Climate and the Precautionary Principle

We went to a memorial day barbeque today with several families from the ward, and I got into a debate (friendly, of course) with a brother about the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change (whatever it's called now).

Anyway, we each had points and counterpoints. I'm a lawyer and he's a physicist, so it's not like either of us really knows what we're talking about. But I noticed that whenever I'd make a point, the response would be something like "yeah, we don't really know, but we shouldn't risk it."

I've encountered this attitude recently as I wrote my final law school paper. It is basically "better safe than sorry." The formal name for this philosophy is the Precautionary Principle. It's widely used in environmental circles as a justification to prohibit, regulate or tax any activity that could conceivably impact the environment.

the Precautionary Principle is insidious for at least two reasons.

• First, it reverses the burden of proof - forcing one side to prove a negative. Instead of the environmental advocate gathering evidence of actual harm and using that evidence to advocate halting the damaging activity, all the activist has to do is come up with a scenario that will potentially harm the environment, and invoke the Precautionary Principle. The activist doesn't have to prove anything, the other side has to prove that their activities will be harmless. This is nearly impossible. I can't prove that driving to taco bell to get lunch will be harmless. This being the case, the precautionary principle says I should not do it.
• Second, it is used selectively. Environmentalists use it to force industry to prove they will cause no harm, but activists don't take into account the harm caused by their own actions. DDT was banned because it may have harmed some birds, but this ban has allowed millions of people to die from mosquito-bourne malaria over the last 3 decades. One would think that if an action had the potential of killing millions, the precautionary principle would dictate that it not be taken. not so. Only environmental harm is fair game. (and humans are not part of the environment).

Just something to keep in mind next time you hear predictions of possible environmental catastrophe.

Church Irony

As I waited at a stoplight the other day, the sign outside the Mount Hope United Methodist Church here in Lansing was showing the service times, then the alternate worship times, then the following:

Sometimes religion gets in the way of God.

--Bono

(Yes, Bono, as in U2)

So the message is what? Come to worship Sundays at 9:30, unless it gets in the way of God?

Talk about a mixed message.

European 'Human' Rights

A British woman is trying to convince an Austrian court to declare a chimpanzee a 'person' so that she can adopt him and be appointed his guardian. Read the whole story here.

36-year-old Miss [Paula] Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

She insists that the chimp [Matthew] needs legal standing so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests  -  especially if the sanctuary shuts down.

Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A person, not a human? I, being a lawyer, know there is a difference, but legal persons who are not human are usually organizations or companies. Maybe the chimp should just incorporate in Nevada. I know a guy on the radio who will do it for just $499.

But later she seems a bit fuzzy on the difference.

'Everybody who knows him personally will see him as a person,' she said.

'In his home in the African jungle, he would have been well able to look after himself without a guardian.

But since he was abducted into an alien environment, traumatised and locked up in an enclosure, it did become necessary for me to act on his behalf to secure the donation money for him and to avoid his deportation.

'Since he has no close relatives, I am doing this as the person closest to him.'

He was 'abducted?' She's trying to 'avoid his deportation?' As to his close relatives, isn't science always harping on how close we are to chimpanzees, genetically?

The sad thing is that the court will probably take the case, and probably rule for the chimp. After all, this is the same court that doesn't recognize that an unborn child is a person. In fact this very court awarded damages to a Polish woman who's "human rights" were violated when she was denied a 'therapeutic' abortion.

Europe's idea of 'human rights' is, I fear, irretrievably lost.

The "New Homeless"

CNN ran a very misleadingly-titled article today: Mom Forced to Live in Car With Dogs. What an outrageous example of elder abuse, right?... No. Kids out of control and trashed the house?... No. A fire or flood?... No.

This poor lady is a member of the "middle class homeless." At the beginning of the article I felt bad for her, but as I read, I gradually found it harder and harder to really sympathize. Let's just say she's not your stereotypical homeless person.

Barbara Harvey climbs into the back of her small Honda sport utility vehicle and snuggles with her two golden retrievers, her head nestled on a pillow propped against the driver's seat. Californian Barbara Harvey says she is forced to sleep in her car with her dogs after losing her job earlier this year.

Poor lady. But wait, she owns a Honda SUV? Oh, then I saw the dateline: "Santa Barbara, CA," so it's all relative. (a late-model Honda CRV in Santa Barbara is like a 78 Chevy Nova anywhere else, right?). She also owns (and feeds) two large dogs. Just the bare necessities for her. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the homeless can't even afford to support two large dogs when forced to live in their SUV.

A former loan processor, the 67-year-old mother of three grown children said she never thought she'd spend her golden years sleeping in her car in a parking lot. . .

Harvey was forced into homelessness this year after being laid off. She said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house. . . costs more than $1 million. She lost her condo two months ago and had little savings as backup.

Gee, I wonder why she wasn't able to save anything. Must be George Bush's fault. There might be a place or two where it would be cheaper to live. Especially when you have transportation and no steady job tying you down! That just makes me feel like shouting - MOVE TO A NORMAL TOWN!! The rich can barely afford to live in Santa Barbara.

And her children must be real deadbeats, not helping their mom, huh?

Her 19-year-old daughter moved in with friends to avoid being homeless. Her other children live overseas, and she didn't want to tell them about her living status.

Even if her children offered to help, she said, she wouldn't accept it.

She wouldn't accept help from her own children? But she'll complain to CNN! Are we supposed to just ignore this and feel sorry for her anyway? At least she's an optimist when her daughter calls. (on her cell phone?)

"My daughter especially is very unhappy. Sometimes she'll cry, and she'll call and say, 'Mom, I just can't stand it that you are living in a car,' " Harvey said. "I'll say, 'You know what? This is OK for right now, because I'm safe, I'm healthy, the dogs are doing OK, and I have a job, and things will get better."

Well, as long as the dogs are OK! Things WON'T get better, not in Santa Barbara they won't. Get in your car and leave, find an affordable apartment in an affordable town, get rid of the dogs, and the cell phone and, for crying out loud, talk to your children!

The article quotes an economist blaming the California housing crisis and the dearth of affordable housing in Santa Barbara. blah, blah, blah. The real issue here is stubborn pride and a fundamental disconnect from the realities of life. Unfortunate, yes, but not unforeseeable, and certainly not irreparable.

Discriminatory Dollars

A federal court ruled today that the treasury department discriminates against the blind by . . . get this . . . printing money!

Well, not exactly. But, the court did rule that the fact that different denominations aren't distinguishable by touch violates the Rehabilitation Act. In essence, the government needs to make sure that blind people can tell a $5 from a $10 from a $20 by touch.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but where does it end? Aren't the Homeland Security color alerts discriminatory? How does someone know what an "orange" threat level is if they've never seen color?

There's no really effective way to comply with this decision. Make each denomination a different size? won't they need to carry several reference cards for comparison? (not to mention the forced redesign or replacement of every single vending machine / ATM / counting machine / ticket machine / cash register / wallet in the country). Print raised marks on the bills? That will last until the bill gets wadded up or washed, and what a great way to counterfeit! a few minutes with a needle, and viola! all my ones are twenties. Texture? How many different textures are there, and do they survive wadding?

Some difficulty is, I think, an inevitable result of blindness. That's why it is called a handicap. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the blind, but I don't think the court thought this one through.

Incidentally, I'm not simply being "ableist", the American Federation for the Blind opposes changing the money too.

Parody of Rev. Wright

This is from the Weekly Standard:

Surprised Economists

I've been struck repeatedly over the last few years by how many stories about the economy contain phrases along the lines of "economists were surprised by..."

It seems like they are surprised by any economic news that comes out. Something is always more or less than predictions, and not by just a little, but by orders of magnitude. For example, economists were surprised again today by job numbers and factory orders. (Incidentally, I wish I'd got to this earlier, the wording earlier today was different, the "news people" softened their description of how surprising the numbers were).

a government report showed the nation’s employers cut far fewer jobs than expected last month, stirring optimism about the buoyancy of the economy. . .

The Labor Department’s report that employers cut 20,000 jobs in April was a relief to Wall Street, which had been expecting payrolls to fall by 75,000 jobs. . .

The Commerce Department said U.S. manufacturers saw orders increase 1.4 percent in March. Economists expected a 0.2 percent increase after declines in January and February.

They were expecting 75000 fewer jobs. They were only off by 275% This one isn't sooooo bad, after all there are a lot of jobs in the nation, and the usual gains are 200-300 thousand. Maybe they had a bad day. But, 0.2 versus 1.4? That's off by 600% and the viable range on those numbers is never more than a few percentage points.

I can only think of 3 explanations for the constant stream of these stories:

• First, the stupid economists are the only ones giving interviews.
• Second, these are the smart ones, and even they don't know what they are talking about.
• Third, and this is my theory: You cannot reduce the countless individual choices of a quarter billion people to a formula with any degree of accuracy.

This may disappoint some of my economist friends, but economics is NOT a hard science, it is a descriptive science. It is valuable when looking retrospectively, but absolutely useless as a tool for precise prediction.

Economics is not the only 'science' with this problem. Political science, sociology, psychology, and even, to some extent biology have the same shortcoming. This is because they are trying to predict the actions of beings with souls and free will. In such cases, the best you can do is averages and general trends.

That doesn't mean they are not worthwhile tools, but their practitioners need to recognize the limits of their science and not advocate more detailed policies than the science can support.

Global Warming Ravages the Planet!

I found the most interesting site the other day. Have you ever wished that someone would just list all the research on global warming so we could all see just what the effects will be?

Well, wait no longer. Courtesy of numberwatch.co.uk, I give you . . . A complete list of things caused by global warming.

It's a long list, with links to every single item.

The site also has other fun lists, such as a list of everything that causes cancer, according to epidemiologists.

Enjoy.

Unity, Dissent and Patriotism

I am currently reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg who is one of my favorite columnists. His articles alone are worth the cost of my National Review subscription.

In the latest issue, Goldberg writes about Barrack Obama and his call for "unity." He relates it to the general liberal failure to understand patriotism. Liberals think patriotic conservatives are fascists, but united liberals are patriotic. Unfortunately, the whole article is only available to subscribers. Some highlights:

When John McCain released an ad calling himself the “American president Americans have been waiting for,” one could hear outraged caterwauling from the Democratic jungle: What’s John McCain trying to say? We’re un-American? Who’s he calling unpatriotic? Fred Barnes, writing in The Weekly Standard, calls this anticipatory offense “patriotism paranoia.” Indeed, there does seem to be psychological insecurity on display. If I say to a male friend, “Those are nice shoes,” and he responds with “How dare you call me gay!” it’s fair to say he’s the guy with the issues. . .

Part of the problem is that many on the left think patriotism is essentially fascist, another name for nationalism and jingoism. And some may use it that way — but some may also call a duck a “cat,” which doesn’t mean we should all be hostage to this usage. The misuse of “patriotism” and “dissent” is worse, because a country without a word to describe its love for what is best within it is a country ill-equipped to defend what is best within it. . .

Barack Obama and other Democrats use the word “unity” as a substitute for something like “patriotism.” They consider “questioning the patriotism” of Democrats — even when it’s not actually being questioned — beyond the pale and “divisive.”

But, unity itself is inherently neither good nor bad.

Unity by itself has no moral worth whatsoever. The only value of unity is strength, strength in numbers — and, again, that is a fascist value. That’s the symbolism of the fasces, the bundle of sticks that in combination are invincible. Rape gangs and lynch mobs? Unified. The mafia? Unified. The SS? They had unity coming out the yinyang. Meanwhile, Socrates, Jesus, Thomas More, and an endless line of nameless souls were dispatched from this earth in the name of unity.

Our government is set up specifically to discourage too much unity. Unfettered unity is really just the tyranny of the majority:

The founding fathers dedicated a great deal of thought to the subject of unity, and they found it was something to view with skepticism at best and, more often than not, with fear. Hence we have a constitution designed to thwart the baser forms of unity. Our government is set up so that the Senate cools the populist passion of the House, the executive thwarts the passions of the legislature and vice versa, and the Supreme Court checks the whole lot, to which its composition is in turn ultimately subject. “Divisiveness” — the setting of faction against faction, one branch of government against another, and the sovereignty of the individual above the group — was for the founders the great guarantor of our liberties and the source of civic virtue.

Liberals also confuse dissent and patriotism. Like unity, dissent is by itself is neither good nor bad.

Or consider this supposedly brilliant bumper-sticker insight: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Mark Steyn has had great fun with that line, pointing out that Thomas Jefferson — usually credited as its author — never said anything of the sort. Steyn traces the fakery back to a 1991 quote from Nadine Strossen, the head of the ACLU, an organization with a vested interest in putting the founders’ imprimatur on relentless knee-jerk complaining. . .

It is worth pointing out that if Jefferson had in fact said something like that, he would have been what social scientists call a moron. As John O’Sullivan once noted, tongue firmly in cheek, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Treason is the highest form of dissent. Therefore treason is the highest form of patriotism.” Yet when you listen to the verbal contortions many on the left go through to defend the New York Times’s efforts to reveal national-security secrets, or to journalists who think expressing open sympathy for America in the international arena is a grave sin, or simply to the usual battiness of countless America-haters, you can appreciate the wisdom of the Italian proverb that the truest things are said in jest.

Equating dissent and patriotism is an egregious example of moral equivocation:

Now it must be said that no conservative standing upon the shoulders of Burke, Nock, Buckley, Hayek, Goldwater, and Reagan would for a moment dispute the suggestion that dissent for the right reason can be one high form of patriotism. But it depends on the reason. The dissenter-for-dissent’s-sake is among the most common species of pest in the human ecosystem. The reflexive contrarian who cares not what he is contradicting is quite simply the most useless of citizens.

When confronted with the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley Jr. famously responded that if one man pushes an old lady into an oncoming bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around. Likewise, we should not say that the man who dissents from a church-burning mob and the man who dissents from a fire brigade are morally equivalent “dissenters.”

Liberals try to end debate by calling for unity and labeling principled objection as cynical and divisive:

Rightly ordered unity in a democratic republic is the end result of ceaseless debate and discussion. But today, ceaseless debate and discussion is precisely what many liberals object to. As Al Gore is fond of saying about global warming, “The time for debate is over.” Legions of liberals insist that we must move beyond ideology and partisan differences on this, that, and the other. But have you ever heard anyone say that we need to “move beyond ideology” for the sake of bipartisan unity and then abandon his own position? Of course not. When someone says that we need to get past labels and move beyond ideology, what he means is that you need to drop your principled objections and get with the program.

So, what is patriotism really? I like the description above. It is the word we used to describe our love for what is best within our country.

Coincidence? I wonder . . .

I can't help wondering whether it is mere coincidence that Earth Day is celebrated on V.I. Lenin's birthday. Both are April 22. But wait, there's more!

On April 22, 1870 Lenin was born. Earth Day is exactly 100 years after Lenin's birth. hmmm . . .

On April 22, 1912 Pravda, the "voice" of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, begins publication in Saint Petersburg. hmmm. . .

Eco-warriors of the world, unite!?!?

Just something to think about.