Climate scaries
A list of sceptical arguments and their counters. I take the debate to be that the “looming disaster” case rests on (1) evidence of warming and (2) CO2 levels increasing at unprecedented rates to levels not seen for a very long time. The contrary case rests on (1) the warming not being the right pattern to be predominantly human caused, (2) not being fast enough or high enough to be a serious worry, (3) C02 having declining warming effect as concentrations increase, (4) the existence of negative feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere.
Then there are arguments about appropriate responses, which are more about economics and social effects than climate science as such.
I find the moderate sceptical case (there is warming, it is partly human caused, but …) the currently persuasive case.
There are wider issues. Global warming-as-disaster was “decided” to be a major issue with remarkable speed, for a complex and still developing science. It came along at just “the right moment” with the collapse of the socialist project and the development of a mass of environmental NGOs who need fundraising causes. It has a standard set of villains (evil capitalism) and a standard set of “solutions” (more government control). It operates as a convenient stick for the Europeans to beat the US with and hobble economic challenges from the developing world. It turns the weather into a steady diet of disaster stories for the media, with the weather gaining a news-useful narrative with goodies and baddies.
There is also a longer term pattern with scare campaigns, going back decades. That capitalism will cause the immiseration of workers; that capitalism will lurch towards crises and finally collapse; that US (Cold War) policy will blow-up the world; that Reagan will blow up the world; that industrialisation will produce a new Ice Age; that population growth will lead to increasing mass famines; that there was a looming commodities crunch; that free trade will devastate developing economies; that de-regulation will depress wages; that privatisation will devastate services; that X free trade agreement will devastate the Mexican/Australian/you-name-it economy; that WorkChoices will increase unemployment and depress wages. And so on. The common features of these scare campaigns being that (1) they project looming disaster, (2) this looming disaster is the fault of “capitalism” and its supporters and (3) they were wrong.
They are all based, to a greater or lesser degree, on the idea that “capitalism” cannot be, in any sustained way, a positive force, hence the future must be disastrous. Particularly policies that promote/extend “capitalism” or “capitalist societies”.
And they were all accompanied by various levels of moral bullying, claiming or implying that if you didn't agree you were ignorant/stupid/wicked/malignant/just paid to say that etc.
So when much the same folk shout at me in much the same way with yet another scare campaign, I am not impressed. Particularly as climate science is an area where most people have effectively no background knowledge, so it is much easier to push claims of looming disaster.
And I am clearly not alone in this reaction. Which is why climate science matters - which should not be ideological - ends up being so. Because one side of politics naturally falls into “capitalism is evil” scare campaigns, and the other side says “here we go again” and resists.
Then there are arguments about appropriate responses, which are more about economics and social effects than climate science as such.
I find the moderate sceptical case (there is warming, it is partly human caused, but …) the currently persuasive case.
There are wider issues. Global warming-as-disaster was “decided” to be a major issue with remarkable speed, for a complex and still developing science. It came along at just “the right moment” with the collapse of the socialist project and the development of a mass of environmental NGOs who need fundraising causes. It has a standard set of villains (evil capitalism) and a standard set of “solutions” (more government control). It operates as a convenient stick for the Europeans to beat the US with and hobble economic challenges from the developing world. It turns the weather into a steady diet of disaster stories for the media, with the weather gaining a news-useful narrative with goodies and baddies.
There is also a longer term pattern with scare campaigns, going back decades. That capitalism will cause the immiseration of workers; that capitalism will lurch towards crises and finally collapse; that US (Cold War) policy will blow-up the world; that Reagan will blow up the world; that industrialisation will produce a new Ice Age; that population growth will lead to increasing mass famines; that there was a looming commodities crunch; that free trade will devastate developing economies; that de-regulation will depress wages; that privatisation will devastate services; that X free trade agreement will devastate the Mexican/Australian/you-name-it economy; that WorkChoices will increase unemployment and depress wages. And so on. The common features of these scare campaigns being that (1) they project looming disaster, (2) this looming disaster is the fault of “capitalism” and its supporters and (3) they were wrong.
They are all based, to a greater or lesser degree, on the idea that “capitalism” cannot be, in any sustained way, a positive force, hence the future must be disastrous. Particularly policies that promote/extend “capitalism” or “capitalist societies”.
And they were all accompanied by various levels of moral bullying, claiming or implying that if you didn't agree you were ignorant/stupid/wicked/malignant/just paid to say that etc.
So when much the same folk shout at me in much the same way with yet another scare campaign, I am not impressed. Particularly as climate science is an area where most people have effectively no background knowledge, so it is much easier to push claims of looming disaster.
And I am clearly not alone in this reaction. Which is why climate science matters - which should not be ideological - ends up being so. Because one side of politics naturally falls into “capitalism is evil” scare campaigns, and the other side says “here we go again” and resists.