Thursday, December 3, 2009

Hide the Decline

What does an ambitious climatologist do when the data doesn't cooperate with his thesis of anthropogenic global warming?


Brad DeVos said...

The problem with "Climate Gate" is that we are arguing over nothing. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old - so 20 years of data shouldn't make a difference either way. It does however make the scientific community look incredibly weak and foolish for worrying over 20 years (or .00000004%) of the data. I feel that, as a post-industrial society, we should be preventing pollution for the sake of preventing pollution. The health effects, and other environmental effects should be reason enough - with or without human-induced climate change.

Ben Asa Rast said...

The issue therefore becomes, what is the best way to deal with the fact that humans -- like all other living things -- make a mess?

If an environmentalist wants to use command and control systems to clean things up, he has no choice but to endorse an environmental police state -- a kind of environmental fascism, where every aspect of life would submit to larger, politically (not scientifically) determined values.

If, on the other hand, an environmentalist wants to use the rule of law, private property rights, and voluntary exchange to prevent and clean up any mess, he is acting fully consistent with classical liberalism.

Climategate is far more than an argument about nothing. It is major threat to the command and control environmentalist. He is the one most eager to draw long term conclusions from 20 years worth of data from a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Any question of the integrity of that data is a serious blow to his argument. Expect him to dismiss and attack his critics with all the fury of an inquisitor before he abandons his faith.