What Climate Scientists Tell Us About Global Warming — And Why
The Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor, whom I interviewed last week, writes in to offer a correction to my piece the other day on The Impetus for Renewable Energy that includes: “(Taylor) believes that the push for a migration from cheap and abundant fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy that can only come about with government support is driven by a Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-prosperity agenda.”
I said that many people in “my world” (that is, the right-of-center world, broadly defined) believe this. I didn’t say that I believed it. In fact, I do not (well, I’m sure it’s true for some, but I’m also sure it’s not true for others and I have no idea what the accurate percentage counts might be).
The point I was trying to make is that, if we are going to dismiss the arguments of those who we deem to be biased (either because of economic OR ideological self-interest), then the Right would be as justified at tuning-out the Left’s arguments as the Left believes it is when it tunes-out the Right’s arguments (motivated as they are, as you suspect, by Koch contributions or what have you). Pro-renewable activists may be ideological biased – and heavily so – but that doesn’t tell me anything about whether their arguments are right or wrong. Likewise, Koch Industries may have a strong self-interest in defeating regulation of GhG emissions, but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether their arguments are right or wrong.
I’m sure there are some liberals who are so hopelessly biased by ideology that their conclusions are warped thereby. And I’m sure that there are many conservatives and libertarians who suffer from the same problem (in fact, I know there are because I personally know of examples of exactly that). But … it’s not particularly relevant. Arguments either persuade or they don’t persuade when put under a microscope. The motive of the arguer is immaterial.
Sorry I got that wrong, and thanks for some good points here. It is true that the motive of the arguer is immaterial; an incorrect answer can come from a person with a good motive, just as the truth can come from one with an evil motive. Of course, we’d all be better off listening to people who have no motive at all, i.e., pure scientists. When science is subservient to politics, we’re all in trouble.
And yes, I’ve heard the notion that the climate scientists who tell us that global climate change represents a severe threat (whose numbers represent over 97% of the total) hold those beliefs because of their desire to maintain the flow of money for their research efforts. Yet I’ve never been able to wrap my wits around this. I know some of these people personally, and it’s just not credible to me that they have abandoned the rigor and intellectual honesty that had been the hallmark of their careers in order to perpetuate a hoax on mankind.
Thanks for follow up, this point is a good one. I too know high level Scientists who agree GhG is a big issue. I too have studied the science about warmth preceding GhG. As well consider modern man arrogant enough to think “he” could change the wold. I also think Media is selling this drama all the way to the bank. An obvious, is Oil is big money and willing to maintain that at any cost because they have any amount to do so. People both leaders and followers are subject to hypnosis or mantras this is a main point that is central to the “clarification” above. I teach Green Plumbing and in my classes I show video sources supporting left & right of the GhG issue. I suggest neither “side” is needed to be a Green Plumber, just how to integrate emerging technologies and be an advisor to customers on conservation. A closed mind is a sick one, I am not on the fence, I am healthy. I learn from some of these posts as I read and hope more people do the same. Peace,war, right and left, good & bad, Capitalistic, Socialistic views all have a place in my heart. The only thing I am closed to is violence as media or status quo. (TV).
Greg Chick, a Certified Green Plumber Trainer.
PS, I own both Solar PV, & Thermal on my house that is not in mortgage
In terms of total dollars distributed per researcher, anti-AGW labs funded by fossil interests get more money than honest labs that are doing legitimate climate research study. If the scientists were evil and simply wanted funding, they’d try to make some hack argument against climate change and ask the fossil interests for funding to prove it.
All science wants funding, and all science does risk bias in seeking funding… but there’s more money out there wishing to fund researchers that DIS-proves AGW than there is funding available for researchers that seek to further our understanding of AGW… That should tilt the selection bias in favor of the anti-AGW crowd. The fact that this is not the case, and there is overwhelming consensus that this is indeed a significant issue, should tell anyone that doesn’t understand basic energy physics all that they need to know.