He wrote in the comments section of this blog as follows:
I’m not sure exactly how to respond.
You assert a contradiction between an article I wrote several months ago and the current article.
I asserted no such thing. I didn’t discuss any sort of “contradictions”.
The whole point of my post was to highlight and condemn Jim Manzi’sprogressionfrom challenging some of the dubious science of global warming scaremongers to now start proposing political solutions.
Political solutions which I find unwarranted, cowardly, and destructive. And based on an undemocratic premise.
(But let me add for the record that although my post didn’t address Jim Manzi’s discussion on global warming science, I do in fact dispute some of his thinking in that area. But we’ll leave that for another time. Or better still, read Steve Milloy.)
You say that:
“A few months ago in March, Jim Manzi wrote in Conservative publication, National Review:
The available evidence indicates that it is probable (though not strictly scientifically proven) that human activities have increased global temperatures to date and will likely continue to do so.
But in spite of all the table-pounding, nobody can reliably quantify the size of these future impacts, or even bound them sufficiently to guide action.
The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”
You then say this is different than what I say in the current article.
What’s different about Jim Manzi’s National Review cover article, Game Plan, is not what he says on the science of global warming but what he’s now ADDED by way of the political dimension;that he’s proposed a cynical and suicidal “solution”.
Here are exact relevant quotes from the current article:
“It is no longer scientifically or politically tenable to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures, though quantifying the magnitude of the impact remains an important point of contention.
Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”
Where is the contradiction exactly?
I did not at any point assert there was a contradiction.
Re-read my post.
Among other things you call me a pansy, cowardly, cynical, a shyster and a conman.
I was being kind.
It’s funny how the biggest wussies usually hide behind online postings.
Huh? Hiding? Who, me? Sorry, I don’t do “hiding”.
And I don’t compromise my principles or sell-out our liberties as Jim Manzi has so happily and carelessly done.
How dumb and ignorant.
Perhaps Jim Manzi should have googled the name “Prodos” before he made such an ignorant statement.
My identity (and “Prodos” is my real name, by the way), my projects, my interests, and all my contact details are easy to find.
You know, stuff like being an on-air and online radio presenter for overtwelve years. Being an active member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Running a number of worldwide campaigns that promote free markets. Teaching creative thinking. Defending and promoting science. Etc.
Maybe you could have gotten your facts straight and bothered to address the points of the article.
Perhaps Jim should have bothered to read my points more carefully before putting text to blog, so he could’ve saved himself this painful embarassment.
Jim Manzi presents himself as a global warming non-alarmist, a calm voice of careful reasoning. Yet he lacks the scientific spirit of questioning and debating and falls into lock-step with the non-existent global warming “consensus”.
He puts the “con” back into “consensus”. But with a brand new twist.
Oddly, his “reply” to my post didn’t even touch on the most important issues of politics and policy.
So let’s nowhave a closer look at these issues.
Global warming, of course, has been a partisan issue rather than a purely scientific discussion for a long time, and conservatives have painted themselves into a corner.
Which means Conservatives haven’t been speaking from truth but simply reacting automatically to the green leftie global warmists.
If the left says “black,” the right says “white.” We’ve been behaving like automatons. It’s hardwired into us like a circuit, like a mindless mechanical reflex.
There’s been no real debate or thought from the Conservatives, just childish, self-serving propaganda.
Based on the reasonable expectation that admitting a problem would lead to a huge government power grab, those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have used scientific uncertainty to avoid the issue.
Get that? Conservatives have “used” scientific uncertainty.
(Of course Jim Manzi would never do such a thing, right?)
They’ve “used” it to “avoid the issue”.
Theonlyissue I’m aware of is theenslavement oftechnology, industry, freedom, andthe free market- all based on the mythof somenon-existent “scientific consensus”.
Jim Manzi is basically calling Conservatives cowards, cynics, shysters,conmen. Terms he objects to when applied to himself.
That game is just about up,
Yeah, right! It’s all just been a “game”. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more! We’re all conmen now aren’t we? But Jimmyboy isonto our little game. Hehehe. Sprung! You know, it takes a con man to know a con man, right?
Where the Hell does this guy get offputting outthis drivel?
But more importantly, what on Earth is the National Review up to? Are they preparing to implode? Has global warming frog-boiled their brain? It sure looks like it.
… and they suddenly find themselves walking unprepared into the middle of a sophisticated scientific and economic conversation about how to deal with the problem.
Hope you’re enjoying the condescension ’cause I’m loving it.
You’re all dummies!
But look hereman, ifyou Conservatives aregonnacon people, at least do it “the smart way”.
If the Greenies are trying to murder you, be smart. Kill yourself instead! That’ll show’em!
… THE SMART WAY
[That's the heading on this part of Jim Manzi's article! Seriously!]
In the face of massive uncertainty on multiple fronts, the best strategy is almost always to hedge your bets and keep your options open.
Multiple fronts? What multiple fronts? I only see one front, the one that affronts. It’s spelled “C” – “R” – “A” – “P”.
And I like the way he’s slipped in that “almost always”. Jim really believes this “hedging” stuff, doesn’t he?
Wealth and technology are raw materials for options.
Dear me, do you sense that private property rights and the free market are about to be flushed down the loo-loo? There’s just something about the sound of thatimpersonalised gobbledegook, modern management school language that tells me things are about to get worse.
…a much more sensible strategy to deal with climate risk
What climate risk?Is it theone that Jim Manzi says “could plausibly range from negligible to severe” ?
would emphasize technology rather than taxes. A science-based approach would hedge by providing support for prediction, mitigation, and adaptation
And who would run all this? Who would oversee all this? Somehow it doesn’t sound like Jim Manzi is talking about the free market.
Who would provide all this “support” for his “sensible strategy”?
… Our economy is on a long-term trajectory of de-carbonization as it becomes less energy-intensive and as the relative prices of alternative energy sources continue to drop compared with the price of fossil fuels.
Accelerating this process is valuable for many reasons other than those involving climate change.
Putting aside for a momentthe fact that a lot of “alternative energy” is directly or indirectly subsidised. And putting aside for a moment that fossil fuels prices could be greatly reduced by winding back fuel taxes and Environmental and Conservationlaws that restrict exploration and drilling. And putting aside the fact that Jim Manzi’s article somehow forgot to mention nuclear energy. Yes, putting all these astounding omissions aside for a moment, I’ve got ask …
Who’s going to cause all this “accelerating” to happen? Whose boot is going to bepushed onto whose
face accelerator pedal?
I thinkJim Manzi is talking about … ehm … “helping” industry and the market along a little bit.
Hedoesn’t want carbon taxes, nohe just wants alittle bit ofsweet, sweetfascism – because that’s exactlywhat you get when government “helps” business.
And what exactly is the real difference between carbon-taxing businessversus steeringit in directions that it would notnaturally go, andat a rate and in a manner thatthe free choice of the market place didn’t spontaneously and democratically choose?
Development of tactical technologies, such as carbon sequestration and cleaner-burning engines, would enable us to invent lower-emissions production facilities, automobiles, and so forth in the U.S., and export this technology to countries like China and India, where it would make the biggest difference (as these countries build up basic infrastructure).
Jim’s really on a roll now! He’s talking Big Business! Opportunities! Opening up new (sort of)”markets”!
What’s good for the Greenocracy is good for business!
Nay, business can now become an integral part of the Greenocracy! Why fight against the lies of the global warming alarmists when you could be cashing in bigtime?
I wonder what other areas business and technology could be steered into accomodating that curious negligible-to-severe range of risk which guides and thrills Jim Manzi.
Using U.S. or European technology to increase the energy-conversion efficiency of coal-fired Chinese power plants as they come on line over the next few decades is a decidedly non-sexy measure; but it’s probably the single most important action we can take to reduce carbon emissions over the next century.
But I don’t want to reduce carbon emissions Jim.
I don’t want my factory or myR&D departmentto be steered by you or your little power lusting mates.
Adaptation should take center stage, as it is by far the most cost-effective means of addressing
climate risk. We can reduce the climate impact of carbon that is emitted, often using such simple techniques as planting more trees or using more reflective paint.
Prosaic efforts — such as developing strains of crops that grow better in slightly warmer temperatures, better buttresses for buildings, and more intelligent zoning codes for coastal areas — can dramatically reduce losses from temperature swings, hurricanes, and floods today, and also reduce vulnerability to any potential future problems caused by climate change.
But Jim, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being prosaic and usingmore reflective paints as much as the next man,it’s just thatI distinctly remember you saying something like: “The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.” (Have I misquoted you?) So I was wondering about whether it would be okay to use my money in other ways. In ways that I thinkmight (and I use that word advisedly as I’m sure you of all people would appreciate)more beneficial from my own personal point of view. I mean, if that’s okay with you and your friends.
I know that you would never contradict yourself (even when no-one has said you haven’t) but I’m just wondering WHY should we all go
to hell with you down this exciting, innovative path of useless suggestions when we … I mean, when … aw forget it. I don’t want to spoil all that ENTHUSIASM!!
Green fascism for profit and fun! That’s what we want!
The government can catalyze improvements in the relevant technologies,
I feel a Jimmy Durante moment coming on!!
“Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go?”
but it’s absolutely essential that we avoid turning this into yet another huge corporate-welfare program …
“And still have the feeling that you wanted to stay?”
The agency for funding any government-sponsored research should be explicitly modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency…
“Wanted to go”
… We also need to place a strong emphasis on large prizes for accomplishing measurable and audacious goals.
The British entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize to anyone who demonstrates a device that removes carbon from the atmosphere;
“Felt you could stay”
… what if the U.S. government upped the ante to $1 billion and pledged to make any resulting technology freely available to the world?
“Go, stay, stay, go …”
Conservatives should propose policies that are appropriately optimistic, science-based, and low-cost.
Okay, let’s do it!
My “Optimistic” = “Man made global warming is just Green Poppycock. Industry and Science are not destroying the planet. Enjoy life.”
My “Science-based” = “There is no evidence of destructive human inducedglobal warming. If we find any we’ll let you know.”
My “Low-cost” = “We’re opening up the energy market. We’re closing down the Greenocracy. We’re removing Green funding and Green agencies.”
I think I’ve got the hang of it.
This should be an attractive political program:It is an often-caricatured, but very healthy, reality that Americans usually respond well to the conversion of political issues into technical problems. After all, we’re very good at solving the latter.
No, it’s the other way around.Americans respond poorly to politicising problems that are merely technical. They do best when the government and people like Jim Manzi stay out of the way.
It sometimes feels as if there is unstoppable momentum behind a quasi-messianic program of aggressive emissions reductions.
It doesn’t feel that way to me. Both the quasi-messianicslikeAl Gore and the fakerswho masquerade as friends such as Jim Manzi can be stopped.
Blog that, buddy.
In this kind of debate, however, appearances can be deceiving.
… The electorate, like all markets, is pretty unsentimental in pursuing its own interests.
Which is why Jim Manzi has a Grand Slam Smart Plan to undermine that free market atitsfoundation.
This drives the activists crazy, and if conservatives keep their cool, will ultimately lead the activists to commit serious blunders that alienate public opinion.
Exactly how “cool” is it to buy into the Global Warming mythology? How “cool” is it toreplace scientific facts, scientific challenge, and free market decision-making with some absurd undefined and undefinable notion of”hedging” and government assisted industrial suicide?
They are already starting to attack the consensus science of the IPCC as too timid because it does not support predictions of imminent global catastrophe.
The “consensus science” of the IPCC is not a consensus.
And anyway, “consensus” and Science have never made good friends. Please refer to human history to see how this works.
The serious Green activists are quite capable of shifting the IPCC position into something far more deadly.
Don’t underestimate them.
With the help of twits who perpetuate such rubbish such as: “The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe” it shouldn’t be too difficult a job.
I notice that JimManziis the CEO of an “applied artificial intelligence software company“.
His National Reviewarticle sure is one of the most impressive acts of artificial intelligence I’ve come across in a long time!