On the Free Market and Capitalism

Continuing my current focus on economic matters, today I’ll discuss two subjects on which there is much confusion and often acrimony; the free market and capitalism. Much of the confusion and nastiness, in my view, has been deliberately sown by those with agendas. So I’ll try to keep the discussions as simple as I can.

The free market

According to Webster’s, a free market is “an economic market operating by free competition.” Even in the definition, there’s a seed of confusion. For most people do not talk of or think of “a” free market, but of “the free market.” But if there’s such a thing as the free market among human beings, then there can be only one such. And it would inevitably become world-wide; even if there might be cost barriers, or cultural or logistical difficulties, that tend to hinder some longer-distance trades.

But there’s no free market in existence today on our planet. For political governments make screeds of often capricious legislation, restricting what goods or services people may buy or sell, or denying access to a market for certain people. Moreover, tariff barriers or even sanctions hinder trade across the arbitrary boundaries of political states. Even where so called “free trade areas” exist, trade is hardly free. Usually, such “free trade” means merely that governments have agreed not to impose certain tariffs on each other’s products or services. And there’s often a price to be paid by traders – for example, compliance with EU standards.

So, how would the free market look – if it existed? Plainly, in such a set up, individuals, companies and other societies are able to trade freely with each other. For the benefit of all honest parties, such trade should take place within a framework of just governance. Such a framework can make sane and sensible rules to help keep the market free. It can prohibit activities that provably do, or are intended to do, significant harm to others. And it can judge disputes, assess compensation, and impose just penalties on those that deserve them.

But in the free market, there are no political obstacles placed in the way of provision of goods or services. Nor are there any political restrictions on what people may seek to trade for, or on whom individuals and societies may seek to trade with. Nor are there any tariffs or taxes beyond what is necessary to support the framework of governance.

Discrimination

The free market allows people to trade with whom they wish. By the same token, it must also allow people to choose not to trade with those they do not want to. Thus all individuals and societies must have the right to discriminate, if they wish, among those with whom they trade. A Christian baker, for example, isn’t required to bake a cake for a gay wedding if he doesn’t want to. Nor are company bosses to be required to hire women, Irish people, Muslims or convicted criminals if they don’t want to.

On the other hand, if a trader chooses to discriminate on such grounds, it’s only reasonable that potential clients or suppliers must know about it in advance. Not only will this avoid unnecessary effort and embarrassment for those who would be refused. But it also enables those of us, who disapprove of particular forms of discrimination such as racism, to choose to shun those that use those forms. Thus, these discriminators may find their own weapons being turned back on them.

Furthermore, collusion to exclude particular people or groups from the market, or to render the market less free, is a violation of the rights of the victims, and should be punishable. And most of all when it is done, as today, by organizations like corporations and political governments.

Capitalism

On to the vexed subject of capitalism. At one level, capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, and by investments that are determined by private decision.” At that level, it is often contrasted with socialism, which in the restricted sense is “collective or governmental ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.” On these definitions, I can’t see why anyone other than a statist or a doctrinaire socialist could possibly object to capitalism. And the case against this idea of socialism is particularly strong for those of us, for whom our means of production are our minds.

But my own definition of capitalism is a wider one. I see it as the condition, in which no-one is prevented from justly acquiring or justly using wealth. For me, capitalism thus includes, and goes beyond, the free market. It allows individuals and groups not only to trade freely, but also to enjoy the fruits of what they earn through that trade. And is it not fair and just, that those who create more wealth than others should enjoy more wealth in return?

Politics and “capitalism”

And yet, the political system we suffer under today is nowhere near capitalism, in the sense in which I just described it. First, and most obviously, there is taxation. I will have much to say about taxation later; so, for now, I will make just one point. The heavy, progressive taxation on incomes, that is favoured by virtually all political governments today, is a socially conservative force. It prevents those who have little or no capital, but who can earn good incomes, from accumulating enough capital to be able to do more. Thus it makes it hard for people, who are not already rich, to get their economic careers off the ground; and unnecessarily hard for people to lift themselves out of poverty. In contrast, it favours those who already have capital. And particularly those who have so much capital that they don’t need to earn much income.

Then there are political agendas, that adversely affect the world economy, and thus move the market away from freedom and true capitalism. For example, the agenda that seeks to force replacement of cheap, reliable energy sources such as coal, oil and gas by expensive, unreliable “renewables” like solar and wind; as well as to slow or to prevent the use of nuclear power. Not only do such policies make just about everything more expensive than it need be. But they also depress the economy by pushing some, or even many, activities over the line from potentially profitable to not worth doing.

Another such agenda is the artificially low interest rates, which have been the norm in much of the world for a decade or more. Low interest rates help those in debt (and, in particular, help governments) at the expense of those who want to save, invest and build up a reserve for the future. They make it impossible for investors to keep pace with inflation, without taking risks.

Cronyism and corporatism

Then there’s cronyism. There have long been companies – for example, arms manufacturers – that have been in cahoots with governments. But in recent decades big businesses, both national and international, have more and more been going cap in hand to political governments. They may do this to get subsidies or other advantages for themselves, or to harm their competitors, or to get regulations made that keep new entrants out of the market. The effects of these activities are to unjustly enrich those that do them, and to restrict opportunities for the victims of the resulting bad laws. The establishment and their media like to present all this as if it was a failure of capitalism. When, in reality, these activities have nothing to do with capitalism at all.

Then there’s corporatism. This goes further than cronyism, and seeks to use money and financial manipulations to influence, and to seek to control, political parties and their policies. Or even to de-stablilize national currencies for selfish ends. And the usual suspects like to make out – falsely, of course – that this, too, is the fault of private ownership of the means of production.

Poor treatment of workers

One of the sharpest criticisms of capitalism is of the shoddy way in which it acts towards working people. No doubt, there is truth in this. I myself have seen company managers treat their staff, not as thinking and feeling human beings, but as resources to be used, exploited and (metaphorically, if not actually) shat upon. And certainly there have been many capitalists that have made themselves rich, while paying their workers far less than they would be worth in a truly free market.

In recent decades, recessions and political pressures have made many companies concentrate on this year’s “bottom line” at the expense of almost all else. And growing cronyism and corporatism tend to make large companies, in particular, treat their people (and their small suppliers) badly. But all that said, these problems are not the fault of capitalism per se. They are the fault of particular individuals or groups, that have let their own selfishness override justice, and the rights of those who work for them.

Externalities and Risk

Another criticism levied against capitalism is that, as a by-product of economic activity, bad things happen. Economists call these unintended, damaging effects “externalities.” Pollution and noise are two examples. But these problems, again, have nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, the real problem is that governments too often allow those, who cause damage to others in these ways, to get away with it. In a sane, objective system of governance, those that cause such externalities – including government itself – would be made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer.

Then there is the much touted idea that capitalism causes scarcity; for example, by using up natural resources like coal or oil. That isn’t consistent with the facts, at least from the Industrial Revolution up to the present. The trend has always been that, absent political interference, the resources we need have tended to become more abundant, and cheaper in real terms. For, if a natural resource starts to become scarce, its price goes up. That in turn will spur capitalists to seek better ways of finding or extracting it, or to develop better alternatives to replace it.

Then there’s the troublesome matter of risk. All activities have risks, both to those who do them and to others. And economic activities are no exception. Those with agendas of control like to make out that capitalism causes serious and unnecessary risks to health, safety and the like. But as with externalities, this is not a failure of capitalism, but of government. In a sane system, those who want to engage in activities which cause risk to others would be held accountable. They would not be allowed to take risks which are objectively unreasonable. As to more reasonable risks, they would be required to have sufficient resources available (for example, through insurance) to be able to compensate those harmed, if damage did result from the risk.

There is also risk that is inherent in the financial system itself. Capitalism often gets blamed for the boom-bust cycle that has been characteristic of the world economy, particularly over the last 50 years or so. But the real culprit is not capitalism, but irresponsibility and dishonesty. Many bankers and others in the financial sector have increasingly become gamblers. Perhaps they feel that they are “too big to fail,” and will be bailed out by their government friends if things go wrong. This is compounded by the stock market, which – while indispensable in its role of matching those with money to invest with those deserving of investment – often seems like little more than a glorified gambling game.

The problem here is not so much that every so often, gamblers fail; for if they didn’t want to take that risk, they shouldn’t have gambled in the first place. The real problem is that the knock-on effect of a financial gamble that fails can affect everyone in very negative ways, such as losing their deposits in banks. And it can ruin even those, who have never taken a financial gamble in their lives. In reality, the problem is the failure of governments to hold those in the financial sector accountable for the risks they impose on others.

Growth

Lastly, there’s a meme doing the rounds today that economic growth is not a good thing, but a bad one; and that everyone should abandon the idea of growth. As so often, this meme is being peddled by the usual establishment and media suspects. And it’s clear that those promoting it do not have the interests of productive, honest people at heart. Nor do they have any concern for the people in poor countries, for whom growth of world trade is a lifeline, which can help them to lift themselves out of poverty. This meme, I think, is merely another side-swipe by those that hate capitalism, and the earned prosperity it brings to those who use it well.

Individuals, if they wish, may of course choose not to take part in what they see as an economic “rat race.” If they prefer more leisure time or a less stressful life, and in return they are happy to accept a reduced standard of living, that is their choice. What is wrong, though, is if they have power to deny other people the right to make their own choices on this issue. Or to lay a claim on those, who have chosen to be productive and to suffer the penalties that implies, to help them if their own choice turns out to have been a bad one.

To sum up

The free market is the environment, in which honest, productive people can interact to maximum effect in order to create prosperity. But it doesn’t exist today. And true capitalism, the condition in which no-one is prevented from justly acquiring or justly using wealth, would be an immense benefit to all good people. If, that is, it was allowed to flourish.

The criticisms, that are commonly made of capitalism, are mostly wrong. Some are about failings of individuals and groups, that have chosen to follow private ownership of the means of production. These do not invalidate capitalism as a system. The rest merely either pander to agendas, or highlight bad actions by political governments and their corporate cronies.

Fourteen Questions on World Government

Just recently, I came across a proposal for “world democracy” and a “planetary social contract,” made by Fernando Alcoforado, a Brazilian professor. Here it is:

http://writerbeat.com/articles/20911-HOW-TO-ELIMINATE-WAR-IN-THE-WORLD

Now, I’m entirely in favour of eliminating war from our planet. But I didn’t much like his solution, or the way he put it forward. I interacted with him a couple of times, then decided I ought to set out my own, strongly dissenting, views. And, being the cynic I am, I put them in the form of questions about how his ideas might work when put into effect.

So, I put forward fourteen questions about Fernando’s proposals for world democracy and a planetary social contract. Here they are:

A few questions on the planetary social contract...

1. Who will write it?

2. How will it be agreed?

3. Who will be allowed the opportunity to sign it, or to choose not to sign it?

4. What will happen to those individuals who refuse to agree to it?

5. Will individuals later be able to repudiate the contract on the grounds that it has failed to deliver what they were promised?

...and about your planetary government, too.

6. It seems that your vision still allows for national governments, but they will be subservient to the planetary government. Would individuals unjustly harmed by national governments be able to go to the planetary government for relief and compensation?

7. Would the planetary government require all national borders to be open?

8. Would individuals be able to vote for members of the planetary government? Or would only “representatives” of those in power in one nation or another have a right to vote?

9. If the planetary government itself fails to keep to its side of the planetary social contract, how will those harmed by such a breach obtain compensation?

10. Will the planetary government hold officials of national governments accountable for the effects of their actions?

11. Will officials of the planetary government be held personally accountable for the effects of their actions, in the same way as anyone else?

12. How would a planetary government avoid the forcible imposition of the customs of a majority culture on members of minority cultures? For example:

12a. If Muslims – for example – were to become a worldwide majority, would the planetary government allow them to set and to enforce a worldwide ban on the eating of pork or the consumption of alcohol? If not, how would it prevent them?

12b. If a majority, either globally or in one country, desired the removal of a minority culture – for example, Jews or Catalans – would the planetary government allow them to commit genocide against that minority?

13. What would happen if a policy imposed by the planetary government was later shown to have been wrong? For example, if green policies imposed on the pretext of “defending the planet’s interests” were shown to have been based on fraudulent pseudo “science?”

14. If there are enclaves that resist the power of the planetary government, would that government have the right to make war against the people in them?

Fernando hasn’t answered yet. I hope our discussion continues over there...

On Our Current Crisis

(Neil’s Note: It’s very rare that I feel the need to elevate a comment I’ve made on someone else’s site to a full post. But this comment is a bit special. I made it here: http://writerbeat.com/articles/20783-Hell-in-a-Handbasket-and-Why-We-re-Going-There-Guaranteed-Sort-of-. I’ve slightly adapted it to make it stand alone.)

Societies ebb and flow. Ancient Egypt, the Minoans, Chinese dynasties, the Persians, classical Greece and Rome, the Moravian empire and many others, have risen and fallen. In more recent times, the British and other European colonial empires have failed, as did the Soviet Union. And their replacements, the American empire and the EU, are teetering on the brink of their own declines. Maybe the Chinese will be next in line?

But I think there’s more going on than just this. We as a species have also been through several mental and attitudinal changes, particularly in the last few centuries. And these have left their marks. I think in particular of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the modern computer and communications revolution. Each has given us a push forward, and none of them could have happened without the earlier ones. But all of these revolutions are, as yet, incomplete.

Now, the top-down, collectivist political system we suffer under today has its roots way back in ancient Greece. And its modern form, the Westphalian nation state, comes out of a 16th century attempt to shore up the power of the French king. It should hardly come as a surprise, then, that the system is set up to favour the powerful, their minions and their rich cronies at the expense of everyone else. So it’s plain, to me at least, that the current political set-up – of states, nations, arbitrary borders, politicians, sham “democracy,” bad laws, lies and propaganda, bureaucracies, taxes and wars – is way past its last use by date. And that revolutionary change is necessary, and soon.

What sets our current crisis apart from earlier ones is that it is global in scope. That means that the solutions, too, have to be global in scope. But the current political system is by its nature unequipped to do anything on a global scale, except making war. (Indeed, it is by its nature unequipped to do anything nett constructive at all). So the only “solution” that seems to be on offer from the establishment and their cohorts, is a world-wide green socialist totalitarianism. Something like a combination of the worst features of the Soviet Union, the EU and the UN. That isn’t acceptable to any free thinking human being.

There are a number of strands to the problem. The environmental, the political and the financial, at least. Now, I’m highly disinclined to believe any of the green hooey. I’ve looked into the “climate change” scare closely enough to know that it’s a fabrication. I know that overpopulation is a non-problem except, perhaps, in some Muslim countries and in Africa. Globally in 2016, only 105 countries out of 224 had fertility rates above the replacement level. I don’t fear resource depletion, in the short term at least. For I see human ingenuity and the market price mechanism as sufficient to spur better ways of obtaining resources (e.g. fracking), or at need the development of alternatives. As to endangered species, I see an immense lack of hard, trustworthy facts to back up the scare. And none of the species I have contact with seem to be endangered! The one “environmental” issue that is genuinely worrying is the parlous state of the power grids in much of the Western world. Yet this has been directly caused by bad energy policies, that in turn were spawned (intentionally?) by bad green politics.

And there’s a lot of hubris among the ruling classes. After all, they are the beneficiaries of a system that doesn’t hold them responsible for the effects on others of what they do. They also encourage misleading information, misperceptions and ignorance. Indeed, propaganda, lack of clarity and suppression of the facts seem to be characteristic of failed and failing systems.

The instability of the world financial system is another problem. But this, also, is down to failure of the current political system. For it allows its favourites to treat finance as a glorified gambling game, in which they can’t lose in the long run. If anything goes wrong, they will be bailed out with wealth stolen from the masses. The problem is, if continued, eventually there will come a point when no-one has any wealth left to bail them out. In my view, this and power grid failure are the only two of the popular scares that are really worth worrying about.

In the words of Lenin, “What is to be done?” The only answer I can come up with is, “Whatever each of us can.” The visionary part of me foresees that we can get through this Problemenzeit. But huge changes will be necessary. For the future I foresee, not one giant, complex society, but many small, simple ones, networked in a web of trade. I foresee a move, from today’s top-down command-and-control style societies, to bottom-up ones which allow far more freedom for, and take far more account of, the individual.

Perhaps I may be unduly optimistic. But I see a good possibility of change, soon (indeed, it may be already partly here), of a similar kind and scale to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Perhaps it can help us get back on track, and complete the earlier revolutions? But the only way such a change can come about is through the changing of minds; which, in its turn, can only come from thought, writing and the dissemination of same.

Revolution begins in your mind.

On Business and the Economy

Business – honest business, that is – is beautiful. For it isn’t just being busy; it’s being busy with a purpose. And that purpose is to create well-being. There is no nobler human activity than delivering what others are voluntarily willing to pay for.

In my earlier essays, I’ve deliberately kept away from economics. This is the first of a new set, in which I plan to rectify that.

Trade

I’ll begin with the context, in which all economic activity takes place. All of us have needs and desires – for food and other basics, for goods and services, for pleasant experiences. And we all have resources too. Our time and energy, our skills and knowhow, our possessions and tools, our savings, are all resources we can use to get our needs and desires satisfied. And the mechanism, through which we exchange resources for satisfactions, is trade.

For trade to go beyond barter, some form of money is necessary. Money offers three benefits to trade. First, as a generally accepted medium of exchange. Second, as a unit of account, to measure the market value of goods or services. And third, as a store of value.

One further thing is necessary to support trade between disparate individuals and groups. That is, a system of objective justice, which at need can hold to account those that cause damage to others, try to cheat others, or dishonestly fail to keep to their side of a bargain.

In such conditions, honest individuals will seek to create and to offer a flow of wealth to others. And, in return, they will receive a corresponding flow of wealth from the honest people they trade with. From any such trade, as long as there is no fraud or coercion involved, each party will expect to gain a nett benefit. For if not, why would they have agreed to the trade in the first place? Thus, an economy based on honest trade increases the overall well-being of all parties. And it provides for good people not only satisfaction of needs and desires, but also incentive to develop their talents further, and opportunities to create more well-being.

The economic ideal

I’ll describe how the human economy ought to be, by means of a thought experiment. Picture, if you will, a rolling, grassy plain at dusk. And, standing on that plain, many human beings. A few hundred, or a thousand, should suffice. Now imagine that some, or several, or many, of those human beings are emitting, like great candles, a glow of bright light. Watch, now, as that light reaches other human beings on that plain. Each absorbs some of the light which reaches them. And, in their turn, they start to emit light, and to glow; some more brightly, some less.

Imagine, for a moment – only – that each of the human beings in this chain gives out only half as much light as they take in. What will happen? The light will slowly fade and die. If there is to be more light, it must come from outside.

But now imagine that each human being contributes at least as much as he or she takes out. What happens? The light grows gradually brighter and brighter, until it’s as bright as day. Imagine the people on that rolling plain, all creating well-being and fulfilling themselves. See them happy, smiling and bathed in light! Now that’s what I call a sustainable economy.

Productivity

So, how can each of us produce light? The productive careers, which we can follow, are of many kinds. But I classify the avenues, by which we can create wealth, under five headings: Business, Genius, Science, Improvement, Support.

The biggest group in numerical terms are Business people. Business is the provision of goods or services, for which other people are voluntarily willing to pay. And the productive people in this category divide into several types. First, there are the workers or producers. These are the people at the sharp end, who directly deliver the services or make the goods. Second, there are the skilled workers, who apply their skills and creativity to productive tasks which others cannot do. For example, accountancy, quality assurance, or designing new products or services. Third, there are the entrepreneurs and managers, who take on the task of making things happen, and who organize themselves and others to produce.

I find honest entrepreneurs to be especially valuable to the economy. Now, many seem to think that the value of a piece of work depends only on the amount, and perhaps the quality, of the labour put into it. Yet this Marxian “labour theory of value” is an obvious crock. For, as the proverb has it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and thus, value is in the mind of the buyer. But what an entrepreneur does is create an environment, in which people can live their economic lives as if the labour theory of value was the truth. He takes on himself the lion’s share of the risk in his projects. And so he enables his workers, at much reduced risk to themselves, to share in the benefits of business.

Genius is the second, and the rarest, of the ways to create wealth. Among people of this category in the past, I might name Archimedes, or Mozart, or Henry Ford. Geniuses come in all shapes and sizes, but they all have three things in common. They’re creative. They’re ahead of their times. And they change for the better some aspect of the world, just by doing what they do.

The third of my headings is Science. Science, in a nutshell, is the use of reason to investigate reality, and so to add to the store of objective human knowledge. Those who create wealth through Science include many who are called scientists. But they also include those who seek understanding in other disciplines, for example archaeology or economics.

The fourth category is Improvement, the process of advancing human capabilities. One form of Improvement is education, leading out and elevating individuals’ talents. Another is engineering; that is, designing things which can benefit human beings, and making them work. A third is technology, which in the broad sense is making things possible which weren’t possible before. Those who create wealth through Improvement include those with a yen to make individuals, or humanity as a whole, more capable. Or who seek new, better ways to do things.

The last of my five categories is Support. This is an indirect means of creating wealth. A good example of Support is what a housewife does in a traditional marriage. By providing a comfortable, loving and supportive environment for her husband and family, she enables him to be more effective in his own wealth creation. But Support is common in the economy as well. An internal company accountant, for example, does not directly create any wealth. Yet he contributes to the success of his company, by analyzing and providing information valuable to others in that company.

To be effective in creating well-being in these ways, individuals must act in good faith, with honesty and integrity. They must avoid lies, cheating and deception. They must always do their best to fulfil their freely made promises. They must strive to give out, over the long term, at least as much value as they take in. These people are the truly productive, the nett emitters of light.

Co-operation and Competition

Two important facets of honest business are co-operation and competition. These are not opposites, as some would have it, but two sides of the same coin.

In co-operation, people work together, with each participant supplying his or her own skills, energy and work ethic. The result of such teamwork is, frequently, greater than the sum of its parts. For individuals have different, and often complementary, skills and abilities. Some, for example, find it easiest to work on one job at a time; whereas others can more easily switch between tasks. Some are creative, or can think “outside the box.” Others are more structured and focused in their thinking. And some have a natural ability to lead others.

The second facet is competition. Some like to pooh-pooh competition, framing it as something negative, like beating off rivals. But true competition is about striving to make ourselves more effective at whatever it is we do. I’ll summarize competition in four imperatives:

1. Do it better.
   
2. Do it quicker.
   
3. Do it cheaper.
   
4. Do what others can’t.
   

And the last of these is the most important. For it unlocks the key driver of economic progress: innovation.

The economic reality

To return to my earlier thought experiment. Everyone knows that the world economy, as it is today, isn’t like a spreading light. Far from becoming bright as day, such light as there is stutters and sputters; and sometimes seems about to go out. Many people find their work no longer fulfilling. It becomes a chore or a boring grind. Better opportunities, which ought to be there, aren’t. And some people become sidelined entirely. So, why isn’t the economy as it ought to be?

One possible reason presents itself. Look closer at the individuals on that rolling, grassy plain. Among the producers of light, you will find dark figures. These are people who are too young or too old to produce, or who are ill, injured, or mentally or physically disabled. These dark figures consume light, but they can’t generate light. Could these people be the reason why the light doesn’t spread as it should?

Look closer yet at those who generate the light. Many of them, you will find, produce far more than they consume. If they do enough, their extra productivity can make up for the presence of the dark figures. These productive individuals can and will support the load, as long as they have confidence that, over the long run, they themselves will at least break even. For no-one can reasonably grudge re-paying those who have helped them in the past, or investing in those who will help them in the future. And as to the disabled: “there, but for the grace of god, go I.”

But look closer again, and you will find, mixed in with the radiant producers and the dark non-producers, a third kind of individual. Like the others, they consume light. But instead of adding to the economy by being productive in their turn, they seek to damage or even to destroy it. It is as if they are trying to douse our light with some foul substance.

These “dousers,” as I call them, act in bad faith. Some of them scheme to take out of the economy far more than they put in. Some use their technical or communication skills to present a false picture of reality. Some feed off a gravy train of tax money, but bring no benefit to the people who are forced to pay that money. Some engage in political schemes, including fanning wars and raising trade barriers. Some steal other people’s resources for their own pet projects. Some seek to make economic life difficult for people they don’t like.

But perhaps the worst of the dousers are those that seek to undermine the very foundations of the economy. They raise alarms about scarcity of resources. Yet they ignore the natural mechanism of market price, which encourages better ways of producing scarce resources, or at need the development of alternatives. They raise scares about pollution, global warming, health or safety, problems or other bad side effects of economic activity. Yet, instead of proving their case and seeking to make perpetrators compensate their victims, they want to douse the whole economy in a foul sea of taxes and red tape. Some of them even pooh-pooh the entire idea of a productive economy, giving it pejorative labels like “injustice,” “inequality” and “consumerism.”

Now, look at the people in those places, where the dousers have contrived to suppress the light. You will find yet a fourth kind of individual. They are not dousers; they are not evil or destructive. Like the non-producers, these individuals are dark. But they are not dark because they are too young, or too old, or ill, or injured, or disabled. They are dark, because the light does not reach them. They have no opportunity to take part in the world economy. There’s a name for these people; they are called the poor. The world’s poor are the ultimate victims of the dousers.

To sum up

All of us must trade with others to get our needs satisfied. Trade, money and an objective justice system are pre-requisites for a workable economy of many disparate people.

Everyone, who is able to deliver well-being to others, has an obligation to do so. Each of us can do this in many ways. For example: productive work, entrepreneurship, science, or improving or supporting others’ capabilities. We should co-operate with others, and strive to improve our own abilities. And we must always act in good faith, with honesty and integrity.

But among us there are those – I call them dousers – that fail to measure up to these obligations, and seek to damage our economy rather than contribute to it. Dousers are the ones that are responsible for today’s economic troubles, including poverty.

Quarks

Another offering from the Darn-Poor Rhymer. Hat tips to Aristophanes for his comedy “The Frogs,” and to Murray Gell-Mann who found the word “quark” in James Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake.”

For we’re elementary Quarks,
We sing in croaks, chirrups and barks;
We first found our voice
In the works of James Joyce,
And we follow the doctrines of Marx.

You’ll never find one of us free;
We’ve only one pronoun, that’s “we.”
Throughout the infinity
We’re found as a trinity;
We’re three in one, and one in three.

We’ve one-third or two-thirds the charge
Of electrons or protons at large;
And our antiquarks fine,
Though of negative sign,
Can reside with us in our ménages.

We come in six different flavours,
And these are the names Gell-Mann gave us:
Down and up, charmed and strange,
Top and bottom. Our range
Is like minims, to crochets, to quavers.

Our colours are red, green and blue;
But we don’t show our colours to you.
We always self-tether
In groups that together
Are colourless. Flavourless, too!

We’re like Aristophanes’ Frogs,
Who inhabit the marshes and bogs.
“Brekekex” is our cry;
We go forth, multiply,
Then we’re everywhere. Even on blogs.

A jocular lot, are we Quarks.
And one of our favourite larks
Is in chorus to shriek
As we holler, in Greek,
“Brekekex! Brekekex! Quarks! Quarks! Quarks!”

On Uppers and Downers

Today, I’m going to write about philosophy. I’ll tell you how I interpret the ideas of the sages of the past, and I’ll outline my own views on the subject.

In doing so, I’ll describe the battle between what I call Uppers and Downers. This pits people like me, who build our thinking and our world view from the bottom up, against those whose view is top down. It can also be seen as a conflict between individualism and socialism, liberty and tyranny, or reasonable people and troublemakers. I see this as the battle of our times.

Context

This is the final essay of a set of twelve, which lay out the foundations of my thinking. I’ll briefly re-cap the main points from my earlier essays.

I began with equality. I made the case that all individuals are morally equal, and that all should be politically equal and not subjected to others. I gave my view of justice: the condition in which each individual is treated, over the long run and in the round, as he or she treats others. I discussed rights, which are the same for everyone, and come from our nature. And I put forward the idea that rights and ethical obligations are two sides of the same coin.

I introduced Belgian philosopher Frank van Dun’s idea of the convivial order. This is a framework for living, in which people interact without regard to their membership of, or status in, any particular society. I sketched, in outline, a code of convivial conduct, independent of any particular society or culture.

Next, I looked at the idea of community among human beings, and found six levels. From the bottom up: The individual. The partnership. The family. The marketplace. Societies. And at the top, the convivial order or convivial community. I focused in on societies, and concluded that many disparate forms of voluntary society can fit within the framework of the convivial order. But when I looked at political societies, I found that we’re living under a centuries old, failed political system, that isn’t compatible with the convivial order. Most – if not all – of the political ideologies it harbours, except for Enlightenment liberalism, are destructive in their effects. And the sham called democracy, far from helping, tends to make things worse.

I looked at how we seek knowledge, and I looked in particular at science. Science is a method for discovering knowledge, but only if it is done honestly and without bias. Lastly, I looked at the environmentalist agenda. I uncovered its corruption of the precautionary principle, and inversion of the burden of proof. And I revealed a mind set, common among greens and their cohorts. They want to impose their agendas on everyone through government power. And they show little or no interest in ethical behaviour, personal responsibility, truth or reason.

Philosophy

Western philosophy springs from ancient Greece. Much of it has its origin in the ideas of Aristotle and his teacher Plato. Philosophy is divided into a number of branches, which have been given daunting Greek names like Epistemology, Ethics and Politics.

Several of my friends have been influenced by the Russian born American thinker Ayn Rand. And I’ve known a number of devotees of her philosophy, which she called Objectivism. But I’m not myself a Randian. Indeed, I’ve found some of her disciples a bit nutty. I’m also unimpressed that her followers have sought to make her philosophy into a closed system; like a church whose dogma may not be changed or even questioned.

Nonetheless, I do think Rand had some good ideas. In particular, she took five of the branches of ancient Greek philosophy, and arranged them like a layer cake, in which each layer builds on the ones below it. I think this model is very good; though I’m not sure how much of it was original with Rand. Beyond Rand, I’ve also been influenced by some of the ideas of an apostate former Randian, whose pen name is Jason Alexander.

In Rand’s model, the lowest layer is Metaphysics. Its subject matter is the nature of reality. Next comes Epistemology. This is about how we know what we know, and how we learn it. Third is Ethics, which is about how we as individuals should act, and the nature of right and wrong. Fourth comes Politics, which Jason Alexander has re-interpreted as Civilization. This is, or ought to be, about the institutions we should build to enable people to live together in a convivial manner. When done right, the result will be order. That is, Frank van Dun’s convivial order.

The fifth and highest layer was originally known as Aesthetics, and was about beauty and art. But clearly, it’s a lot more than that. Jason Alexander, rightly I think, has named it Creativity. I regard this layer as being about how we should use our natural creativity to maximum effect. Thus I include in it, not only beauty and art, but also business and other ways in which individuals, and associations of individuals, can bring benefit to each other.

My own philosophy

I call my philosophical system Honest Common Sense. Four years ago, I wrote and self published a short book describing it. But unlike Objectivists, I regard any system of ideas as always provisional. Any philosophy worth the name must be able to evolve, and to absorb new ideas and new understandings. And my own system, over the last four years, has done just that.

I now base my system more closely on the five-layer model of Ayn Rand and Jason Alexander. But I add a condition that the hierarchy must be strict; each layer must build on those below it, not depend on the layers above it. You can only work upwards through the layers, never downwards. So, half tongue in cheek, I now give my system an alternative label: Upperism.

In particular (and contrary to what I said in the book), I now see that you can’t build a decent civilization unless and until individuals relate to each other according to a decent ethics. And you can’t make creativity work fully until you have built a workable civilization to underpin it.

Metaphysics

I’ll start with the bottom layer, Metaphysics. The difficulty here is that there is no direct access to this layer through our senses. As Werner Heisenberg put it: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Because of this, nothing in metaphysics can be proved. Ideas can only be judged by the conclusions they lead to in higher layers.

For me, metaphysics must seek to answer three sets of questions. First, the nature of the physical universe: “What’s out there?” Second, the nature of consciousness and humanity: “What am I?” And third, the big picture: “What’s it all about?”

Here’s my take on the physical sub-layer. There is only one reality, even though different individuals have differing views of it. Although many statements can’t be easily tested for truth or falsehood, and some are neither true nor false, truth exists and is objective. And that is so even when particular truths are unknown, or poorly understood, or wrongly apprehended, either by one individual or by many. As an Upper, I find the idea that truth is objective to be key. And I contrast it with Downer ideas such as that truth is relative to a culture, or that there are no facts.

As to humanity, Jason Alexander calls us “the Identity who Identifies.” We certainly are that; we are seekers of truth. But, in addition, we are individuals. We have free will. We are moral agents. It is in our nature to behave convivially, to form societies, to build civilization, and to be creative. And for Uppers like me, humans are naturally good, even though some among us fail to develop that nature. This I contrast with Downer notions like the doctrine of original sin, or the idea that we are a blight on the planet.

As to the big picture, many hold this to be the province of religion. But for me, religion isn’t amenable to reason. And therefore the only sane attitude to it is tolerance towards those who offer similar tolerance in return. Uppers generally see religion as a personal choice, and accept that some have different religions from their own. Downers, in contrast, often slavishly parrot someone else’s religion. And many of them like to proselytize, or to persecute heretics.

Epistemology

The layer called Epistemology is about how we use our minds to seek understanding and identify truths. Truths can be physical or scientific; or they can be ethical, political or (rarely) aesthetic.

We build, inside our minds, a picture or model of reality in the area of interest. The way I see it is that, from our sensory experiences, we build up specific thoughts (percepts), then generalize them into more abstract thoughts (concepts). We use logic to combine concepts into a bigger picture. As part of this process, we use our reason to check the results of our thinking against reality, either by testing them, or comparing them with what we already know. And when our model has successfully been through this validation process, we regard its conclusions as provisionally true, and add them to our store of knowledge. We can regard such knowledge as being true, until new evidence leads us to re-examine it.

Uppers seek, whenever possible, to understand the facts of an issue. In contrast, Downers usually start with a narrative, which may or may not correspond to reality. More often than not, their narrative is a pessimistic one. They rarely miss an opportunity to hype a problem. And they are often reluctant to change their narrative, even when the facts contradict it. Those that continue to spew out such a narrative in the face of the facts are, to say the least, mendacious.

Ethics

Many people think of ethical principles as intimately associated with religion. And, in particular, with the Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. But I disagree. I see it as perfectly feasible to set out and to follow a code of ethical obligations, without needing to subscribe to any one religion.

In my view, there is a core of ethical principles, which arise from our nature as convivial beings. I equate this core with Frank van Dun’s “laws of conviviality.” For me, Man is not a political animal as Aristotle had it, but a convivial animal. For more on my ethical ideas, I refer you to my earlier essays on Rights and Convivial Conduct. But I still have a lot of work to do in this area.

Here too, there’s a big difference between Uppers and Downers. Most Uppers think of right and wrong as objective. In difficult or borderline cases, they generally do what they perceive as being right. Uppers know that they are individuals, and that others are too. Further, they apply their ideas of right and wrong to their own actions, as well as to the actions of others. They accept responsibility for the effects on others of their own voluntary actions. They are peaceful, unless attacked. And they value human rights. Uppers, therefore, usually behave reasonably (occasional lapses notwithstanding). And they seek to behave with honesty, with integrity, and with empathy towards those who deserve it.

Many Downers, on the other hand, seem to think – in post-modern fashion – that right and wrong are not objective, but relative to some particular culture. They like to make trouble for others. They condone violence, or other violations of rights, when it suits their interests. And they show little or no sense of personal responsibility. They often tell us that “we” (whatever that means) must take some action; yet they themselves fail to do, or even to contribute to, any such action. Or they condemn those who do something, yet themselves do that same thing and continue to do it. So, many Downers habitually act in bad faith, make trouble, and behave as hypocrites.

Civilization

Civilization is a framework for living. In contrast to today’s failed political societies, I favour a framework based on Frank van Dun’s convivial order. And the main purpose of the institutions of civilization must be to deliver justice. By that, I mean objective, individual justice; in which each of us is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.

For me, all the functions of any decent system of government – which I have listed as the maintenance of peace, just resolution of disputes and defence of rights – are aspects of this justice. I see government as like a referee or umpire. It keeps the game of life flowing, and holds those who cause damage to others responsible for their own share of that damage. It has no “will,” and no political ideology. For more about my views on this subject, please see my earlier essays, and in particular those on Justice, Rights and Societies.

As with the lower layers, there’s a big difference between Uppers and Downers in their views of justice and of what government is for. Uppers want the minimum of government, consistent with the maintenance of peace and objective justice. They want low taxes and an economic free market. And they see violence or war, except in self defence, as anathema.

Downers, on the other hand, prefer a large, powerful and active government. They see it as an agency for implementing the political policies they favour; including war, when it benefits themselves or their government. They want an economic system that is biased in favour of themselves, their friends and their political supporters. And they like heavy and re-distributive taxation. Moreover, their idea of justice is not an objective, individual one, but seems usually to be some ill defined idea of “fairness” or “social justice.”

Creativity

A de-politicized framework for convivial living, I expect, will enable not only world-wide peace, but also a flowering of human creativity. Not just in writing, art, music and the like; but also in the economy. In my essays so far, I have deliberately refrained from writing about economic matters. I haven’t discussed business, the free market, capitalism, or what flows from them. I plan to rectify that in the future.

But I’ll give a taster here. In a civilization which maintains peace and justice and defends the rights of every individual, each of us will be free to make of our creativity what we can. We may choose to work on our own to deliver things people want, or to work in teams to deliver them. We may seek to add to human knowledge. We may seek to solve problems, and to open up new opportunities. We may develop, or help to develop, new ideas and technologies. We may seek to improve human capabilities through education and good teaching. Or, closer to home, we may focus on helping and supporting those who devote their efforts to any of these things. In summary, each of us will create as much wealth and well-being as we can. We will build a better world. And each of us will enjoy all the rewards we earn.

Downerism

I’m an unabashed, unashamed, unmitigated Upper. In particular, for me, thinking must be based on reality, and politics on ethics. But among us today there are many adherents of the opposite way of thinking, which I dub Downerism.

The most virulent Downers have a vision of how things should be; but they don’t want to build their dreams from the bottom up. Instead, they formulate a political agenda, then seek to impose it on others. Some of these agendas are obviously evil and tyrannical. For example: a world ruled over by communism, a world without Jews or non-Aryan races, or a country without a middle class. Even agendas that are not obviously so evil can lead to harmful policies and violation of rights. For example: war on drugs, reducing obesity, or sustainable development. And even a good sounding agenda, like eliminating poverty or preserving wildlife, can still cause much harm to innocent people if badly executed. So, instead of living in a climate in which we can unleash our creativity, we are subjected today to the bad agendas of Downers.

Those that have such agendas will seek political power in order to get them implemented. They will join other Downers that also seek power, but for a different reason; to enrich themselves and their buddies. Today’s politics and party system are magnets for Downers of both types. Thus, virtually all politicians today are Downers. As are the corporate cronies that hang off their coat-tails. And democracy is useless to us; for how can any Downer possibly “represent” us Uppers? So, instead of living in a just civilization, we are ruled over by bad and unjust politics.

Political governments make laws. Such laws have no direct link to the code of convivial conduct. They often violate the rights of innocent people. And they require enforcement. So, the ranks of Downers swell with armies of bureaucrats and other enforcers. And the worst of them use their power to make trouble for people. So, instead of conviviality, we suffer bad laws and hassles.

Any such system requires propaganda to sustain it. The Downers in the media, and their hangers-on like “celebrities,” oblige. Thus we find ourselves suffocating in a mental atmosphere of lies, deceptions, fake or misleading news, and hype. We are bombarded with an incessant stream of politically correct narrative, which makes it hard for many people to identify facts and truth.

At the bottom of the pyramid, the foot soldiers of Downerism operate on faith. Some of them fail to detect the propaganda in the narrative. Some of them think that laws are right, just because some bunch of politicians made them. Some of them feel an attachment to the politics of a particular nation. Some of them are taken in by a particular agenda or agendas. But all of them are Downers; and so, all of them are a down on us. As long as they are blind to reality and to right and wrong, they are a drain on, and a danger to, us and our human civilization.

To sum up

The battle of our times isn’t between the political right and left, but between Uppers and Downers. Uppers are naturally peaceful, respect facts, are tolerant of difference, and try to behave reasonably and with empathy, honesty, and integrity. They want minimal government and objective justice. And they want to build a better world for all good people.

Downers, on the other hand, are intolerant. They want to impose their agendas on others through bad laws and taxation. And they see nothing wrong in violence or war when it suits them. Moreover, they disdain facts in favour of narrative and propaganda. And they often lie, hype problems, act in bad faith, or behave as hypocrites.

Which side are you on?

On Global Warming

Imagine if a visitor from another star came, right now in early 2018, to investigate our planet and our human civilization. What would he think? And what, in particular, would he think about the issue commonly called “global warming” or “climate change?”

I’ll assume that an alien civilization able to reach Earth would have sufficient knowledge of mathematics, physics and chemistry – as well as history and psychology – to understand the issue at least as well as we humans can. And that our visitor would be a predominantly objective and rational being. For I wouldn’t expect that a civilization in which most, or even many, were irrational could last long enough to develop the technology to voyage over interstellar distances.

The accusation

Again and again, so we’re told, the Earth keeps on setting new global temperature records. 2017, or some other recent year, was the second or third hottest evah! But so what, I ask? From roughly the 13th century, the planet was cooling, from a peak at least as warm as today – if not warmer – down to a trough in the 17th century. In the last quarter century or so, it has warmed gently; much as it has been doing for 350 years or so. So, what is there to worry about?

Ah, say the alarmists, it’s all the fault of that deadly “pollutant,” carbon dioxide! CO2 in the atmosphere, put there by human beings through burning fossil fuels, is trapping heat and causing the global temperature to rise – out of control! Ah, woe is us! These CO2 emissions will cause more and worse heat waves! More and worse floods and droughts! More and worse storms and hurricanes! More and more cold and snow! Huge sea level rises and coastal flooding! Children won’t know what snow is! (Nor the meaning of the word oxymoron). It’s unprecedented! And it’s all our fault! We have to act NOW! There’s no time left for “paralysis by analysis!”

At first sight, this ought to be a really easy issue to clear up. Shouldn’t it? All we need do is look at the facts of the case, and judge according to those facts. Either the alarms are justified, or they are not. And that decision can be made objectively, using honest, unbiased science. There shouldn’t be any clash of values between alarmists and skeptics. There shouldn’t be any need to bring politics into it, or to resort to dirty tricks or name-calling.

And yet, what we see is a highly charged rumpus (“debate” is the wrong word), in which virtually the entire political class and their hangers-on are vehemently on the alarmist side. Many ordinary people seem to think the whole issue is unimportant, and prefer to tune out all the hubbub. And those of us, who are and remain unconvinced by the alarmist rhetoric, are showered with pejoratives like “denier,” “heretic” or even “flat earther.”

So first, let’s be clear what the crime we are accused of actually is. The charge is that warming caused by human emissions of CO2 – warming which wouldn’t have happened without those emissions – will, beyond reasonable doubt, bring about the awful catastrophes alarmists so love to wring their hands about. But such a charge demands proof; and proof requires very strong, substantive evidence. So, I say to the alarmists: Prove your case, Sirrahs!

CO2 and warming

Now, there’s a believable scientific hypothesis that says more CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming on a global scale. But how much warming? The direct effect from the “forcing” caused by a doubling of CO2, averaged over the planet, seems to be about 1.2 degrees Celsius (a little over 2 degrees Fahrenheit).

There doesn’t appear to be much dispute between alarmists and skeptics on the size of this direct effect. But does the warming feed back into the system, and cause more warming – or even much more, as the alarmists claim? Or do clouds, for example, reduce the overall warming effect to less than the direct effect of the forcing? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle? The alarmists seem to think the Earth’s climate equilibrium is unstable, not stable or neutral. I don’t find that at all believable, given how long the Earth has supported life.

And then there’s the question: how can we separate out human caused warming from other causes like ocean oscillations and the Sun’s activity? The alarmist position seems to be that “everything we don’t know about is caused by humans.” But surely human emissions of CO2 couldn’t have affected global temperatures before the 20th century? So, what were the causes of the mediaeval warm period and the 17th to 19th century warming? These must be independent of any human activities – must they not? Are those causes still in play? If not, why not? If so, how much of the modern warming is due to those causes, not to human emissions of CO2?

Moreover, as I showed in an earlier essay, the alarmists have taken the precautionary principle of “look before you leap,” and subverted it. They have cunningly moved the goalposts, so as to negate the presumption of innocence, and invert the burden of proof. Then, the alarmists don’t need to take the trouble to prove their case objectively and beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, they require those they accuse of causing catastrophic global warming through CO2 emissions – that’s us – to prove a negative. Doesn’t that suggest they may be behaving in bad faith?

Evaluating the case

To look at the global warming issue objectively, one must follow several strands. First, the science. Is the claim, that human activities cause (or will cause) significant global warming, scientifically sound? Second, the consequences if the accusation was true. How much damage would be caused if human activities were to raise global temperature by, say, one degree Celsius? And wouldn’t modest warming actually be a benefit to humanity? Third, the nature of the organizations promoting the case. Are they honest, independent and unbiased?

The IPCC

I’ll begin with the IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is a United Nations organization. To me at least, that’s an obvious red flag; for the UN has been the primary driver of the green agenda since way back in 1970. The IPCC has issued five reports since 1990, the latest being in 2013. Along with each, there is a “Summary for Policymakers,” which tends to be more alarmist than the technical reports, and to gloss over the scientific uncertainties.

The IPCC reports are supposed to be based on the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subjects they cover. And yet, there have been conclusions stated with “high confidence” that aren’t supported by the scientific literature. And vitally important numbers are missing. For example, the latest report doesn’t even give a best estimate of how much warming the IPCC expect to result from a doubling of CO2!

Moreover, parts of the reports – including the Summary – are approved line by line by government officials. Back in 1996, one section of the Summary was re-worded in a more alarmist way at the request of governments. And the technical reports were then updated to match. That isn’t science!

The data

Beyond all this, there are issues with the quality of the temperature data on which a lot of the alarmist case rests. First of all, the claimed year on year differences in global temperature – of the order of hundredths of a degree – are far less than the error margins in the individual temperature measurements, on which they are based! But it’s worse. The raw data is noisy and full of errors. It includes readings taken by different means (for example ships, buoys and satellites), by instruments of different types, and at different times of day. And it includes readings from high and low quality sites.

Furthermore, many – if not most – of the numbers have been “adjusted,” in ways that are often documented poorly or not at all. And adjustment practices seem often to change, usually in the direction of showing steeper warming. Further, missing data is often filled in by averaging neighbouring sites; so, readings from areas of good coverage are extrapolated to areas of poor coverage. How can we be sure this data represents reality?

And it isn’t just temperature data that is being adjusted and interpreted in ways that might not be honest. There’s no doubt, for example, that sea levels are rising; as they have been for many thousand years. And the global rate of rise, over the last century or so, has been fairly stable. But just this year, sea level data has been newly re-interpreted in a way that claims to show a recent acceleration in sea level rise.

Models

Another issue is that climate science makes extensive use of models. These are computer simulations, that attempt to mimic the physics involved. But models must necessarily be built on assumptions. How do we know these assumptions don’t simply reflect the prejudices of the model builders? Like, believing that feedbacks to warming are strongly positive?

Moreover, the results of the models aren’t treated, as the scientific method would require, as predictions to be compared with measurements, and the underlying hypotheses falsified if the results differ by enough. Indeed, the IPCC calls a model-derived estimate of future climate a “projection,” and says “when a projection is branded ‘most likely’ it becomes a forecast or prediction.” All of which raises the question: is this really science?

Nonscience

In and around climate science and the global warming issue, there have been many examples of what I call nonscience.

Under the heading of technical nonscience, we’ve seen the grafting together of unrelated data, without explaining what was being done. We’ve seen data inconvenient to the alarmist case dropped altogether. We’ve seen statistical methods that exaggerate the contribution of a small sample; even down to a single tree! (Or of less than 80 respondents to a questionnaire...) We’ve seen attempts to minimize, or suppress the existence of, the mediaeval warm period.

Then there’s media nonscience. 97 per cent of climate scientists, so we’re told, agree that human activity is causing global warming. This has about the same information content as “97% of communist supporters agree that communism is a good thing.” Every time an unusual weather event occurs – even if it’s extreme cold! – we hear cries that it’s all due to “climate change.” Journalists are exhorted to “avoid false balance” in discussing the issue (meaning: only tell the alarmist side of the story!) And the media love to play up the latest scare stories, and to make out that human emissions of CO2 are responsible. We’ve even seen faked alarmist pictures on the front covers of journals. Polar bear on ice floe, anyone?

And there’s political nonscience. We’ve heard repeated claims that “the science is settled,” when anyone who understands science knows that it’s never settled. And if it was, why are people still working on it? We’ve seen attempts to stop publication of skeptical papers. We’ve seen skeptical scientists and journal editors persecuted or even sacked. And we skeptics have been called nasty names like “denialists” or “conspiracy theorists,” and accused of being funded by Big Oil.

The economic case

So if, despite all this nonscience, human emissions of CO2 were responsible for significant warming, how much damage would be caused by that warming? The 2013 IPCC report gives a figure of 0.2 per cent to 2 per cent of goods and services produced worldwide, that would be lost as a result of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. But it adds caveats that the cost may be higher, because the economic models used don’t include some potential factors, and others are poorly understood. And governments, particularly of the UK, seem to think these numbers aren’t alarmist enough!

Two things stand out for me here. First, my common sense tells me that a small amount of global warming, like 2 degrees Celsius, could easily have more positive economic effects than negative ones. For example, by allowing crops to be grown further north, or by reducing winter heating costs in parts of the world where many people live. And a warmer climate seems to have been beneficial to human civilization when it has occurred in the past, for example in Minoan and Roman times. So I’m not even sure that the sign of the numbers is right!

Second, I’m struck by the factor of 10 difference between the low and high estimates. And that’s ignoring factors that haven’t been quantified! If I was a businessman who had commissioned a cost-benefit analysis that produced such a result, I’d tell the analysts, in no uncertain terms, to go away and not to come back until they had some figures I could use.

Despite no certainty in either the amount of human-caused warming or its costs or benefits, the politicians still took it on themselves to set an arbitrary “target” of no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To be enforced by governments on ordinary people, of course, by loading us with lots of new taxes and regulations. When it looked, between 2000 and 2015, as if warming was lessening or even stopping, they decided to reduce this target to 1.5 degrees. The arrogance and effrontery of those, that could even contemplate setting such limits, are beyond the bounds of description.

Scandals and whitewashes

Then there was the Climategate scandal of 2009, when e-mails were leaked from a UK climate research unit (CRU). These e-mails showed, to those who bothered to look, that alarmists had interfered with the review and publication process for papers on which the IPCC was supposed to rely. They had dropped or misrepresented data to produce an alarming effect. They had refused to share data to allow others to replicate their work. They had deleted data to evade Freedom of Information requests. They had conspired against journal editors who published skeptical papers. And more. Whatever they were doing, it wasn’t science, and it wasn’t honest.

The UK government commissioned no less than three inquiries into the matter. First, a parliamentary committee, which seemingly chose to avoid the most important questions. Second came the Oxburgh inquiry. It failed to publish its own terms of reference. It did not interview any critics of the CRU. It claimed that it would assess the quality of CRU’s science; but the papers it chose to look at did not cover the controversial areas, and did not address work done for the IPCC. Yet the UK’s chief scientist at the time described Oxburgh’s inquiry as “a blinder well played.” The third review, by Muir Russell, examined the CRU’s scientific practices, but not the science itself. It avoided answering the important questions, and the ones it did investigate were largely irrelevant. So, the outcome of all three inquiries was no more than a whitewash.

The green mind set

There is a way of thinking, which seems to be rife among those that promote or support the green agenda, including the global warming ruckus. This mind set can be seen in the activists and their followers, in politicians that support the agenda, and in the alarmist “scientists.”

First, they don’t build support for their ideas by honest persuasion. Instead, they seek power, to enable them to impose their agenda by government force. And those, that already have power, also find the green agenda very useful as an excuse to increase their own power, and the power of their political state. The green activists and the politicians work hand in hand very nicely; for them, but not for us.

Second, they seem to have little or no sense of right and wrong, or of personal responsibility. This leads them to behave as hypocrites. For example, Al Gore tells us we should cut our energy use, yet consumes 20 times more electricity than ordinary people. Gore also rants about rising sea levels, yet buys property near the beach. And Prince Charles demonizes CO2 emissions from cars and planes, yet himself is chauffeured around in limos and goes on holiday by private plane. Moreover, Peter Gleick, chairman of a task force on scientific ethics, used identity fraud to obtain confidential papers from a climate skeptic organization. The ethics of the government officials involved in the IPCC process, and of the Climategate scientists and those in charge of the subsequent inquiries, are also very dubious.

Third, they are downers and troublemakers. They do not seek to solve problems or to contribute to solving problems, and so to make the world a better place. Instead, they rant about how bad things are; and they seek to raise the profile of existing problems, or to create new ones.

Fourth, they seem not to be interested in truth or rationality. All that matters to them is their narrative. This is why many green followers come over like religious nuts. It’s also why almost all the media parrot alarmist messages, even when to rational people those messages are crazy or even obviously false.

Moreover, when a skeptic raises a good point against an alarmist, the alarmist almost never acknowledges the point. Instead, alarmists usually obfuscate, change the subject, or resort to name-calling or other ad hominems. The alarmists’ “post-modern” lack of respect for the truth makes it all but impossible for skeptics to reach any kind of rational compromise or friendly agreement with them.

To sum up

So, what would our visitor from another civilization make of all this?

I think he would be appalled by what he found. He would be horrified that a species, at the technological level we humans have reached today, is still using a political system that allows unethical, irrational troublemakers with no respect for truth to acquire power over others. He would be repelled by the behaviour of activists, “scientists,” politicians and media over the global warming issue. He would be dismayed that not only do these individuals get away with their crimes, but they enjoy cushy and well paid jobs, and even fame and respect.

I suspect that he would look in his database, to find out about other civilizations who have been through, and survived, similar traumas. And he might even put in a Mayday call on our behalf.