters. But in his epilogue, Crichton described a religiosity about environmental issues which I believe is playing itself out these days. It is as if you must believe...as if it makes a bit of difference... and if you don't, you are some kind of Cretan of the worst order or worse yet, a republican. This kind of thinking is no better than Crichton's book. And this kind of

Quoting badhatharry: ... a religiosity about environmental issues which I believe is playing itself out these days. It is as if you must believe...as if it makes a bit of difference... and if you don't, you are some kind of Cretan of the worst order or worse yet, a republican. This kind of thinking is no better than Crichton's book. And this kind of thinking is what passes for thinking these days and it makes me laugh.

That you have encountered a few people who act this way does not at all support a claim that the world is divided into two religious factions or that nobody except Michael Crichton is capable of rational thought. I think a lot of people who would like not to accept the scientific consensus view on AGW often try this tactic -- they'll highlight a few people agitating for increased awareness of AGW and action in response to it, and pretend that the occasional lack of expertise, use of rhetoric in some snippet, or flash of temper in response to an outright denialist represents the way every last person who agrees with the

Brenden, You are far too strident and make too many personal attacks. It gets in the way of the points you are trying to make.

Quoting badhatharry: Brenden,

You are far too strident and make too many personal attacks.

It gets in the way of the points you are trying to make.

Is that a reaction to my previous reply to you, a general observation about what I have written in this particular thread, or a comment on my blabberings site-wide?

Since you seem interested, I went back and found most of what I was critiquing in your posts to me. I think you have done this type of thing often and to almost everyone in this thread....particularly "us guys". ‘You guys keep doing this’ This was your first volley in which you assumed things about me you had no way of knowing...ie: that I am one of 'those guys' because I chose to cite Freeman Dyson. “If that's who you're relying on for your information on this topic, no wonder you're so sadly misinformed, and no wonder the only thing you can offer is that idiotic cliché.” Aside from the inaccurate statement that I had offered any clichés up until that point, you assume in your statement that Crichton is my only source of information and that I consider him infallible, which is nowhere indicated in my post. Also, there is the snide statement that I am misinformed. You deny that it is possible to make an informed scientific assessment of the evidence that we have, Again you make a gigantic leap and tell me what I think. I won’t bother to argue with this statement except

Quoting badhatharry: [...] Brendan, you are obviously a bright guy who wants to communicate your ideas. I just think you could be more civilized and thereby more effective in your approach.

Noted. Thanks for the detailed critique. I'll bear it in mind.

Quoting bjkeefe: Noted. Thanks for the detailed critique. I'll bear it in mind.

However, you might also read this, and follow the two links therein. I'm not saying your critique doesn't make some legitimate points, but I am saying you'd be well served by changing your perspective to a degree.

Bob Wright himself has called for civility in the forum. And the forum is definitely not anyone's personal blog space.

Quoting Lyle: Bob Wright himself has called for civility in the forum.

Lead by example.

And the forum is definitely not anyone's personal blog space.

1. Explain to me how your sharing of your opinions and your passing along of links to things you want others to read fits in with this totalitarian dictate. 2. Ask yourself why there is a forum called "Life, the Universe and Everything," in which members may start their own threads without limit.

Totalitarian dictate? What are you talking about? This isn't your personal blog... that's a fact.

Quoting Lyle: Totalitarian dictate? What are you talking about?

Lial collects his daily blue ribbon for obtuseness.

Yay, my blue ribbon! Yay!

I wonder if it is even possible to come up with a non self-contradicting moral philosophy when our morals themselves are just a mechanism to deal with a set of problems that were largely independent of each other.

Am I the only one here that follows the science (a teeny bit...) behind global warming that has no real views on how much, if any, money should be spent on mitigating it?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I wonder if it is even possible to come up with a non self-contradicting moral philosophy when our morals themselves are just a mechanism to deal with a set of problems that were largely independent of each other.

Well, we've only been working on it for about 2500 years. Give us a chance, will ya? ;^)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Am I the only one here that follows the science (a teeny bit...) behind global warming that has no real views on how much, if any, money should be spent on mitigating it?

The only one here, maybe, but certainly not nationwide. Check that. There have only been, what a dozen or so people weighing on this thread, out of 800-some registered commenters? Clearly, apathy is the majority position. Or, uncertainty, if you prefer.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I wonder if it is even possible to come up with a non self-contradicting moral philosophy when our morals themselves are just a mechanism to deal with a set of problems that were largely independent of each other.

We haven't even figured out how to do that with arithmetic.

Brendan, I read the links you suggested and I agree with what was written. I made my debut into commenting about seven years ago (not on this site because I didn't know about it). I have never had a blog but I am thinking about it because it may drive some traffic to my new site http://www.dreammountainstudio.com. (shameless plug) Anyway, I know how it feels to get slammed (you're not the first person), but what I like is the opportunity to consider my responses instead of uttering the first thing that comes to mind. Also commenting gives me the opportunity to test out the ideas which are going on in my head, where I am the only one who can experience them. It gets this stuff out in the open to see what reactions will be to what I have to say. It helps me hone my thoughts. And I have learned that just because someone disagrees with me does not mean I am wrong but I have to be able to back up what I say. Conversely, I may be wrong and need to acknowledge that, too. OUCH! All we get in the media is sound bites and what has tested

Quoting badhatharry: Brendan,

I read the links you suggested and I agree with what was written.

I presume you mean the links where I said:

Quoting bjkeefe: However, you might also read this, and follow the two links therein.

If so, great, and thanks for making the effort.

I made my debut into commenting about seven years ago (not on this site because I didn't know about it). I have never had a blog but I am thinking about it because it may drive some traffic to my new site http://www.dreammountainstudio.com. (shameless plug)

Everyone should start a blog. It's the same thing as having a notebook and pencil handy -- good to have the means at hand just in case. And btw, nice looking site, so even if you have a strong belief that you'll blog infrequently, I'd say throw one up just to have it drive traffic, as you say. I have a friend who is a painter, and she started off just blogging about the materials she was using for the piece she was working on at the moment and decorating the posts with snapshots of the work in progress. She was amazed at how many people were interested in this and became

Unfortunately, I feel that this diavlog came close to, but ultimately misrepresented, the reasons why many economists discount the future dynamic models, including models of climate change. This isn't done because economists have agreed upon some proper weighting of the future vis-a-vis the present, or even as an attempt to reflect some revealed preference of the relevant population for a present vs. future weighting, but merely in order to get a handle on the opportunity costs of making present sacrifices for the sake of future prosperity. One of the participants (I forget which, sorry) basically explained the idea - if we spend $100 now to create $100 of wealth 50 years down the road, this might seem like an even trade... but it ignores the opportunity cost of what one could have accomplished by invested the money at a given interest rate for 50 years, then spending it in the future - ie. at a 3% interest rate, you could invest your $100 and have $450 50 years from now, which could be used to do much more good. Thus we discount the future in our calculations to reflect the fact that an amount of wealth X invested in period t-50 will

Quoting Peter Twieg: Unfortunately, I feel that this diavlog came close to, but ultimately misrepresented, the reasons why many economists discount the future dynamic models, including models of climate change. This isn't done because economists have agreed upon some proper weighting of the future vis-a-vis the present, or even as an attempt to reflect some revealed preference of the relevant population for a present vs. future weighting, but merely in order to get a handle on the opportunity costs of making present sacrifices for the sake of future prosperity.

You've got it completely backwards. Do you know how to do compound interest calculations? It's easy and fun! After 50 years of 3% you get:
1.03^50 = 4.38390602 That's a pretty big multiple. We're rich!!! If you believe in capitalism and growth and whatnot, everybody in the future will be so goddam rich they'll wonder why their grandparents didn't do something about their fucked climate. Maybe making an effort would have shaved a 1% off the growth ... At 2%:
1.02^50 = 2.69158803 Oh noes!!!1! The people in the future would have only been 2.6 times as rich! But even then there would still be growth. As a matter of fact, at 2% growth instead of 3%, instead of taking

Quoting claymisher: You've got it completely backwards. Do you know how to do compound interest calculations? It's easy and fun! After 50 years of 3% you get:
1.03^50 = 4.38390602

Um, yes... I used continually compounded interest, which is generally how these calculations are made. I'll take it that I don't have to explain the math to you.

Boo-hoo, human prosperity was set back 24.6 years, and all we got for it was an unfucked climate.

Well, okay, you're arguing that having an "unfucked climate" is worth sacrificing 40% of your wealth for. I think plenty of people would disagree, although that depends on what your definition of a "fucked climate" is - suffice to say, I don't that the IPCC models predict such a steep decline in wealth due to climate change even in its most pessimistic scenarios. This, of course, goes a long ways towards explaining why a climate plan that knocks off 1% of the world's growth rate would never, ever be accepted... especially by the world's poorest individuals.

Quoting Peter Twieg: Um, yes... I used continually compounded interest, which is generally how these calculations are made. I'll take it that I don't have to explain the math to you.

Well, okay, you're arguing that having an "unfucked climate" is worth sacrificing 40% of your wealth for. I think plenty of people would disagree, although that depends on what your definition of a "fucked climate" is - suffice to say, I don't that the IPCC models predict such a steep decline in wealth due to climate change even in its most pessimistic scenarios.

This, of course, goes a long ways towards explaining why a climate plan that knocks off 1% of the world's growth rate would never, ever be accepted... especially by the world's poorest individuals.

What's with the quotes? You think the climate won't be fucked unless we make a change? If so you're wrong. What do you mean, 40% of my wealth? We're talking about the future. I'd like to think humans will be around for another million years. You think anybody a thousand years from now is going to care if the median household income in America in 2059 was only $134,579 ($50,000*2.69158803) instead of $219,195 ($50,000*4.38390602)? I sure don't care. Either way those lucky bastards in the future are

James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has a post up on HuffPo that deplores the "counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey," and basically says we're done for unless we get a lot more aggressive starting now. Excerpt:

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.

I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at a Capitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth's remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward

Quoting bjkeefe: James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has a post up on HuffPo that deplores the "counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey," and basically says we're done for unless we get a lot more aggressive starting now.

Here is an opposing view on the worth of the Waxman-Markey bill, presented in an interview of Robert Stavins ("Harvard's top environmental economist") by Katharine Mieszkowski.

Quoting badhatharry: It gets in the way of the points you are trying to make.

I have to agree with Harry on this (site-wide-wise).

Quoting Brenda: I have to agree with Harry on this (site-wide-wise).

Noted.