"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Global Warming is about Social Science Too
"Both sides in the debate over global warming are known for calling their opposition all kinds of derisive names. Perhaps the worst is “denier” to describe those who allegedly deny that global warming is “real.” The echoes of Holocaust denial are indeed offensive, particularly because the debate over global warming often conflates science with social science. This matters because one could accept that science has established global warming but still reject for social scientific reasons the claim that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are the proper way to address its effects. Does that make one a “denier?” It is that question I hope to answer indirectly below."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
AGW bears all the signs of a sect of the statist religion. Its adherents claim both perfect knowledge (it's "settled science") and the ability to apply simple physics (policy input A will lead to outcome B) to a problems that are defined by complexity. To even answer the question, "is the planet warming" is exceedingly complex and, using currently available methods, probably impossible.
As a belief system it is therefore impervious to reasoned argumentation, and as a foundation on which to apply the coercion of the state, pervasively pernicious.
Also, if the planet is warming, and it is not caused by human activity, then it is natural, and trying to "fool Mother Nature" can, as we have seen all too many times, bring with it, "That Which is Not Seen".
...look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it... ~ Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), July 1850
Example: In eastern North America, Multiflora Rose is now generally considered an invasive species, though it was originally introduced [with the assistance of government] from Asia as a soil conservation measure, as a natural hedge to border grazing land, and to attract wildlife. ...Some places classify Multiflora rose as a "noxious weed". ~ Wikipedia
Let me put it this way, it is so "noxious" (it is nearly impossible to kill it), and aggressive, that combating it, in the mountains of the place called North Carolina, kept a roof over our heads and food on the table for over ten years! "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Disconnection between "benefit" and "cost" is the hallmark of political system activity. Since no actor within the political system (from EPA consultant to a "scientist" on a government grant) reaps the downstream costs of his or her actions or proposals, there is no negative feedback loop to induce a degree of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" common sense.
I'm a lover of axiom, and for me, it is axiomatic that if the proposal originates within or is to be implemented by the political system, it will produce outcomes 180 degrees opposite those espoused by its proponents.
Simple rules for my simple mind.