Thanks for the comment.

I don’t see a contraidction. The Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult is built on lies and frauds. At the same time, that “Certain capital-producing activities are altering the nature of certain stocks of capital” is trivially true. The question is the magnitude of the alternation.. an answer to which is far away from us, given evidence of widespread fraud and censorship in that sub-domain of science.

I don’t know why I haven’t brought this up yet, but could you reconcile the opening statement with your entry linked to below.

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/12/13/labor-capital-climate-change-and-the-gap.html

My question is: Has your position on this issue changed since, and if not, how is the earlier blog entry consistent with this one?

I can buy that the effects of man made global warming are being greatly exaggerated in various circles, but it seems that you are throwing out all evidence based on a handful of unethical circles (hence, throwing the baby out with the bath water).

This is just the latest episode in a multi-year conspiracy, which has been publicly documented elsewhere [1,2].

Given the prominence of the UAE in the global-warming field, and the ongoing cover-up that continued even after the intiail publication (The data was first leaked to RealClimate.. RealClimate then deleted it), it is impossible to know what we can take seriously.

[1] http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/
[2] http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/denying-email-deletion/

“What is the flip side argument?”

The flip side being that one might argue against man made climate change because the steps to curb it would not coincide with their laissez faire capitalist/economic rhetoric. I thought the context of my previous post implied as such.

Dan,

“Not sure what you mean by absolutist position here, but certainly I was unaware of the scope of the fraud before. Every day makes the situation look worse and worse for the AGW crowd.”

Well, just because someone fudges the math doesn’t mean that significant numbers don’t exist.

Remember, there are two arguments here. The first one is as to whether man made climate change exist. The other is, if it does, to what degree does it have an impact.

I can buy that the effects of man made global warming are being greatly exaggerated in various circles, but it seems that you are throwing out all evidence based on a handful of unethical circles (hence, throwing the baby out with the bath water).

Even the Atlantic article didn’t go so far as to call even an inkling of climate change a lie, but you decide to use it as evidence to prove as such, for one reason or another.

Agreed that global warming is a useful lie to a lot of different factions. The anti-Russia group is perhaps the most important, however.

Jeffrey,

Not sure what you mean by absolutist position here, but certainly I was unaware of the scope of the fraud before. Every day makes the situation look worse and worse for the AGW crowd.

What is the flip side argument?

–Purp

And the flip side can’t be purported? If anything, I see a greater diversity of economic rhetoric regarding those that believe there to be man made global warming, while deniers almost seem lock step on the economic right. The only exception I can think of is Lyndon LaRouche, but please add to the list if you wish.

Dan,

I thought your position was that man made global warming probably exist to one degree or another, but thought we should go about the situation in cost/benefit analyst fashion as opposed to the “Al Gore” plan that you believe to exaggerate the threat.

Now that I think about it, the Atlantic articles sounds awfully similar to what I perceived your previous position to be, in contrast to your new absolutist one.

Either way, please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

(Though really the whole thing is wonderfully adaptive to any particular problem you have, from Russia to housing laws.)