To whom it may concern on ALSBTALK:

      FIRST:
      Did the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" accurately describe the north
Atlantic interruption of the Gulf Stream heat transport conveyor of the
Atlantic Ocean?

      SECOND:
      Are all 1 degree Fahrenheit changes in temperature identical (for
example, does a 1 degree temperature increases from 60 degrees generate the
same [e.g., range of and magnitude of] consequences as a 1 degree
temperature increase from 31 degrees)?

      THIRD:
      If any market participant believes (regardless of truth or falsity of
that belief) that the answers to those two questions are "yes" and "no",
then, at a minimum, a rational person in the position of that market
participant (e.g., insurance companies) would take a risk adverse stance on
global warming.  Are any USA States in the midst of an insurance crises?
Further, I would expect some market participants to react irrationally
(e.g., grandparents) and take an even more risk adverse stance.  Lastly, I
would expect a profit driven economy:
      [a]   to offer a wide variety of transactions that
            seek profit from deliberately hastening the arrival of a
genuine Tragedy of the Commons
            and/or
            seek profit without regard to whether the purported Tragedy of
the Commons is genuine or nor;
and
      [b]   to offer a far narrower variety of transactions that
            derive profit from avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons.
Accordingly, since I expect profit driven market economies generally to be
successful in achieving the resource allocations genuinely prioritized by
those market, I would expect the market to generate a Tragedy of the
Commons if such a tragedy  is a feasible outcome.

      FOURTH:
      Personally, I identified two errors in the movie, both in the frog
cartoon.
      [A]   The no-jump-if-slow-to-boil hypothesis finally was tested and
the frog jumps out at the same water temperature, regardless of the rate of
temperature increase (i.e., slow versus fast [e.g., the answer to the
second question is "no").
      [B]   Given that temperature at which the saving human hand initiated
its anthropomorphic saving grace, that hand would have suffered third
degree burns (i.e., skin instantly dies and easily sloughs off) ala the
McDonalds coffee incident.

      FIFTH:
      I did find odd that this listserv fell silent in February when a
major new international scientific report was issued on global warming.
The topic had been so keenly debated that it was odd that silence fell
across the listserv upon the release of that report.  If I understand
correctly some of that earlier commentary, then this new report is to be
dismissed because such reports are generated by politicized scientists.
Obviously, only a politicized scientist would look at the scientific
evidence and then assert there is a 90% probability that human action is
causing global warming.  Accordingly, without exception, all scientists
that signed off on that new report are completely and utterly corrupted by
the namby-pamby politicization of global warming.  (On a happy note, take
notice of the last bullet on PDF page 6 of 21 addressing the question
raised in FIRST above.  For the sum and substance of the report see the
table at the top of PDF page 7 of 21.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/media/4th_spm2feb07.pdf

      SIXTH:
      What did that grand master of propaganda Goebbels call it?  Oh, yes,
The Big Lie.  Kinda like the that whopper "Al Gore said he invented the
internet.".  Gore never said it (or anything remotely close to it), but if
Leno and Letterman say it, then it must be true.  And, as I was told by a
student:  "Since Al said he invented the internet, how can you trust him on
global warming?".  Most startling was that the student's comment sprung
from a classroom discussion that had nothing to do with the environment,
social responsibility, or national politics.

      SEVENTH:
      It is true that the Earth as a system of systems goes through ebbs
and flows.  It is true that many of those ebbs and flows involve processes
that dwarf to totality of human accomplishment, much less the tiny sliver
of the combustion engine.  It is true that nearly all of those individual
ebbs and flows have slack within their normal ranges.  What is not true is
the belief that feasible non-disturbing magnitude of human consequence is
the normal range of any one ebb or flow.  Rather, to be non-disturbing the
magnitude of human consequence must be smaller than the slack; and more
particularly, humans must be smaller that the slack remaining after Earth
has consumed that fraction of the slack that Earth is wont to do at that
time.  Unfortunately for our current life styles, it is becoming clear that
human consequences are not consistently dwarfed by the slack; rather,
humans can and do generate consequences greater than the _available_ slack.
Species extinction and coastal wetland losses are but two examples.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department        Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration        (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502                    www.AAEFE.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha           www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
Omaha  NE  68182                    http://nbdc.unomaha.edu/aaefe
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm