That positive value of quantity by itself does not comprise a social value. Whether one thinks that there should be more or fewer fish, or that it doesn’t matter one way or the other, are social values, in the sense that they relate to the subjective value of a human being about their relations with other human beings.

These two kinds of values are categorically different and incommensurable, but unfortunately many people have them mixed up, including and especially in environmental issues.

The positive value of how much or how many fish there are, does not supply a value judgment one way or the other as to whether there should be that many, or more, or fewer fish.

And the same applies to all other natural values.

I have not said that the rotation of the earth is a proper subject for government policy so I don’t know what you’re talking about there.

Do climatology and climate change have something to do with each other? They both relate to climate, and the science of climatology may show in what ways the climate is changing. So much is not controversial.

But it is controversial, and it is a complete non sequitur, to think that any positive value from climatology supplies any social value as a matter of policy on climate change.

Even if it were known as a positive fact that the climate is getting warmer, that by itself would provide precisely nothing by way of social value to say that we should do anything about it. The science does not, and cannot supply the value judgments. One may think that the world should be cooler, or warmer. That is a social value. And the social values cannot be known apart from the questions of human interests involved.

The failure of many scientists to understand the dividing line between the relevance of positive values and the relevance of social values invalidates their contributions to policy discussion, because they have the two hopelessly confused. They also fail to understand that they fail to understand, so they are under the mistaken impression that their technical expertise is capable of dictating the course that policy should take.

An example is where people think that by pointing to measurements which may indicate the positive fact of climate change, they mistakenly think that they have done all they need to do to show the supposed need for any given action.

But the least of the issues is in consensus on the positive measurements. The real difficult issues are on what this means; what should be done if anything; why; who is going to pay the costs; how it would or could be known or calculated; if it can’t be known or calculated, what reason we have to believe or trust it; what makes it fair; what to do about inequalities between human beings at the starting point, in the process of transition, and in the outcome; what if we are wrong; what to do about things that can’t be known; how the sacrifice of human welfare as between one person and another is to be decided on; whether the sacrifice of human life is to be required; who is to decide and how; what is to be done about the self-interest of parties to the decision-making; and so on.

What I find most concerning about the technical debate is the vacuity, vanity and dangerousness of the technicians, blind to the real practical and ethical issues, who mistakenly think that their technical expertise supplies conclusions as a matter of policy.

So I repeat my question which so far no-one has answered in any forum: your way of knowing that governmental interventions on climate change are not going to destroy more natural or social values than they are going to save is….? Answer please.

“You have failed to show how, even if … wholly conceded, the destruction of natural and social values following government action … would be less than the benefits …”

Fish stock levels are social values? The rotation of the earth is a proper subject for government policy? Ok, tell me more and then I can respond in the terms you desire.

“… haven’t got off home base in establishing the relevence of climatology to policy on climate change …”

Ahh ‘climatology’, ‘climate change’. Don’t these two terms have something to do with each other? Is it controversial that I think they are somehow related? If so, I think you better get started on making the case that they are entirely separate.

“You have failed to show how, even if … wholly conceded, the destruction of natural and social values following government action … would be less than the benefits …”

Fish stock levels are social values? The rotation of the earth is a proper subject for government policy? Ok, tell me more and then I can respond in the terms you desire.

“… haven’t got off home base in establishing the relevence of climatology to policy on climate change …”

Ahh ‘climatology’, ‘climate change’. Don’t these two terms have something to do with each other? Is it controversial that I think are related? If so, I think you better get started on making the case that they are entirely separate.

When somebody expresses fantasies about hydrogen or plays make-believe that hot rocks can pick up a fraction of one percent of our requirements in the near future they are expressing their bigotry as a NATURE FACIST.

Any of these energy sources may be tried out by any interested party at any time with the most miniscule fixing up of property rights.

IT IS NUCLEAR AND COAL THAT ARE THE ANSWER AND THEY ALONE FACE THE BIGOTRY THAT THE OTHER ENERGY SOURCES DO NOT.

Our successful future lies in nuclear plants springing up all over the country. And beside each of those nuclear plants ought to be a liquified-coal (tar sands, oil shales, scrap wood, rubbish) plant. Two plants side by side for verily these are complementary technologies.

When we were little boys we had our little boy ways. But now we are grown up we must put all such idiocy behind us.

The goal of our policy must be to see these energy forms that are the target of nature facist bigotry sprouting throughout the country. I cannot express to you people strongly enough just how sick I am of you coming here to express you nature facist bigotries.

This might be off in the future but it seems promising.

All in all, good developments, thanks for the update.

That’s why you, and all other advocates of government intervention on climate change, keep returning with nothing but personal disparagement and begging the question: you don’t have anything else.

So let’s cut to the chase: your way of knowing that governmental interventions on climate change are not going to destroy more natural or social values than they are going to save is….? Answer please.

A friend of mine involved in the sugar cane industry recently told me of a technology that will enable much greater extraction from sugar cane. So there is another avenue to explore. Sorry, don’t have details to hand. I believe it involves extracting energy from the fibre of the stalks.

Go away, get a hug from your mum and come back when you finally got a non-stupid argument.