Climate change: why now?
Here's a new piece in the Telegraph by the somewhat oddball climate change denier Christopher Monckton. I really don't have the credentials to judge any of this stuff, which is somewhat annoying, since I would really like to have a "scientific" opinion so I could bloviate on the topic.
Nevertheless, having devoted my education years to useless philosophy, I will soldier on in a more sociological fashion. Quite apart from the science, one thing I find suspicious about climate catastrophism is how there's supposed to be this massive and terribly deleterious change ahead of us, and yet (by what strikes me as an amazing coincidence) we are always said to still be capable of stopping it but only -- and here the speaker invariably assumes the urgent air of an infomercial voice-over -- if we act right this very minute.
This is strange, given that we're dealing with what (on the catastrophist account) seems to be a slippery-slope doomsday scenario that has been building up since the Industrial Revolution. Given the long time-frame and massive uncertainties involved, you'd think that predictions of the exact timing of the "point of no return" must involve a fairly significant margin of error. In light of that, it's odd that there doesn't seem to be even one climate-change affirmer out there who's saying "Rats! I hate to tell you this guys, but it's one or two (or ten or fifty) years too late and there's basically nothing we can do now." Perhaps adding: "So we might as well just go out in style -- let's everyone head out to the SUV dealership!" Or "Let's get 10,000 of our best friends together and jet over to Bali for a big wingding!"
On the other hand, there are thousands of them who seem to think we're just a few years away from this point of no return, with barely enough time left to make a difference by doing a whole lot of things that happen to coincide with every key element of romantic greeny-leftist philosophy -- closing down industry, ending free trade, going back to the land, using "Zest" rather than soap, and generally living in harmony with "nature" (with the comfortable assurance implicit in such a statement that we don't actually form a part of lowly nature ourselves).
I would certainly be willing to bet anyone an all-expenses-paid vacation at the future Club Med Tuktoyaktuk that by the year 2020 global warming will not be considered a serious issue, with totems of the religion such as Al Gore's movie seeming every bit as quaint a "period piece" as the Club of Rome report, "The Day After" or one of those 50s "Under your desks, children!" nuclear defence filmstrips.
10 comments:
I think you've set up a bit of a straw man. Not all believers in climate change claim that we're one minute away from doomsday, and not all of them espouse what you've called "romantic greeny-leftist" solutions.
My preferred solution -- one which is neither original nor especially unorthodox -- would be to see governments impose a carbon tax. This tax could be completely offset by income tax reductions, so that it would end up being "revenue neutral." Moreover, a carbon tax could be raised or lowered as more evidence for or against climate change came in.
One could espouse such a tax without being committed to a "big government agenda," and one could even espouse it while being contemptuous of the more apocalyptic climate change scenarios.
--JC
This blog is built on the backs of straw men.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but about 75% of what I hear about climate change is inadequately supported by evidence. I can imagine that coming up with a convincing case is difficult but that's exactly how it should be when it comes to arguing that governments should attempt to change the way everybody operates.
The other thing that I find suspicious is how very few of the people or organizations going on about this issue have made real sacrifices. Al Gore lives in a mansion and flies around the world. If even 10% of the planet lived like he does we'd be finished, according to his own claims.
Similarly, most countries at the UN that supported Kyoto didn't actually have to make any serious changes to the way they operate since their declining industry makes compliance more or less trivial. This seems to be how UN members operate 99% of the time. It's mostly guided by self-interest, not a desire for fairness.
Climate change is an issue the UN itself can latch onto to increase its profile. For member states it's a way to shackle the economies of competing countries. This is a skeptical view but it's probably pretty close to being correct.
Yes, that is very well said.
It's naive of you to think there might not be a significant difference between what climate-change-fact-acknowledgers think in private and what the public rhetoric. There is a sufficient justification for the alarmist language even if the point of no return has passed. There may be some benefit from seeking to minimise the scale of the change, but you can only do that by changing current consumption patterns and you can't bring the public to do that unless you let them believe there's a chance we can prevent the inevitable. People will despair if they know the true extent of the problem and, as you say in your post, will decide they may as well go out in style. In terms of practical planning for the eventualities, the people who matter are making the right decisions quietly behiind the seens. For example, the UK is quietly making it harder to move there (instituting a points system similar to Australia and New Zealand). This will make it easier to deny entry to refugees from the disease ravaged tropics. Green tax on aviation fuel, or putting the aviation industry understrain somehow, is another oblique way to keep the huddled masses far away leaving them to bed down on their, thanks to rising sea-levels, reduced land with cholera, malaria, drug-resistant TB, and avian 'flu.
How's that for a dark prognostication?
Well put, Ken.
Haligonian, how did you come up with this 75% number? I have to wonder if the people who doubt climate change have actually read the papers. It seems to me that most criticisms of climate change are politically motivated and come from those who have very little experience within the field.
Well, my criticism isn't "politically motivated" and even if it were that doesn't make it factually incorrect. Ken's argument basically concedes my point, but goes on to claim that it's a form of "noble lie" .
What exactly are the papers that one is supposed to read in order to become a climate change believer? Name a couple.
Conservatives should like carbon taxes, whatever the risks of global warming. They tax consumption, rather than investment and are basically proportional. If the shift from income taxes or whatever is revenue neutral as introduced, inevitably the future take for government will be far less, since the economy is going to be less carbon intense in the future.
well look what the cat dragged in!
I was somewhat directed to review this post via a www.SOTT.net article titled "Majesterium and the Tipping Point" and dated Fri, 14 Dec 2007.
Thus I leave the follow for all to review the implications that result from gathering data and not tagging emotion to it.
As all is a lesson... it follows that in so being data must be resourced (objectively)and by obtaining knowledge after which - then and only then - understanding obtained to wit some sufficient conclusions can be realized yet not "the" conclusion (perhaps).
The follow is provided for review so as to simply encourage objectivity of the overall "game" played out on this expanding rock by pathologicals (and others) in and with power for reasons not readily understood at large - which becomes apparent in viewing will not become common knowledge on and in such engineered "programming" main stream outlets/media.
Have fun with it while noting the possibilities and probabilities.
Including such knowledge of "Russian" DEEP WELL DRILLING and recovering of a perpetual source of the blood of GAIA...
Offered:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2077705993355672908&q=expanding+earth&total=143&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
Post a Comment