Brooks Casts His Vote

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html I agree with his conclusion and most of the reasoning behind it. But, I wonder that he is so reluctant to vote no. The fundamental problem is cost control, and he explains why this bill is likely to do nothing at best on this issue, and may make it worse. The uninsured are a secondary problem because the vast majority (probably about 80%) fall into one of several categories who do not deserve handouts: illegal immigrants, the voluntarily uninsured, the voluntarily poor, and those who would like insurance but who, by placing other discretionary priorities above it, have too little money remaining to pay for it.

Another Emissions Problem

This is another harmful effect of carbon dioxide emissions and it is not controversial. The only question is how quickly it will destroy the oceanic food chains. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/cbd-20091216.html

The Climate Summit

This "deal" is a disappointment and a major failure if there happen to be future generations of humans. I attribute this mainly to the current economic problems: no one wants to pay more than a nominal price to solve this right now.

 

As to the Chinese, they have good reasons to play hardball on this. They are relatively poor still, and have done relatively little to contribute to the underlying problem, even though they are now the largest annual contributors to it. On the other hand, in 2010 they will snatch from us our lead in wind power generation, currently the most viable alternative energy. Also, they are making a huge effort to become the world leader in solar energy. Thus, for reasons of pride and economic competitiveness, they are engaging on the climate change issue on their own terms just as we are. They despise international coercion about as much as we do since they consider themselves the other superpower.

Limits of Climate Science

The problems presented by climate modelling are very serious and are known to be very serious. It is mathematically impossible (and always will be) to create precise climate models because there are too many unknown and estimated variables involved in the equations (it is called a chaotic or nonlinear system). Only probabalistic estimates are possible. Note that this is why anyone who professes certainty about the future of the climate is a liar or hopelessly ignorant about the issue, regardless of which side he is on--these mathematical issues are not points of contention, they are an obvious fait accompli. Some question how accurate these probabilities are and this is a legitimate (perhaps the most legitimate) line of skepticism. Most climatologists believe the probabilities incline toward the theory that certain gases warm the atmosphere and they primarily focus on trying to calculate how much warming is likely to result, not whether warming will result. The balance of evidence I have seen leads me to agree with these scientists.

Capitalistic Climate Change Mitigation

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228779/new-socialism/charles-krauthammer

There is no necessary connection between reducing GHG emissions and increasing socialism. In principle, a low carbon economy can be just as capitalistic as a high carbon economy. The difficulty presented arises from the fact that the republicans have ceded leadership on environmental issues to the democrats, who are inclined to adopt socialist solutions to every issue they encounter. The cap-and-trade program created by Bush the First to limit sulfur emissions from coal plants was an efficient, free market solution to an environmental problem. A cap and trade system for carbon and methane emissions could be designed in a similar way--but it will not be unless republicans get involved and exert some influence. At this point, climate change mitigation appears to be ultimately unavoidable in this country. Instead of abstaining from the process and playing at populist denialism, republicans would be well-advised to make efforts to de-socialize the legislation so far as possible.

More on the Climate Change Email Issue

Some of the emails posted as evidence of horrendous immorality are merely casual banter between close colleagues. Others betray the possibility of unethical activities and intentions. Much of what seems offensive to readers results from the fact that people do not understand the way science works. It is a competitive enterprise. It always has been. In the heat of competition some competitors exercise poor judgement to gain an advantage over their adversaries. The presumed ethical lapses here displayed represent an excessive zeal whose momentum apparently carried several individuals outside the boundaries of the game.

 

What concerns me more is the scientists and (more often) politicians who stand before the public and tell outright lies. The habitual liers seem more frequently to fall in the "denialist" camp, though both sides are prey to this temptation. Both sides are tempted to dogmatize on an issue which is too complicated by far to be susceptible to the simplifications and stupidities inherent in any dogmatic stance. Both dogmas being necessarily false, their prophets speak falsehoods. To assume either the certainty that global warming is occurring or the certainty that it is not--is to be an absolute fool and an ass. But, this is what dogmatic tendencies lead to.

 

But how does dogma arise? I believe it proceeds along two parallel paths. First, scientists must construct interpretive analyses based on the data they collect. Otherwise the data would be random and meaningless. This the beginning of scientific dogmas or theories, and the scientists in the field then attempt to use new data to continuously improve the theory. If some scientists do not think the first established theory is the best fit for the raw data, they may formulate another theory in opposition to it. From this point, the scientific process becomes explicity competitive between the adherents of the two theories. Competition can lead to such excesses as the emails seem to reveal. But, on the whole, competition is as salutary to the progress of science as it is to economic progress: it is a motivator that uses selfish priorities of vanity and ambition to promote social benefits.

 

The second parallel path of dogma follows upon the advent of competition between scientific theories and essentially amounts to a vulgarization of those theories for popular consumption and to political ends. The adulteration and distortion of the science in the course of this secondary process often becomes so extreme, as in this case, as to lead to results completely at variance with the underlying science. Result: the public is either misled or confused, and the competition between the two dogmas becomes indistinguishable from a propaganda campaign.

Only intelligent people, who invest some time in learning about this issue and who are willing to take the threat seriously, are even capable of arriving at a minimal understanding of the its nature and implications. Popularization of such an issue is impossible in any meaningful sense. Most people are not fit for it because they are too stupid, too lazy, and too malignant.  

How to One-Up Bush

Obama has apparently approved drone strikes in Baluchistan, which is part of Pakistan proper and which has not been hit previously. It looks like Obama wants to demonstrate that he has bigger balls than Bush. This move will widen the war and presents the clear risk of creating more enemies in Pakistan and destabilizing that nation. But, if you really intend to win in Afghanistan, this is a necessary gamble. Bush never took it. He was content to park a division over there and claim the situation was improving (which it wasn't). I give credit to Obama for decisive action and follow-through--if you are going to fight a war, do not fight it half-assed. It remains to be seen whether still more troops will be needed--if they are, Obama will have to send them to avoid falling into the half-assed trap. I said this with Bush's Iraq war for years, and he finally authorized a decisive surge that led to military (though not political) success. The same was true in Vietnam. We did not do and were not at any time willing to do what was necessary to win--therefore we should not have gone in or, at the very least, once we determined that the requirements of victory exceeded our appetite for risk, we should have pulled out expeditiously. Now, despite all this commendation, I retain serious misgivings about our likelihood of success in Afghanistan. The great obstacle to our goals is the prevalence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and the near impossibility of eradicating them from the border regions. Thus far, Obama is pressing forward with the strategy he has chosen without any weakening qualifications of consequence. Unfortunately, I think he chose the wrong gamble--we should get out of there and try to finance the best political groups that remain behind and press hard on Pakistan to use its influence to prevent a Taliban reconquering. Here's a discussion: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/al-qaeda-in-the-crosshairs/?hp

A Techno Renaissance

These guys came from no place in the world of commercial technology to this: "Israel has the highest density of tech start-ups in the world. More importantly, these start-ups attract more venture capital dollars per person than any country — 2.5 times the U.S., 30 times Europe, 80 times India, and 300 times China. Israel has more companies on the tech-oriented NASDAQ than any country outside the U.S., more than all of Europe, Japan, Korea, India, and China combined. But it’s not just about start-ups. Scratch almost any major tech company — Intel, Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Motorola, and so on — and you will find that Israeli talent and technology play a major role in keeping these multinational companies on the cutting edge." Rest of the interview: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/how-did-israel-become-start-up-nation/ The last bit, where he talks about the spark provided by immigrants, goes a little too far in its recommendations; he fails to differentiate between the cultures of the source countries. European Jews, the Ashkenazi, are a special breed and have repeatedly demonstrated that, given a competitive and properly financed environment (eg, prewar Germany or postwar America), they succeed in a variety of intellectually competitive fields of endeavour at extraordinary levels.  Silicon Valley has a heavy immigrant footprint throughout the hierarchy of power, but these immigrants tend to originate in just a few source countries: India, China, Russia, and a few others. What you do not see in Silicon Valley is even a modest number of Latins or blacks--and the former constitute, by far, our largest source of immigrants. In this matter, too, differentiation and discrimination must be understood and employed.

Climate Change Politicking

Contrary to hardcore denialist claims China announced emissions targets the day after Obama announced that he would target reductions for the U.S. India followed shortly thereafter. As I have said for years, America must lead on this issue if it is to happen. The rest of the world is either weak or evil. This is not a socialist conspiracy: it can be accomplished through market mechanisms--that is the only way anyone in the world has proposed to handle it. An increase in regulations, however, is likely to be inescapable.

 

I have read hundreds of articles on the climate change issue, and it has long been obvious to me that the overwhelming balance of intelligence is on the side of those who support emissions controls. This may be considered significant of something. It usually is.

A Criminal Enterprise

The fact that two thirds of the Catholic bishops in Ireland were involved in the cover-up of paedophilia ought to suffice for the Catholic church in Ireland to be deemed a criminal organization--and outlawed. The Catholic church, already in terminal decline throughout most of Europe, can hardly afford to have its truths revealed. But, even after this process is complete and Christianity in Europe finally rendered extinct (since Protestantism is in similar decline), what will become of the moral life of these peoples remains a mystery for intellectuals and artists to guess at. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/the-tragedy-of-irish-catholicism/