Global Luke-Warming

Daniel Foster writing at The Corner points out nicely the gap between the certainty of the science and the certainty of advocates that democratically unaccountable (and often corrupt) NGOs must be given more power.

That the planet is getting warmer on balance, and that human behavior is a — perhaps significant — driver of that warming, are both plausible. But plausible because at a basic level the claims can be expressed in a syllogism that fits on a cocktail napkin (CO2 is a warming gas. Human industrial activity produces massive quantities of CO2 . . .)

We have always relied on science (and, crucially, scientists) to fill in the many complex empirical interstices in that syllogism…But the moral of controversies like “Climate-Gate” and “Glacier-Gate,” and indeed of the counter-narrative of blogs like Planet Gore, is that that science has been muddied by a warming bias — be it conscious or unconscious, ideologically motivated or not — that takes the form of slipshod methodology, supression and obfuscation, and that thoroughly complicates the disastrous picture painted by climate-change zealots. And when the policy issuing from this science calls for a global top-down reordering of economies on a scale that would make Marx blush, and potentially put a ten-zero dent in global GDP, this bias has to be uncovered and undone wherever it is found. Cocktail-napkin plausibility ain’t gonna cut it.

Global Luke-Warming [Daniel Foster]

That the planet is getting warmer on balance, and that human behavior is a — perhaps significant — driver of that warming, are both plausible. But plausible because at a basic level the claims can be expressed in a syllogism that fits on a cocktail napkin (CO2 is a warming gas. Human industrial activity produces massive quantities of CO2 . . .)

We have always relied on science (and, crucially, scientists) to fill in the many complex empirical interstices in that syllogism, to work out the precise mechanisms of man-climate interaction and give us an idea of what follows therefrom. For twenty-plus years the mainstream science has tended inexorably toward catastrophism on this front —  hockey sticks and water worlds, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

But the moral of controversies like “Climate-Gate” and “Glacier-Gate,” and indeed of the counter-narrative of blogs like Planet Gore, is that that science has been muddied by a warming bias — be it conscious or unconscious, ideologically motivated or not — that takes the form of slipshod methodology, supression and obfuscation, and that thoroughly complicates the disastrous picture painted by climate-change zealots. And when the policy issuing from this science calls for a global top-down reordering of economies on a scale that would make Marx blush, and potentially put a ten-zero dent in global GDP, this bias has to be uncovered and undone wherever it is found. Cocktail-napkin plausibility ain’t gonna cut it.

Over on the homepage today, I’ve got an article on Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the UN’s chief climate scientist, who embodies many of the vices of the climate change community, and who seems to be covering his ears and humming loudly in response to the mounting criticism of the mother-of-all climate catastrophism narratives, his panel’s 2007 assessment report.

02/22 01:51 PMShare

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Environmentalism, Freedom, Politics, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s