Global Warming and Vaclav Klaus - Blue Planet in Green Shackles
May 28, 2008 · By Greg Farries
Here is a snippet of Vaclav Klaus’s presentation of the book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”, at the National Press Club, in Washington D.C.:
It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are - given the existing policies - interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government. [Emphasis mine]
You think that’s bad — Let me tell you what they’re doing to miasma theory. Look at the kind of bias the “medical profession” has in favour of germ theory these days:
It is in the hands of doctors and other related medical professionals who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of germ theory. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality…
LOL….well done. And I learned a new word today.
You know, Mr. C, together we can hold hands in a quest to root out quack science whether it comes from the “medical profession” or from the “global warming climatechangeolgy” crowd.
By the way, if you want to know what the “medical profession” did to germ theory, you do not have to go very far back in time. It was not so long ago that gastro-enterologial surgeons — who routinely cut apart stomachs — vehemently attacked theories of a bacterial origin for stomach ulcers by dismissing it as quack science. The proponents of the bacterial origin were fined and had their licenses suspended.
Now, we treat stomach ulcers easily with antibiotics.
Same game. Different turf.
Charles, the point is that you can use the same argument that Vaclav Klaus is using on a whole multiplicity of people studying numerous subjects. You could just as easily say the same thing about theologians, mathematicians, alchemists, bloggers, and many others besides without once shining any light on to the validity of their arguments.
Mr. C., that is your point, indeed. Therefore, we agree: it is wise to question the motives behind “scientists” who have agendas.
I have no problem with you attacking the methodology of the argument. My point is that you are attacking the argument without any concern for the facts behind the argument.
Charles, I’m attacking the methodology of the argument as I can’t see any facts behind the argument in the original post. As far as I can see, it’s entirely ad hominem. I’m not about to start sifting through data tables if the post doesn’t even mention any data.
Are you referring to Vaclav Klaus’s actual presentation of his book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles or to my post above?
Feel free to read his book - it’s his argument, not mine. The above post was simply my attempt to point readers to another opinion critiquing the theory of Global Warming/Climate Change.
The post does not need to mention any data at all because the methodology of the argument is to identify incentives to act.
For example, an employee has an incentive to demand the highest wage attainable and an employer has an incentive to offer the lowest wage possible. If you expect “data” to convince you of the existence of a market incentive, good luck — but you will never find it.
You may dismiss the identification of an incentive as an ad hominem if you want. However, if there is an incentive to make profit, YOU would be wise expect that profit to be made.
Greg,
thanks for the clarification that you were just attempting to point readers towards another opinion critiquing climate change. Perhaps the extract that you quoted isn’t representative of the book, but as I say, based on the extract, Klaus’s line of argument seems to be somewhat lacking. As for data, I assumed what Charles was refering to when he talked about the facts behind the post were the sets of data showing temperature change etc.
Charles,
“For example, an employee has an incentive to demand the highest wage attainable and an employer has an incentive to offer the lowest wage possible. If you expect “data” to convince you of the existence of a market incentive, good luck — but you will never find it.”
Ah, OK — I thought you were talking about the data showing (or not showing) gobal warming itself when you were talking about facts behind the argument. I’m a little puzzled that you don’t think data can show the existence of a market incentive. How do you know market incentives exist without any data showing they exist?
Mr. C,
You may find this link interesting: Why economic modellng fails
In a nutshell, human behavior can not be treated the same as physical phenomena. This quote illustrates the truth very nicely:
Charles, the quote that you’ve given me talks about data, and even suggests a paradigm for the understanding of that data at the end of the quote.
“To make sense of historical data one must scrutinize them not by means of statistical methods but by means of trying to grasp and understand how they emerged.”
In an earlier post you said:
“However, if there is an incentive to make profit, YOU would be wise expect that profit to be made.”
I’m not sure how you can assert that if you don’t think that data can identify market incentives. You’d have no idea how often market incentives were acted on as you’d have no idea how often or where they occured. It could be that only a tiny fraction of market incentives were acted upon and you’d be none the wiser, because the data wouldn’t exist to support your conclusions. You might as well claim that every time you say you dont believe in fairies, a fairy dies.
Mr. C,
The global warmiologists have an incentive to misrepresent the tools (i.e., statistics) they use to convince the common-folk that fairies exist.
You are conflating statistics as a tool to convince people of something — for instance, the existence of fairies or global warming — with the ability to prove something exists.
Go back and re-read Greg’s opening post, your first reply and my first reply to yours. Pay close attention to the bold sections. None of us said anything about statistics in our arguments. We all singled out and questioned incentives and motives behind the advocates. [You seemed to think that methodology discredits diminishes the argument.]
Nobody can know when or how often market incentives were acted upon any more than anybody can say when or how often the fluttering wings of fairies provoke a cyclone on the other end of the world. There is nothing statistics can do to prove a person’s motives. All we can do is observe their actions and make a bet.
I can assert that data can NOT identify market incentives for a few reasons:
1) nobody can ever know the incentives behind a person’s action
2) we observe results of actions which are influenced by more more than one actor
The wisdom of basing a decision on the incentive to act does not arise from a statistical analysis of historical data — information which can and often is manipulated. Historical data — depending on how it is collected and assembled — may happen to corroborate or even contradict the results of the action. That wisdom arises from understanding behavior.
You said: “I’m not about to start sifting through data tables if the post doesn’t even mention any data.” and I agree. Why would you?
If a wild bear approaches you in the forest, are you going to sift through statistics before you decide to act??????
I am suggesting that your wisdom in responding to your best guess of what the bear will do is the same wisdom that should be applied to making a best guess of what the climatologists will do if they were let loose in the market for global warming.
“You are conflating statistics as a tool to convince people of something — for instance, the existence of fairies or global warming — with the ability to prove something exists.”
It seems remarkable that you can draw that conclusion, given that the only time I’ve mentioned statistics in this thread has been in a direct quotation from the quote you gave me.
“Go back and re-read Greg’s opening post, your first reply and my first reply to yours. Pay close attention to the bold sections. None of us said anything about statistics in our arguments.”
Well, no, but then neither did I. As far as I can see the first time anyone has mentioned statistics, it’s been you in comment 10, quoting from an article that you say “illustrates the truth very nicely”, which talks about scrutinizing historical data by trying to grasp and understand how human activities emerge.
You said in your last post:
“You said: “I’m not about to start sifting through data tables if the post doesn’t even mention any data.” and I agree. Why would you?
If a wild bear approaches you in the forest, are you going to sift through statistics before you decide to act??????
I am suggesting that your wisdom in responding to your best guess of what the bear will do is the same wisdom that should be applied to making a best guess of what the climatologists will do if they were let loose in the market for global warming.”
Is the confusion here occuring because you think that data and statistics are the same thing? I can’t imagine that this is the case because the quote you supplied talks about using methods other than statistics to interpret data, but you seem to be using the interchangeably in the above quote, and in other parts of comment 12.
I’ve already made this clear, but just reiterate once again for the hard of reading:
“Ah, OK — I thought you were talking about the data showing (or not showing) global warming itself when you were talking about facts behind the argument.”
In the past you’ve castigated people for not looking up common definitions on wikipedia. Wikipedia gives the following definition for data:
“Data (singular: datum) refers to a collection of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.”
In your last post you said:
“I can assert that data can NOT identify market incentives for a few reasons:
1) nobody can ever know the incentives behind a person’s action
2) we observe results of actions which are influenced by more more than one actor”
You’ve already made it clear that you don’t think that data cannot identify market incentives, so once again:
How do you know market incentives exist without any data showing they exist?
Mr. C,
Let me get this straight: You say “I’m not about to start sifting through data tables” and I interpret your words to mean that you are expecting statistics. Then, you spin around with the definition of data.
When somebody says “data tables” the first thing I think of is a bunch of numbers in tables. I guess I misunderstood you. Sooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrry!
“How do you know market incentives exist without any data showing they exist?”
The same way you did in your first reply to this whole thread. You just fail to recognize that the validity of your initial objection hinges on incentives and not data.