In all questions of policy that rely on scientific information, I believe that policy should be informed by the scientific opinion, beginning first with those who specialize in the topic and expanding from there. Where a scientific consensus exists regarding the issue, I believe that consensus should win the day. Now the obvious question: what constitutes a scientific consensus and how can it be demonstrated? This isn't easily resolvable for reasons that are illustrated by the quibbling over the '97%' claim. Individual 'studies of studies' and polls can produce false results for reasons that both are and are not anticipated. The key to me is how the entire collection of consensus-statements overwhelmingly supports a conclusion. I see a huge body of reputable (yes, another problem term) studies done in this century claiming overwhelming majorities (80% or more) of qualifying scientists support the anthropogenic theory and none (that I'm aware of) which claim it doesn't possess at least a majority of support. Under this condition, dickering over the exact percentage of support possessed by the consensus is ridiculous. Anthropogenic climate change IS currently the overwhelmingly supported scientific consensus and that fact should dominate our policy consideration.
Support for anthropogenic climate change is strengthened in my view by the quality of its opposition. Papers that challenge the consensus are characterized by severe methodological flaws. Scientists who write prolifically against climate change are directly subsidized by commercial organizations whose financial interest lie in sabotaging policies designed to combat climate change. The most prominent deniers aren't scientists at all; they're politicians, industrialists, and ideologues. Individuals and groups that promote anthropogenic climate change denial are closely associated with individuals and groups that deny all sorts of other scientific theories which are overwhelmingly supported by world-wide scientific consensus, like evolution through natural selection.
I have known individual conservatives who like Cal88 insist that they have done a sufficient amount of research themselves to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that climate change skepticism is justified. Somehow they have came to believe in some Goldilocks zone of climate knowledge that reveals that justified skepticism, a part of the range greater than common ignorance but less than professional scientific expertise. What makes them think their level of expertise multiplied by the relatively small total volume of effort invested is likely to yield a product that deserves to compete with those produced by actual experts in this scientific field could be dismissed as arrogance, but I applaud it nonetheless. The new idea that changes everything usually seems to come from the unexpected source, and besides that it's always great to see fellow citizens embracing their role in being informed. I do suggest though that they consider more strongly the probability that their amateur efforts have done what they and mine could be expected to do: merely reinforce whatever we were inclined to anticipate. I also would ask that they consider whether they wouldn't expect the weight of scientific consensus that does exist supporting anthropogenic climate change to win in argument if supporting some other policy that they were advocating for, like tax policy.
This isn't about the effectiveness of policies and compacts designed to combat climate change. Conceding to the truth of anthropogenic climate change can be totally separated from the issue of whether or not any of the agreements designed to fight it are either likely to be effective or advisable for the US. It also can be totally separated from the economic consequences of any proposed climate change counter measures. It starts with this theory that science is telling us is true and all these people whose interests are tied to denial are telling us is false. If enough of the remaining sane conservatives could commit to joining the rest of the sane world, things could change.
Of course it's not that easy because any conservative leader who dared to step out of ranks on this issue would become the victim of the conservative mob. Conservatives, spurred by the fossil fuels segment of the energy sector, have made what should just be about the implications of an increasingly large body of peer-reviewed evidence into something wholly political and a critical feature of their nationalist-populist platform. Fossil fuels, which should be viewed as a strategic asset whose use should be weighed only in a sober cost-benefit calculation, are made into part of making America great again. The distribution of localities that heavily rely on fossil fuels is not random. The Top-3 coal producing states in the US are Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Oil production is similarly dominated by conservative states (California being a prominent exception). This is not a leftist conspiracy. We are part of a national economy together, we get nothing from damaging these industries or raising energy prices on all of us. This is a conservative conspiracy, an organized resistance movement waged only for the benefit of their constituencies. Someday it will end. We don't know when the end will come, but we do know fossil fuels are doomed. When it's no longer such a strong force within the conservative body politic, there will be a dramatically under-stated turn around. Hardly anyone will be able to be found who will admit to having ever been a sincere denier. They'll all say they really knew it was probably true, they just didn't see how the consequences of action wouldn't be worse for America than the cure. That'll just be a debate for historians though. Everyone will be united behind the truth made even more irrepressible by all the awful **** that we're evidently in for in about 3 generations. Massive heat waves, droughts, radical alterations in micro-climates and weather patterns, radical reconstruction of every ecosystem as its temperature range shifts quickly on geologic time, carbon poisoning the oceans, huge sea level raises...
Mankind is going to survive and continue to prosper technologically/industrially and I expect America to be just fine but a lot of people are probably going to die from this worldwide.
Support for anthropogenic climate change is strengthened in my view by the quality of its opposition. Papers that challenge the consensus are characterized by severe methodological flaws. Scientists who write prolifically against climate change are directly subsidized by commercial organizations whose financial interest lie in sabotaging policies designed to combat climate change. The most prominent deniers aren't scientists at all; they're politicians, industrialists, and ideologues. Individuals and groups that promote anthropogenic climate change denial are closely associated with individuals and groups that deny all sorts of other scientific theories which are overwhelmingly supported by world-wide scientific consensus, like evolution through natural selection.
I have known individual conservatives who like Cal88 insist that they have done a sufficient amount of research themselves to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that climate change skepticism is justified. Somehow they have came to believe in some Goldilocks zone of climate knowledge that reveals that justified skepticism, a part of the range greater than common ignorance but less than professional scientific expertise. What makes them think their level of expertise multiplied by the relatively small total volume of effort invested is likely to yield a product that deserves to compete with those produced by actual experts in this scientific field could be dismissed as arrogance, but I applaud it nonetheless. The new idea that changes everything usually seems to come from the unexpected source, and besides that it's always great to see fellow citizens embracing their role in being informed. I do suggest though that they consider more strongly the probability that their amateur efforts have done what they and mine could be expected to do: merely reinforce whatever we were inclined to anticipate. I also would ask that they consider whether they wouldn't expect the weight of scientific consensus that does exist supporting anthropogenic climate change to win in argument if supporting some other policy that they were advocating for, like tax policy.
This isn't about the effectiveness of policies and compacts designed to combat climate change. Conceding to the truth of anthropogenic climate change can be totally separated from the issue of whether or not any of the agreements designed to fight it are either likely to be effective or advisable for the US. It also can be totally separated from the economic consequences of any proposed climate change counter measures. It starts with this theory that science is telling us is true and all these people whose interests are tied to denial are telling us is false. If enough of the remaining sane conservatives could commit to joining the rest of the sane world, things could change.
Of course it's not that easy because any conservative leader who dared to step out of ranks on this issue would become the victim of the conservative mob. Conservatives, spurred by the fossil fuels segment of the energy sector, have made what should just be about the implications of an increasingly large body of peer-reviewed evidence into something wholly political and a critical feature of their nationalist-populist platform. Fossil fuels, which should be viewed as a strategic asset whose use should be weighed only in a sober cost-benefit calculation, are made into part of making America great again. The distribution of localities that heavily rely on fossil fuels is not random. The Top-3 coal producing states in the US are Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Oil production is similarly dominated by conservative states (California being a prominent exception). This is not a leftist conspiracy. We are part of a national economy together, we get nothing from damaging these industries or raising energy prices on all of us. This is a conservative conspiracy, an organized resistance movement waged only for the benefit of their constituencies. Someday it will end. We don't know when the end will come, but we do know fossil fuels are doomed. When it's no longer such a strong force within the conservative body politic, there will be a dramatically under-stated turn around. Hardly anyone will be able to be found who will admit to having ever been a sincere denier. They'll all say they really knew it was probably true, they just didn't see how the consequences of action wouldn't be worse for America than the cure. That'll just be a debate for historians though. Everyone will be united behind the truth made even more irrepressible by all the awful **** that we're evidently in for in about 3 generations. Massive heat waves, droughts, radical alterations in micro-climates and weather patterns, radical reconstruction of every ecosystem as its temperature range shifts quickly on geologic time, carbon poisoning the oceans, huge sea level raises...
Mankind is going to survive and continue to prosper technologically/industrially and I expect America to be just fine but a lot of people are probably going to die from this worldwide.
