Is the case for climate change like a house of cards or a cargo net? The global warming deniers would have you believe that any minor misstep should flatten the entire theory. A cargo net, on the other hand, can have several links severed but still carry a lot of weight.
We should never ignore valid new data, even if (make that especially if) it contradicts our current mindset, but real conservatives would be wise to remember that most “aha moments” come from the Inspector Clouseaus of the world. Rarely can one say with certainty that “this changes everything!” Rosetta stones are few and far between — not everyday occurrences like the frantic anti-greens would have you believe.
Just as the news almost always distracts us from the important, headlines like “Coolest Year in a Decade” deserve less attention than boring but more informative trend data. Should it matter that the coolest year in a decade occurred in the hottest decade on record and was itself one of the ten warmest years since the invention of the thermometer? Yes, it should—just as saying, “March was one of the best months ever for the Dow!” means something different depending upon whether the calendar says 2003 or 2009.
Thinking clearly about climate change can be difficult, especially when Al Gore and George Will both want you to stop deeply pondering the science.
The former Vice President at times seems convinced that time spent thinking is time not spent acting — no more hemming and hawing, do something! He will still give the 3 hour slide show (complete with some very good big picture information) but he’s happy enough if a polar bear picture does the job too. He needs masses, not necessarily educated masses.
And so Gore’s not above stretching the truth if it makes the truth more memorable. Why rely solely on the very strong link between climate change and mid-latitude glacier decline when you can oversell global warming’s impact on the iconic snows of Kilimanjaro for dramatic effect?
Like a brawny boxer who casually drops his guard to go for an ill-conceived round-house hook, Al Gore sometimes exposes himself to unnecessary counterpunches. A steady jab and the overpowering reach of the science should easily carry the day, but Big Al needlessly allows his opponents to land cheap shots that keep faint hope alive in the other corner. And, of course, Gore is a disciplined fighter compared to many on the Left who are happy to highlight the sensational to the detriment of the sensible.
George Will, on the other hand, is convinced that Gore’s action plan is horrible, and thus the normally clear headed thinker is willing to utilize his influential column to distract any fence-sitter from meaningful inquiry. If some news outlets over-hype a drastic drop in sea-ice around the North Pole, just point out that the frozen Arctic made a fantastic rebound and conveniently neglect to mention any long-term trends (especially when those trends show less and thinner ice). Sure a few experts and a pesky newspaper ombudsman might take you to task, but the point isn’t really to educate, it’s to plant seeds of doubt about anything that they say. In short, make sure the storybook analogy is Chicken Little not Pollyanna.
Of course Mr. Will isn’t alone in squinting to make the data match his own expectations. An otherwise extremely well read conservative publisher once dismissed my requests for a deeper discussion of global warming by citing a ranting San Diego weatherman, hardly the sort of authority he would turn to for other big questions.
Ranting, though, seems to be preferred style these days among those who have convinced themselves that rhetorical volume alone can bring down the house of cards. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner, author of the subtly titled Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, would have you believe that this charade was created because scientists are greedy for grant money. Conversely, Fox’s “junk science expert” Steven Milloy is sure that the greens are so anti-money that their guiding principle is not the health of the Earth but a deep desire to take away your comfortable way of life. With Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, Milloy boldly challenges Horner for best conspiracy theory title. If only Oliver Stone weren’t so liberal surely movie deals would follow.
Undoubtedly, authors like Will, Horner, and Milloy highlight some completely true anecdotes of green excess. However, having ferreted out a handful of bad apples, they boldly over-conclude that we should avoid fruit altogether.
Clearly, though, climate change science is not a house of cards. The basic fabric of the argument is quite sound, as I have tried myself to note elsewhere. Those who really want to know for themselves would do well to explore the works of Sir John Houghton, perhaps the most un-Gorian man alive. With impeccable scientific credentials and the trust of the late Margaret Thatcher, plus a personal tendency to undersell rather than hype, Houghton seeks not the limelight but the truth. Those who seek the truth on this important issue would do well to seek him out.
We do need to start making sound personal and national decisions to preserve the world that has been entrusted to our care. Avoiding the fallacy that the science is teetering on the brink of collapse is a good place to start, but it’s an inadequate place to stop. Al Gore’s certainly right about that.
34 responses so far
1 Chekote // Apr 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Apparently, you have not received the memo. It is no longer “global warming”. It is now “climate change”. Check out the Houghton story you linked. Newsflash: climate always goes through changes.
2 Ryan // Apr 5, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Finally some sanity on the right. I’ve never understood the stark divide between liberals and conservatives on this issue. You wouldn’t think that one’s political persuasion would have such an affect on the way one interprets scientific data.
Some of seems to be related to the right’s extreme distrust of the mainstream media or academia in general. Which is one of the conservative culture’s worst characteristics imho. And if the NewMajority can at least do something to change that, it will go a long way towards changing my feelings about conservatism and the republican party.
3 ChristianMiller // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:28 am
You can’t control Global warming – climate change. Get used to it. Even if it exists and is threatening life on our planet, (which it isn’t) it can’t be stopped by humans. Repeat; it can’t be stopped by humans.
Is this too difficult for you to understand? Do you know anything about world politics at all? In order for this phenomenon to be stopped by humans there must be a world government – an EFFECTIVE world government. Ain’t gonna happen.
4 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 7:25 am
#1. Why does Mr. Murdock find it necessary to mention that Sir Houghton is an evangelical Christian? Is this designed to make the SoCons feel better? Also, evangelical Christians believe that the earth was created in six days. What does Sir Houghton believe?
#2. Again, why is Mr. Houghtons association with Mrs. Thatcher relevant? Is Mr. Murdock attempting to make conservatives feel better about cap and trade?
#3. The so called scientific data presented by Mr. Murdock boils down to charts showing higher temperatures coinciding with the Industrial Revolution. Correlation does not imply causation. Unless you can set up a control group, you will not be able to prove in scientific terms causation.
5 sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:20 am
On global warming, or any other scientific issue, I’ll just go with what the scientific community asserts to be true. I’m not a scientist and I’m not going to play backseat driver to scientists.
I was an engineer for over 20 years. I didn’t like non-engineers telling me how to do my job either.
It is unconscionable for a political party like the GOP to attempt to politicize a scientific question. What to do about global warming, or the hole in the ozone layer, or lung cancer caused by smoking, are legitimate issues of policy for the GOP. But *whether* these phenomena are actually occurring is a *scientific* question, to be resolved by scientists via the scientific method. I am absolutely appalled at the way some Republicans and some conservatives are trying to politicize them.
The war on science being waged by some conservatives–the most egregious example being the attacks on Darwin’s theory of evolution by such as Anne Coulter–is the one thing I find most reprehensible in the modern conservative movement.
As an engineer, I had to have a healthy respect for scientific theory. I had nothing but contempt for most politicians.
6 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:32 am
“I am absolutely appalled at the way some Republicans and some conservatives are trying to politicize them.”
Your propensity to constantly attack Republicans is getting very tedious. The Left is trying to use “global warming”, “climate change” to curtail our freedom. To curtail capitalism. Please, spare us your outrage.
The “scientific” data boils down to a couple of charts shoring higher CO2 levels coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, coinciding with higher termperatures. These charts show correlation not causation. Before, we dismantle our way of life we need more than correlation.
7 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:13 am
Chekote: “The “scientific” data boils down to a couple of charts shoring higher CO2 levels coinciding with the Industrial Revolution…”
You know, not knowing things is not a bad place to be. The danger is not knowing much and bluffing as if you know much more than you do. What’s the Margaret Chase Smith line? “Know nothing and suspect everything.”
I think this kind of attitude is what David Frum has been pointing to in his work. Sarah Palin is where it’s at. Pointy headed experts–unless they work for the Heartland Institute, they’re all part of a conspiracy.
8 ChristianMiller // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:25 am
JJWFromME It is a conspiracy of the unwitting.
Third world wants it = wealth transfer.
Scientists want it = funding
The UN wants it = power
Corporations want it = they make more money -less competition.
Democrats want it = power and control
Journalist want it = more alarmism
9 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:46 am
Anyone who makes that argument, Franco, doesn’t know what scientists do for a living. There’s no way that every single organization mentioned on this page is fudging data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Scientific empiricism in the physical sciences is conservative. If you don’t know that, then it’s because no one taught you it in school. Or you believe a pretty elaborate and paranoid conspiracy theory.
10 sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:49 am
Chekote: Your claim is simply false. What is it you think climatologists do for a living? Just Xerox some old charts and then go skiing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
History lesson: In the 1980s, scientists at NASA and elsewhere were noting a growing hole in the ozone layer. And then as now, industry funded numerous attempts to head off attempts to cope with the ozone hole. Because halocarbons were cheap and effective and ubiquitous.
But science prevailed. Halocarbons were phased out by Government edict. And now the ozone hole is slowly repairing itself.
Chekote: When Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations,” the world population was a fraction of what it is now, our civilization had just scratched the surface of the world’s natural resources; and parts of the Earth remained unexplored. Back then, it was a reasonable first approximation to think of the Earth’s atmosphere as infinite and free for the taking, when working out the law of supply and demand. But now, with seven billion people and their industrial civilization polluting that atmosphere, we can no longer price it in our econometric models as if it’s free.
11 sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:51 am
JJWfromME: I will only support conservative candidates and conservative movements that embrace science. I will not embrace any candidate or movement that attempts to undercut science by using the tools of politics against scientists.
And that’s final.
12 ChristianMiller // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:15 am
JJWFromME, Anyone who makes that (what?) argument doesn’t know…. Oh yeah? Is that your scientific, logical analysis? You were taught well by the drones.
13 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:31 am
Franco: Anyone who makes the argument that it’s all about “wants” doesn’t know anything about the scientific method or peer review. That, or they have been fed anecdotes that may, as this post says, find this or that weakness in one thread of the “cargo net,” but doesn’t weaken the whole body of work.
I’m sure you’re going to come back with some sort of annoyed comment that doesn’t explain why you doubt all the work, but I’ve gotten used to hearing that from conservatives.
14 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:34 am
I just love how much “faith” Sinz and other have in the infallible “scientists”. You know, the same group who believed in alchemy. Who believed in bleeding sick people. Yes, they were they “infallible” scientists of their day. Global warming has all the markings of a religion. Anybody, who dares disagree with its dogma becomes the target of witch trials. Just like the title of this thread: “It is true, get used to it” is no different that statements of other religious leaders.
All they have “proven” thus far is that increases in temperature coincide with the Industrial Revolution. If we find data showing an increase of murder coinciding with an increase in the consumption of ice dream, would Mr. Murdock conclude that eating ice cream leads to killing?
Finally, our climate records go back to the 1800s. Our planet is estimated to be 4.54 billion years. The climate data available would not meet the 95% confidence level.
15 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:39 am
Chekote: “All they have “proven” thus far is that increases in temperature coincide with the Industrial Revolution.”
This is barely worth responding to. I’m not going to argue with someone who glibly makes claims while not knowing fact #1 about this issue.
16 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:40 am
Sinz, why don’t you, Frum and others who believe in big government just join the Democrat party? You are uncomfortable with every tenet of conservatism. Personal responsibility – you have posted many times that we all have to help pay for other people’s mistakes. Big federal government – you written on behalf of expanding the federal government. Global warming – you support cap and trade which will destroy our economy. Next, you will be advocating price and wage controls.
17 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:43 am
JJWF
Enlighten me with your brilliant knowledge? What evidence do you have that it is man made? What evidence that you have that CO2 levels are the only cause of temperatures rising? Are you able to conduct a separate experiment – a control group – that takes out human activity so that you can observe the effect on global temperatures?
18 ChristianMiller // Apr 6, 2009 at 10:51 am
Chekote, And you don’t have to go back that far.
“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. ” -Time magazine June 24, 1974
The trend of making false predictions shows no indication of reversing either.
19 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:04 am
Franco– That one has been kicking around a long time. See this blog post:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php
There are lots of zombie faux-scientific arguments floating around. The “cooling in the 1970’s” one is the most common. The blogger I linked to above has short posts answering just about every one that is out there. (And yeah, he’s a blogger, but he links to authoritative sources.)
20 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:23 am
JJW,
I am still waiting on a response regarding whether anyone has been able to create a control group to show that global warming is man made.
21 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:34 am
You mean an extra “control” planet, Chekote? I think we only have one handy.
As for experiments that isolate CO2 as a cause of warming to the exclusion of others, there are quite a few that do that: http://tinyurl.com/aqog75
22 barker13 // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:42 am
Re: Sinz54; 8:20 AM –
“It is unconscionable for a political party like the GOP to attempt to politicize a scientific question.”
So… the GOP is attempting to politicize science. Not the Dems? It’s only Republicans? Would you narrow it down further to only conservatives? Just trying to get a handle on your mindset, Sinz.
You a big Calder fan, Sinz? How’bout Ehrlich… was he one of your go-to guys back in the day? (Here… Sinz… together in our best Charlton Heston impressions… “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!”
Sinz… for God’s sake… give it a rest.
BILL
23 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:57 am
“The researchers declared the climate in the US is becoming more “greenhouse-like” — with more intense rain and snowfalls, more winter precipitation, more droughts, floods and heat waves.”
Wow! I didn’t know that we could contain climate withing geographical borders. I guess air recognizes borders. I just wish illegal immigrants could do the same.
Seriously, all the articles posted are based on some computer modeling. Have you ever heard of garbage in, garbage out? Unless you can create a control group you will not be able to prove causality. I just love the way these scientists talk about climate change as it it is a recent phenomenon. What happened during the Ice Age? Was somebody driving SUVs unbeknownst to the scientists?
24 JJWFromME // Apr 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Chekote: “Seriously, all the articles posted are based on some computer modeling.”
Nope. This would be easy to find out if you actually read them.
25 sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 1:29 pm
barker13: The Dems aren’t entirely innocent either:
The liberal Dem senator, Tom Harkin, once tried bee pollen for his allergies. And he was so pleased with the results that he *forced* the National Institute of Health (NIH) to set up an “Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM),” which wastes taxpayer dollars on all kinds of quackery–homeopathy and, of course, bee pollen! Harkin micromanages the OAM and forces it to “research” his favorite quack remedies.
And I’m just as opposed to that nonsense.
Somebody somewhere has to still stand up for objective truth, untainted by political chicanery. Much of America’s technological strength comes from scientific research. And science depends on objectivity–which seems to be an increasingly rare commodity these days.
26 Chekote // Apr 6, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“barker13: The Dems aren’t entirely innocent either:”
OMG, sinz is posting this? Naaaah…
27 Ryan // Apr 7, 2009 at 2:44 am
I would just like to rescind my hopeful comments at the beginning about the prospect of a new, more science-friendly Republican party. Its clearly a long ways away.
28 sinz54 // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:23 am
Ryan: Even worse than global warming is how popular conservatives like Ann Coulter attack Darwin’s theory of evolution. The flirtation of social conservatives with creationism is the most anti-science aspect of modern conservatism.
It makes the conservative movement appear like backward ignoramuses in the eyes of the college-educated young. And if we lose the younger generation, inevitably we will lose the nation.
Part of the problem is that the GOP base seems to have written off the younger generation as hopeless. The few times that young conservatives have written articles on Townhall.com about the need to appeal to young voters, the response they get from the embittered GOP base is that today’s young people are too soft and too naive and too idealistic, and they do immoral things like binge drinking and having sex, and we didn’t behave like that when we were younger, and it was a mistake to give 18 year olds the right to vote, so who cares about them. (I asked: If today’s young people are so hopeless, why do we allow them to enlist in our armed forces? No answer.)
One more thing: Please don’t engage in personal attacks on “Chekote.” He has a right to believe anything he wants without being insulted.
29 barker13 // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:53 am
Re: Sinz54; 1:29 PM –
“The Dems aren’t entirely innocent either:”
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
See… I knew you could say it, Sinz!
(*WINK*)
“And science depends on objectivity–which seems to be an increasingly rare commodity these days.”
Fair enough… but it seems we see different “sides” as being the truly objective ones.
(*SHRUG*)
BTW… V=IR (*THUMBS UP*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Ryan; 2:44 AM –
Hmm… sounds like “Ryan’s way or the highway,” folks; and they call *us* the extremists!
(*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)
Ryan… dude… save the faith based certitude for Church.
Re: Ryan; 2:47 AM –
Ahh…!!! And obnoxious too!
(*CHUCKLING*)
Re: Sinz54; wrote 12 minutes ago –
Sinz… dude or dudette… we’re talking climate change, not evolution.
But, yeah… in your defense I can see why you’d rather talk Coulter than Ehrlich.
(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)
As to the college “educated” young… the problem is that for the average liberal arts student (who *is* the average college student) is mainly being exposed only to one perspective re: climate change.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Like it or not, Ryan, there are two sides (lots of sides in fact) regarding what’s fact and what’s not regarding climate change.
BILL
30 petty boozshwa // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:04 am
A couple of points I’d like to throw into the discussion:
The Global Warming crowd, starting with Al Gore, would be a lot more credible if their passion caused them to rethink some of their preferred positions, like opposition to nuclear power or let-’er-rip immigration policies. All the coercive regulation in the world won’t help if we keep doubling our population every thirty years.
I’m old enough to remember when economists like Lester Thurow were predicting Americans would be carting the Japanese around in rickshaws by now, and their computer models, anecdotes, statistical charts and data were a lot more complete and compelling than the proof of global climate change – scientists still can’t build a model that takes the inputs from 1966 and predicts what happened in 1986 – the earth’s ecology is just to dynamic and self regulating.
Isn’t fresh water the most precious commodity on earth? Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that Gore’s predictions are correct, we live in a world that can’t stop a nut in North Korea from firing a missile, how are we going to regulate the global economy. Taxing jobs away from the west and driving them to the developing world doesn’t make sense. Why not develop long-term projects for replenishing aquifers and watersheds that could store the fresh water released?
31 sinz54 // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:07 am
petty boozshwa: In case you haven’t noticed, the standard of living of working families in America *has* been steadily eroded in our lifetimes.
I’m old enough to remember when a husband could earn enough money to support his entire family (including 3 or 4 children), without his wife having to work too. In recent decades, this decline in the standard of living has been masked, by having both husband and wife work, and by having fewer children or even no children to support.
But, as Mark Steyn has pointed out incessantly, a society that tries to get along by not having enough children to keep its population growing is going to be in serious trouble eventually.
32 petty boozshwa // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:18 am
sinz54 I agree that the working family’s lot has eroded since a husband/breadwinner could support the family – now the wife has to earn approximately 45% of the family income to cover tax obligations. Don’t know how this relates to my post, though. When Lester Thurow was writing his warnings the real estate value of Emperor Hirohito’s 300 acre palace grounds in downtown Tokyo was appraised higher than the value of all the real estate in the entire state of California — sometimes things change direction, weather patterns, 401(k)s, etc.
On David Frum’s posting on this issue I saw your full-throated endorsement of Bush’s justification for the war against Saddam Hussein; while I welcome your conversion I don’t think it logically follows we should endorse a war against climate change the same way.
33 sinz54 // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm
petty boozshwa: In the case of Saddam “possibly” giving WMD to terrorists, the Bush Admininstration acted on that, to launch a 6 year war that cost over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, all on the slim probability that Saddam would give his WMD to terrorists. Some 90% of conservatives approved of that judgment call.
Now many of those same conservatives are opposing doing anything about global warming, until we are 100% sure that it is for real.
Why was it OK to launch a war on Saddam for a slim probability of the Saddam-WMD-terrorist threat being real, but not OK to do anything about global warming where the probability of it being real is much larger than “slim”?
Or conversely, if you want to postpone doing anything about global warming till we’re 100% sure the threat is real, shouldn’t we have also postponed doing anything about Saddam till we were 100% sure that threat was real?
Why the disparity?
34 Churl // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Cargo net? More like a cargo cult.
You must log in to post a comment.