Scientific Consensus

I really don't like having two negative posts in a row, but I just found an interesting series of articles on "The Deniers" - a perjorative term used to describe scientists who question the cause, effects, and science behind the generally accepted catastrophic anthropogenic global warming crisis. ("Denier" is also a term used for those who deny that the Holocaust occured.)

After I was prompted to watch Al Gore's recent speech at the TED Talks, I was shocked by his blanket statements about scientific consensus and call for all of us to not only "change the lightbulbs, but change the laws". It seems Mr. Gore is now rounding third and heading for home (if I may use a baseball metaphor - and I may - it's my blog) in his quest to run the world.

The science is far from settled. Research is good. Premature preventative governmental interference is bad.

Comments

C. August said…
My blood boils like the Arctic Ocean when I hear someone use the term "Global Warming Denier". Holy moly, that's such a disgustingly loaded and deceptive phrase.

Thanks for the link to "The Deniers Series". I'll definitely be reading it in the coming weeks. The following quote from the intro to the series got me thinking about your "Al Gore wants to rule the world" statement:

Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects... Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

I'm not surprised this is the case, and it corroborates other things I have read. Accepting this as true, it really highlights the fact that the green movement is not a scientific one at all.

It is an anti-human life movement, co-opting aspects of scientific credibility to further its altruistic ends. Al Gore is the figurehead for the movement, and a political figure who saw decades ago that he could use it to 1) further his lust for power, and 2) carry out what appears to be a maniacal thirst to destroy the good in the world.
June 19, 2008 at 9:32 AM
MP said…
Lynne,

Your issue is with the global warming part or the anthropogenic part? From the pictures I have seen of receding glaciers and vanished mountain lakes, the former seems to be the case. I am not so sure about the latter.

I do agree with you about the anti-human aspects of the environmental movement, but that does not mean that they are necessarily wrong about global warming.

My personal solution is that I will do what I can to use less fossil fuels and become a net energy producer (eventually). But I am basically saying that we build on the market mechanism we have to create "non-anti-human" solution - such as tax and cap-&-trade. (Reason magazine has a good debate about this very issue: http://www.reason.com/news/show/126851.html).

- manoj

- manoj
June 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Lynne said…
My issue is with the blind drive to bind the productivity of man to half-baked solutions of government when there is no evidence 1) that an increase in greenhouse gasses has caused global warming; 2) that the warming of the globe is anything but cyclical; 3) that the effects of the warming cycle will be catastrophic; 4) that such proposed binding will have any impact on that cycle. What I do know is that whenever there is a political push to have the government do anything but protect the individual rights of man it is no longer a proper function of government.

Tax, cap and trade is a system of indulgences. This may have been good enough to get you into heaven according to the Catholic Church in the 16th century, but it should be transparent to those of us in the 21st century as the pure attempt to revive socialism that it is.

Using fuels more efficiently and developing different sources of energy just make sense due to increasing costs of production and our ever increasing energy demands. The market takes care of this. Mandating these things based on shoddy science and the easy development of a collective cultural guilt is wrong.

I'm surprised that you not see environmentalism as the green brand of socialism it is.
June 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM
MP said…
"I'm surprised that you not see environmentalism as the green brand of socialism it is."

But I do! OTOH I know of plenty of free-market environmentalists (who want to see humanity's natural heritage preserved *with the help of* market mechanisms). There is no one brand of environmentalism.

This issue has many dimensions than the single dimension of market versus not. There is the issue of abuse of the commons (such as coral reefs), which are being destroyed because the market does not assign them the economic value that they deliver (in terms of maintaining species diversity and avoiding ecosystem collapse). There are some domains where markets are just not feasible to set up (air being the prime example).

- manoj
June 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Lynne said…
First, what is OTOH? I'm AC (acronymically challenged).

Secondly, how can the reefs deliver an economic value if the market won't assign them one? Economic value to whom? Is it possible that you and the market disagree on its importance?

Truthfully, I have often found it difficult with large systems to stick with thinking that property rights will take care of everything, but I really have to. With objective laws, property rights and the ability to prove demonstrable harm would take care of the air, water, reef, etc.

Environmentalism: Advocacy for or work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution.

Ecology: a. The science of the relationships between organisms and their environments. Also called bionomics.
b. The relationship between organisms and their environment.
June 21, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plainsies, Clapsies

A ball bouncing game from my youth instructed the player to throw the ball up ( plainsies ), throw it up and clap ( clapsies ) throw it up and roll your hands ( roll the ball ) and touch your shoulders ( tabapsies ). In trying to locate the rest of the ball bouncing chant, I found out not only is my “tabapsies” a mondegreen , but also the motion – touching your shoulders – isn’t even the correct movement! You are supposed to clap your hands behind your back and say “ to backsies .”  Yeah. That makes much more sense. Being only slightly deflated by this discovery, I will still share my exciting news.  In an attempt to counteract the stretching of my wrist from doing front squats two days in a row, I pulled out the tabapsies motion this morning.  This, in itself, is not newsworthy.  However, I grabbed both shoulders with all five fingers!!! Again, not exciting unless you know that when I was nine years-old, I broke my left elbow doing a running c...
Read more

Memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution

Image
In preparation for celebrating the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States on September 17, 1787, here are a few videos that I hope will inspire you to at least memorize the brief, but powerful Preamble. First, here is my first attempt at video editing with the bare bones Windows Movie Maker (no ability to step through frame by frame with sound, or ability to mark stops before cutting). My daughters are reading the Preamble to the Constitution from the little book I carry in my purse. They can recite it by heart, but it I thought it would be a little different (and a little less exposed) if they did it this way. Let's not even talk about the 20 takes due to laughter. If you knew it as a child, don't worry, it'll come back to you as Barney shows in this video. Finally, a little treat for my sci-fi loving friends. And if memorizing and reciting The Preamble in creative ways leaves you wanting more, you can find out which Founding Father you...
Read more

Why I am an Objectivist

I am a human being who values her life on this earth above all other things. The right and good is that which contributes to my life and the wrong and evil is that which destroys it. Every action I take must pass through the gates of identification before being pursued as a value which I understand will contribute to my life. Happiness is my ultimate goal. I understand the importance of identifying, applying, pursuing, and achieving those values which will contribute to my life, not just in the immediate sense (which every child understands), but in the long-term sense (which develops with experience). This is not to say that I’m really good at always identifying, pursuing, and achieving those values, or that I remain consistent in my applications of them; merely that I had already understood that this selfishness was the key to my happiness when I was relatively young. The importance of the fact that I understood I was responsible for my own happiness can not be overemphasized here. W...
Read more