
On the Morality of Global Warming Criticism - mseebach
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1917
======
mhartl
_Let’s remind everybody that the truth is not decided by a vote_

One leading indicator that there's something fishy about the case for
anthropogenic global warming is that people talk of a "scientific consensus"
on the subject. There's a scientific consensus on Newtonian mechanics, too,
but no one bothers to mention it.

~~~
netcan
There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned
all the time. That argument is used against non-scientists challenging
scientific consensus.

~~~
mhartl
_There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned
all the time._

Yes, people should stop that. The evidence for evolution can stand on its own.
I suspect the same is not the case for AGW.

~~~
camccann
_The evidence for evolution can stand on its own._

You've never tried to talk to a Creationist, have you?

~~~
mhartl
Of course I have, or at least I did in my misspent youth. Creationists are
hard to convince. But you seem to suggest that, absent being able to convince
a creationist with evidence, scientists should resort to naked argument from
authority: "there's an overwhelming scientific consensus". But that doesn't
work, either: few creationists have ever embraced evolution because of the
"scientific consensus", and in the process it makes the actual arguments for
evolution look weak.

------
milfot
The moral wording of their argument, the appeal to morality, comes simply from
an understanding of risk management. Risk being directly proportional to both
the probability _and_ to the impact of the event. The higher the stakes the
less you want to take the risk, even in a potentially low probability
occurrence.

Most people wouldn't think twice about walking along a garden wall if it were
only a foot above the ground. If it were on the edge of a thousand foot drop,
only a daredevil would attempt it.

In this case however, we are talking about (and I apologise for the tired
cliché) walking a tight-wire over a thousand foot drop. It is likely, and the
consequences are most likely fatal.

In this sense, it is entirely reasonable for a person or a group, on the
strength of their conviction, to use strong moral language to hopefully avert
the untimely deaths of millions, and understandable to attribute immorality to
those who would continue to participate in the activities which they believe
would cause these deaths.

Is that language effective? Probably not.. but what else do you do to convince
a population who absolutely do not want to be convinced.

And, sure there is no scientific consensus on the science. Never is.. never
has been. There is, however, consensus on the risk management.

------
CraigBuchek
Why don't critics of global warming ever present any evidence? That's how
scientists do criticism. Any criticism of scientific findings without evidence
is useless. Of course, the critics know this, and know that criticism without
evidence cannot be refuted.

If you think that there's some sort of conspiracy going on, which is more
likely -- energy companies making billions of dollars, or scientists making
millions of dollars -- to be spending their money more effectively to change
people's minds in order preserve their future profits?

Let's say 9 out of 10 doctors told you that you've got an 80% chance of dying
if you don't change your diet. Would you think that those 9 doctors are
conspiring against you? Or would you change your diet? That's pretty much the
situation we're in here. (Except that the 1 doctor who disagrees also does a
lot of work for the snack food industry.)

~~~
mseebach
> which is more likely -- energy companies making billions of dollars, or
> scientists making millions of dollars

If you want to do motive analysis, you need to look at the full picture. First
off, you forgot one player -- governments "making" trillions of dollars, and
in need of a project to justify themselves.

And second, energy companies jumped on the AGW wagon a long time ago. They
need to be in the right place, ready to dish out expensive solutions to hungry
governments. See [http://sppiblog.org/news/independent-newspaper-readers-
comme...](http://sppiblog.org/news/independent-newspaper-readers-comment-on-
funded-by-big-oil)

------
darshan
The opening line of the article: _Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York
Times and winner of a prestigious banking prize (usually mistakenly called a
“Nobel”)..._

What the hell? He absolutely did win a Nobel Prize (technically, the "Nobel
Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences").

<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/>

~~~
wmf
Pedantry, combined with a swipe at the field.

"It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel
during 1895, but is commonly identified with them." according to Wikipedia
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences))

------
cletus
It's this kind of rhetoric that gives people pause: to debate the debatable
doesn't make you a traitor or the committer of crimes against humanity.
There's no need for such rhetoric if your position is solid and the facts
speak for themselves. The existence of such rhetoric is prima facie evidence
that your position is, at best, shaky.

What's worse is that this kind of incendiary talk is more indicative of a
religious discussion than a scientific one as is the expectation of blind
faith (in this case being the deliberate obstruction of attempts to get raw
data and the refusal to publish such data).

At this point a constitutional lawyer could make a First Amendment argument
that the US Federal government should be banned from saying anything about
global warming on the grounds of the Establishment clause.

------
SamAtt
So we're pulling Bill Nye out of the mothballs now?

The way I see it Copenhagen couldn't get commitments from anyone and things
have only gotten worse for Pro-GW side since then. It seems we're at least a
decade away from legislation (assuming man-made GW is a valid theory) since no
one is going to reshape their economy on "a maybe".

Given that I'd like to see two things.

1\. Have the scientists turn back to the science and eliminate the
measurement/methodology problems that have led to questions in the last 10
years.

2\. Have the politicians and pundits turn their attention to funding and/or
raising money for the literally millions of clean energy startups out there.
Because the easiest fix here is energy entrepreneurialism. Space based Solar
Power alone could fix this problem.

At least, that's what would happen in my perfect world

~~~
fleitz
Nuclear energy could fix this problem in 5-6 years for about what we pay for
coal, no need to go out on a limb with "space based solar". Sure it's cool,
but a solution exists that is less toxic than what exists (nuclear radiation
from coal) and is about the same price. Sounds like a no brainer to me.

~~~
smallblacksun
The problem is that a lot of people are irrationally scared of anything with
the word "nuclear" in it.

~~~
anamax
> The problem is that a lot of people are irrationally scared of anything with
> the word "nuclear" in it.

A lot of people are also scared of spiders.

~~~
smallblacksun
But that's not irrational. They have too many legs, and they bite!

------
Zak
This article strongly reminded me of a certain essay[0]. Some people in the
environmental movement are now saying "you shouldn't say our theory is false -
to do so is heresy/treason/a crime against humanity" instead of "our theory is
true".

[0] <http://paulgraham.com/say.html>

------
fleitz
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you
win."

1 in 10 chance that it isn't man made, that's pretty good odds the enviros are
wrong. No wonder they are starting to criticize the people rather than their
ideas.

