Comment from AnonymousCoward
Time March 15, 2010 at 12:11 am PDT

The fault, Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, said the coward.

The horses and the masters in the buggies (comprising the elite) propel the society. Without them, little gets done. What does that guy want, a bunch of no-good potheads sitting around complaining?

It is up to the midgets that hold the reins (the populace) to say no when we've been set the wrong direction, or when there are more bumps on the road we're on than acceptable.

Jerk their ropes and say no. Permitted only in a democracy. So use the advantage while we still have it.

Stop your whining.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm PDT

Anonymous, I agree. My above comments were an immediate reaction to what I thought was a flawed, even shabby piece of analysis, which was being praised in various quarters. But if I had gotten deeper into the subject, myself, I would have explored a similar point to the one you make – that, in finding blame and/or causes for our troubles, it's easy to point the finger at specific targets, such as particular elite institutions, sub-cultures, etc. In an open democracy, however, we all share the burden responsibilty to some degree or another, whether we choose to acknowledge it and/or act on it. To use an economic metaphor, it's easy to blame the "producers" when things go wrong, but we shouldn't let the "consumers" off the hook. Besides, pointing fingers rarely accomplishes much.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 15, 2010 at 1:25 pm PDT

NooneCares: The Nation has been described as "the flagship of the Left." Christopher Hayes includes the media as part of his analysis of declining public trust in elite institutions. Boy, I wish The Nation were as inconsequential as you suggest it is, but unfortunately it is quite influential in some circles, even if its circulation numbers are modest. As for whether you or anyone else cares about this topic, well, that's up to individual readers.

Comment from AnonymousCoward
Time March 15, 2010 at 7:44 pm PDT

Patrick Glenn: I wholeheartedly agree:
"After watching him make such a flimsy effort at proving his own points, though, I wonder if he just tosses out the same groupthink explanations for every political question he considers. And, if so, what does that say about our elite institutions?"

In fact, saying the "Elite" do not argue his cases strongly is saying they ought to push certain agendas, however biased.
What if, say, Global Warming were to turn out to be a scientific fallacy fifty years down the road? Just because it is the popular solution to a perceived problem today does not make it the right one.

At the turn of the (previous) century the consensus among the physicists was that there was this thing called "ether". Then it was "disproved". Who knows if it will be proven again, since many quantum physicists have begun to point in that direction?
According to those like Hayes, there is one correct way of thinking and anyone else who wastes time stalling is a fool and a bigot. Yeah, right.

Comment from AnonymousCoward
Time March 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm PDT

Was that your feeble attempt at hitting below the belt? Do you have anything to say or are you just trolling?

Comment from Michael_Merritt
Time March 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm PDT

Sorry to make you seem like a crazy man, Patrick. I deleted his post because it violated our civility rules.

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm PDT

Then there's the haughty AnonymousCoward

"What if, say, Global Warming were to turn out to be a scientific fallacy fifty years down the road?"

Lol, not very likely. People are running out of factors to rationalize away their responsibility with. Our consumption and our production is causing a whopping externality that is having a social cost. That means increasing the cost of production and consumption (economically and efficiently) is economically and morally correct – that is perfectly in line with the most liberal of economists (think von Mises, even).

"At the turn of the (previous) century the consensus among the physicists was that there was this thing called "ether". Then it was "disproved". Who knows if it will be proven again, since many quantum physicists have begun to point in that direction? "

LOL, thinking you have a case to make an analogy between ACC and the concept of etherial matter. The fact that scientists are unsure and have been unsure about the "ether" has no particular weight when it comes to the certainty regarding the level of anthropogenism of climate change. The climate has an energy imbalance that is unexplained. You insert CO2 as a factor and all of a sudden the imbalance is explained. I oversimplify, but that is the gist, and a majority of people who know more than you and me combined seem to think the explanation has merit. What have you got?

If climate "skeptics" admitted a loss credibility every time Anthony Watts or Lomborg turned out to have been wrong, you would realize you have no credibility left.

You know who is a real climate "skeptic"? I am. Climate scientists, also, are *intrinsically* skeptical. That's what being a scientist is all about. You seem to assume that the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists who support ACC is somehow not meritorious – I think your position cannot be the null hypothesis. The onus is on the scientist – but you *opinion* on the work of these scientists has a separate onus, shifted onto you.

"According to those like Hayes, there is one correct way of thinking and anyone else who wastes time stalling is a fool and a bigot."

Are you aware that you appear deeply dishonest and not a little, em, bigoted yourself when you mangle the words of another to suit your wounded preconceptions of ACC proponents? Try something else, something that makes sense.

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 8:31 pm PDT

" Boy, I wish The Nation were as inconsequential as you suggest it is"

Seems like quite a petty wish. Do you assume its influence is unmerited? Do you think the world would be a better place if The Nation did not exist?

"However, in making this shift, Hayes conveniently drops the part about transparency and accountability, I suspect because he knows that the general public has access to more information about CEO salaries and other internal corporate business matters than they did 35 years ago."

Yeah, knowledge is a good weapon to wield. But: Lobbying. Also: Citizens United ruling. I wish people who are constantly worrying over government would exert the same caution with regards to corporations. And vice versa, of course!

Transparency isn't everything – it's not facetious or biased (innately, at least) to worry over corporations and their wield of power just because some insight into accounting, dealings etc. are available.

I won't say anything about your complaints about his position on climate change and how it's an important issue to the left (as if that has anything to do with anything). Because, seriously, what a strange complaint.

Comment from AnonymousCoward
Time March 16, 2010 at 8:57 pm PDT

Wow, climate guru.
Never mind your CIRCULAR argument running around, but not puncturing mine.
Guess I happened to use an example you are a bit sensitive towards. Didn't mean to "upset" you. I pat you on your angry head and send you on your way.

Now, do you have anything to add regarding the OP other than telling me what an idiot I am for breaching your territory?

Comment from AnonymousCoward
Time March 16, 2010 at 8:59 pm PDT

By the way, putdowns unrelated to the topic such as the two I had to answer for are some of the ammo the self-righteous liberals such as the one subject of the original post above use against those who do not support their point of view.
Both were off-topic and emotional. Let's do better than that, since we do have something to say and deserve to be taken seriously.
Bickering among ourselves loses us credit.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 16, 2010 at 9:19 pm PDT

Evil, you could argue that Hayes' essay was trying to tackle 3 or 4 different things at once, but I don't think that lets him off the hook. The CENTRAL argument of his essay was that the primary causes of declining public distrust in elite institutions are concentration of power and the erosion of accountability and transperancy. Hayes decided to build his argument around those points, not me. My point was that "transperancy isn't everything," that it has actually been rising even as public trust in elites drops. For example, people lost faith in the Catholic Church because of individual moral failings and PAST coverups, even as accountability and transperancy have improved. But would it fit with Haye's "progressive" worldview to suggest that public loss of faith in elites was largely due to individual moral failings? Also, if Hayes had made a solid case for his main points, then concluded with the non sequitor about AGW, that would have been fine (a typical rhetorical device). But he jumped straight to the cure before even remotely proving the diagnosis.

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 9:41 pm PDT

"The CENTRAL argument of his essay was that the primary causes of declining public distrust in elite institutions are concentration of power and the erosion of accountability and transperancy."

Well, without accountability and transparency, the allocation of power becomes less meritocratic, which lessens the amount of trust one can give the institution. The problem isn't the concentration per se, but the fact that the accumulation of power isn't well-deserved. If the most intelligent, benevolent, philosophical, stable and educated person in the world had the most power, I wouldn't be worried.

"For example, people lost faith in the Catholic Church because of individual moral failings and PAST coverups, even as accountability and transperancy have improved."

I wouldn't know, I hate all non-individual and non-secular religious phenomenon by default, and thusly I wouldn't trust the Catholic church with a nerf gun. I think it's continuously regressive, sedate and self-righteous approach to the world makes it unworthy of trust, and I hope many more become disenchanted with it. Seriously, the current pope is actually Emperor Palpatine – I would be worried if people didn't punish the Catholic church with lower poll numbers.

I think you assume that more transparency means more trust. I think that the Catholic church may have become more transparent, but that its actual presence in the world is becoming less appreciated because it just demands societies to succumb to its anti-women, obsessively anti-gay agenda, without really offering any spiritual coherence or honesty. Transparency is one thing, but what about what people actually see more of as opacity decreases?

"But would it fit with Haye's "progressive" worldview to suggest that public loss of faith in elites was largely due to individual moral failings?"

I have no idea. I also have no idea why you put "progressive" in mock quotes.

"But he jumped straight to the cure before even remotely proving the diagnosis."

The diagnosis about why people are divided on ACC is simple – scientists value the virtue of being right, while the people who hate the ramifications of the work of the scientists value the appearance of being right.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 16, 2010 at 9:42 pm PDT

This might not apply to you, but in my experience, many AGW proponents who talk a lot about "negative externalities" argue that the wide variety of alleged negative externalities to which you refer extend well beyond greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these same people used to tell me, about 10-15 years ago, "What do we have to lose? Even if it turns out that AGW is not a major threat, we will have reduced many of the negative externalities that are destoying our environment anyway, etc." This argument was quite effective in persuading financial-types to invest in the green future (and its promise of rent seeking fortunes to made for the socially conscious investors), but it had the disadvantage of contradicting "the science is settled" drumbeat. Did you use to make that argument?

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 9:47 pm PDT

You are very wrong – the posts I made in response to yours was obviously much better and easier to follow logically. I saw your concern as to the solidity of the scientific corpus, I found your basis for said concern to be wanting. I am neither self-righteous, nor a liberal – I am a conservative social democrat.

"Now, do you have anything to add regarding the OP other than telling me what an idiot I am for breaching your territory?"

I wouldn't call you an idiot and I did not. So stop putting words in other peoples' mouth, that is twice in this thread now.

"Guess I happened to use an example you are a bit sensitive towards."

Is that not basic troll logic? Or, as I like to call it, the "Lol u mad" style of debate. Your example of scientists being wrong about the nature of the ether is wholly unrelated to the statistical, physical, climatological and otherwise less speculative work of climate scientists. Your analogy was bad, and you really have nothing to suggest that your skepticism is not redundant (what with climate scientists already being skeptical – otherwise they would not be scientists).

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 16, 2010 at 10:13 pm PDT

Let me try one more time. Where did I suggest that "transparency means more trust"? Transparency is a good thing for its own sake, but more transperancy can actually lead to lower levels of trust. I wasn't explicitly making that point – rather I was taking apart Hayes' flimsy points – but I will do so now just to clarify things. One could argue that, as more light was shone on the church's past sins (i.e. greater transparency), public trust in the church was actually lowered AS A RESULT of greater accountability and transparency. Again, Hayes used an example that actually cut against his own point.

And when I wrote that he "jumped to the cure," I meant he never proved the points about accountability/transparency before jumping ahead to the AGW points. You might like what he wrote about AGW, that's your prerogative, but are you conceding that Hayes made several unsupported points?

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 10:19 pm PDT

"Many of these same people used to tell me, about 10-15 years ago, "What do we have to lose? Even if it turns out that AGW is not a major threat, we will have reduced many of the negative externalities that are destoying our environment anyway, etc. … but it had the disadvantage of contradicting "the science is settled" drumbeat."

Things change in 10-15 years. The science has become far more settled – anthropogenic CO2 is now a global economic externality, and the most prurient and economic way of dealing with such a phenomenon is a global commitment to force ourselves to pay more to pollute (so we pollute less).

I still find the idea of not just reclining and waiting for the markets to dictate progress to be the best one. Yes, we have money and growth to lose – if we do things stupidly. With efficiency and a lack of ideological trappings, greening our economies could be beneficial from a cost-benefit POV (this is just excluding the fact that Westerners are morally obliged to stop harming other societies with CO2 pollution and its effects, but that is another matter here).

I was too young to participate in the debate 10-15 years ago. I don't have a history in any left-wing movement or party either – I am for imposing global penalties on CO2 becase it is just as economically and morally correct as paying a fine when you park carelessly.

Comment from Evil
Time March 16, 2010 at 10:54 pm PDT

"One could argue that, as more light was shone on the church's past sins (i.e. greater transparency), public trust in the church was actually lowered AS A RESULT of greater accountability and transparency"

Well, yes. In a sense, I completely missed your general gist, and sort of sidelined the actual issue, which is that Hayes is better with words than he is with coherence.

I actually think it's possible that he could be right and wrong at the same time – considering transparency and trust don't correlate in the case of the catholic church or for corporations, it could be said Hayes is wrong when explaining the lack of trust in the same with their lack of transparency.

However, considering how the transparency of corporations and the Catholic organization have revealed a *sub-layer* of unmeritocratic concentration of power, money and influence, it could be said that the reason transparency and trust don't correlate is because the transparency only went far enough to reveal a deeper, still sinister layer of unaccountability.

That, and perhaps attitudes towards anti-secular, regressive and sanctimonious political pushing and increasingly ephemeral and careless profit-hunting is just seen for what it is and disliked, no matter the transparency. that, however, is an unrelated development which I privately hope could be taking place.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm PDT

Aside from the AGW issue (on which we're never going to agree), it sounds like one of our main points of disagreement concerns the effectiveness of government policy in "greening our economies."

The best thing for the environment is entrepreneurial, (relatively) free market capitalism (and I don't mean crony corporatism, "progressive" corporatism, or mixture thereof, although certain levels of these are unavoidable). Vibrant, free economies spur innovations and new efficiencies, which – in the grand scheme of things – are the best things that can happen for the environment, provided that they are harnessed by free societies.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm PDT

The worst economic systemt for the environment is utopianism (Soviet communism, Eastern Bloc, "Third World" socialism, etc.). Not quite as bad, but still damaging to the environment, is when Social Democracies attempt to subsidize alternative energies and other so-called green technologies that are not YET truly innovative and competitive in the marketplace. That approach reflects a type of central planning-lite, which stunts economic growth and innovation and is therefore bad for the environment.

By all means, the government should play an active role in R&D and when the "alternative" technologies actually become real breakthroughs, then they will be "green," but no sooner. If you really want to "go green," you should support classical liberal policies.

Comment from Evil
Time March 17, 2010 at 8:11 pm PDT

I never said anything about artificial or hopeful splurging on green energy or tech, prematurely. However, until those green techs appear, it's time to tax all of us on emissions, because the cost must reflect the presence of the externality. That is classically liberal.

Comment from Evil
Time March 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm PDT

Problem: People in Darfur killing one another because water is becoming scarce.

I have no problem leaving it up to the market, but the market only gets green if it profitable for it. Some people can't wait for your entrepreneurs to deliver us.

So, we should step away from the markets, that makes sense. But if the market can't keep up, we must protect the people in the third world – that might require government oversight, taxation and might hinder our growth, but I'm not yet so old that the only thing I care about is a few numbers here and there.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 17, 2010 at 8:39 pm PDT

Evil, you're helping to make my point. Among other problems, Darfur has suffered from a lack of capitalism, economic freedom, and "ground-up" development (as opposed to top-down, international aid-based development programs). A free economy doesn't provide everything that every single person might want or need, but it does provide for people's wants and needs more efficiently and abundantly than the alternatives.

Actually, the profit incentive is a beneficial aspect of capitalism, which spurs technological innnovations that are, in turn, beneficial to the human/natural environment. You have it backwards: the environment only gets green under a system that rewards individual initiative and innovation. The more things we expect the government to "deliver us," the worse the environment will fare (not to mention all the other negative impacts from advanced-dependency Social Democracy).

The market will always keep up much better than (human) central economic planners, environmental regulators, etc.

Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time March 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm PDT

Attempts to use punative taxes to engage in macroeconomic restructuring and social engineering (e.g., $7/gallon gas taxes) are the exact opposite of classical liberalism. Classical liberals believe that taxes should simple, fair, and consistent – long term-oriented and rules-based, rather than being designed to correct for alleged negative externalities, which progressives see lurking around every corner.

Comment from Evil
Time March 18, 2010 at 4:40 pm PDT

"Actually, the profit incentive is a beneficial aspect of capitalism, which spurs technological innnovations that are, in turn, beneficial to the human/natural environment. You have it backwards: the environment only gets green under a system that rewards individual initiative and innovation."

Problem: Profiteers want profit today, while the scientific cost-benefit model uses a more extensive time scale.

Like I said – the market is very good at achieving efficiency and technology and progress etc. However, they do this because we want them to. Right now, we want cheap gas and we want the cost of our pollution to be socialized by other, non-Western people. The market is happy to oblige – it takes a government to punish producers and consumers if they don't curb their emissions. I have nothing against Western corporations – I love their products and what they bring society, simply by being egotistical and creative. But, my loyalty to third-world people take precedence – if the market doesn't bring the changes quickly enough, the government must step in.

Comment from Evil
Time March 18, 2010 at 4:46 pm PDT

"Attempts to use punative taxes to engage in macroeconomic restructuring and social engineering (e.g., $7/gallon gas taxes) are the exact opposite of classical liberalism."

Not if our behavior is economically idiotic and immoral. Right now we are demanding to have the marginal costs of our emissions to be socialized – we demand that the rest of the world pay for the effects of emissions we are responsible for.

Effectively, Westerners are enjoying global socialism, because the costs of our pollution is subsidized. Only the governments can force us to be abstemious and philosophically honest. We can't enjoy the fruits of a liberalized, globalized economic system while asking third-world people to bear the effects of our behavior, akin to a socialized system. It can't work that way.