I've done a little online sparring over global warming and energy of late. There was some "big news" last weekend when some hacked emails between climate scientists surfaced. Deniers have been trying to claim it's the "smoking gun" that proves climate scientists are pulling a hoax on all of us. Yeah, not really. What it shows is healthy debate and careful consideration of data to make it as clear as possible for lay people. You see, that's what reasonable people do - listen to all sides of a problem and look for the best explanation.
Still, people are clinging to the idea that since the planet has not warmed much of late, it proves that global warming is false. Again, not exactly. They continue the argument into energy - cap and trade is a boondoggle designed to destroy business. They say we'll tax ourselves and drive more industry to India and China. So would they have us outsource leadership too? I don't know enough about the proposed legislation, but the idea behind policy is to create an environment that rewards business for desired behavior - in this case, reducing pollution. Somehow that's a bad thing?
I don't think we have a clear picture yet as to everything that's happening to our planet. It's a combination of a lot of different things, all interacting and reacting in a constant flow. We may only fully understand it in review, but I agree with the concept of earth as a living organism. We have to respect that all of our actions have an impact on the system.
What it comes down to is protecting the status quo - those who denounce the need simply want things to remain as they are. When you really crunch the numbers - that may be the most costly path of all. Most of our big problems stem from the fact that we are bumping up against the natural limit of resources on our planet. Even if there is no thing as anthropogenic global warming, we still have issues with population, transportation, rampant energy use and a vulnerable food system. The lesson we should take from climate change is that we should strive to make our relationship with the planet more sustainable. And that's why it's so hard to take deniers very seriously - we all know we need to get a little closer to the earth.
It reminds of that old saying we heard so many times - If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?
Evidence of researchers trying to fit data to their beliefs and talk of concealing data equals careful consideration? Sorry, but that sort of conclusion could only come from a video producer with no understanding of the scientific method. Stick to your MPA. At least that will serve to reinforce such interventionist concepts as "the idea behind policy is to create an environment that rewards business for desired behavior." The Founders would have tossed you out on your ear had you uttered such nonsense in their presence.
Posted by: The Sage | November 25, 2009 at 08:25 AM
Sage - I don't think they concealed anything and it sounds normal to me. Pick a hypothesis and then test the data. You always try to make your graphs clear. Where's the fire?
As far as sticking to what I know, policy falls into that category. You seem to think my phrasing would have appalled the forefathers, but what do you think government does with laws and policy? Shape behvavior.
Posted by: JW | November 25, 2009 at 04:59 PM
"Pick a hypothesis and then test the data."
Thank you for reinforcing my original point. True science proceeds in exactly the opposite manner...reproducible data leads you to the conclusion regardless of the initial hunch. First year chem/physics/bio/etc. majors are taught that. You're dabbling in matters about which you have no training.
"...but what do you think government does with laws and policy? Shape behvavior."
Spoken like a true blue progressive, which is 180 degrees contra to the goal of the Founders. The intent of government in America was never to influence or control common behavior. European monarchies had long enough reign in that regard and the Founders detested such meddling. Study the Federalist papers and you'll come to realize the design.
Posted by: The Sage | November 25, 2009 at 08:57 PM
Funny. What I described is how you would run a control experiment. Things are never so simple. I'll stand beside you in the defense of personal freedom, but I think you're squibbling over my choice of words. Do you drive the speed limit? Would you say that policy is effective in shaping your behavior?
Posted by: JW | November 26, 2009 at 07:59 AM
"What I described is how you would run a control experiment."
I'd ask you to define that, but we all know the answer would be something drawn from Wiki and not your background. How many of your fellow communications and video majors spent their time toiling in labs and experiments? A "control" exhibits zero bias, something not found in the latest CRU revelation...
"Do you drive the speed limit? Would you say that policy is effective in shaping your behavior?"
You sure seem to have a habit of reinforcing progressive ideas with progressive examples. Why not try addressing the original point about how the Founders would view such meddling? Principles of exceptionally limited government are what this country was based upon. If you're willing to stand for personal freedom, then please illustrate how you square your progressive ideology within such a framework.
Posted by: The Sage | November 26, 2009 at 08:49 PM
A common problem solving technique is to pick a hypothesis and test it. Of course the data will lead to the answer.
What I'm saying is we're well past the basic ideals. We are a nation of laws. Government sets policy that dictates our behvavior - like driving on the right side of the road. Are you arguing that there should be no laws other than the constituion?
Posted by: JW | November 27, 2009 at 02:20 PM