I think the author of a recent article believes the global warming science is stronger than actual science justifies, but his take down of the liberal conceit that Republicans are anti-science as opposed to Democrats who believe they are guided by science is welcome.
Yeah, let's talk about the science of "nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry"; as well as investment in science research. And what about anti-vaccination campaigns?
On global warming, this point seems fair enough:
Conservatives believe many of the policies put forward to address the problem will lead to unacceptable levels of economic hardship. It's not inherently anti-scientific to oppose cap and trade or carbon taxes. What most Republicans object to are policies that unilaterally make it more expensive in the United States to produce energy, grow food, and transport people and goods but are unlikely to make much long-term difference in the world’s climate, given that other major world economies emit more carbon than the United States or have much faster growth rates of carbon emissions (China, India, Russia, and Brazil all come to mind).
The more important question on climate change is not “how do we eliminate carbon immediately?” but “how best do we secure a cleaner environment and more prosperous world for future generations?”
Yes. I've said I like to think I can be persuaded that climate changes are taking place for long enough to be more than even centuries-long natural fluctuations when climate operates on the multi-millennium time scale.
I like to think I can be persuaded that humans are the major cause of that validated change.
I might even be persuaded that computer models of future climate that predict doom are good enough to act on.
But I don't think that even if I was convinced that man-made CO2 additions to the atmosphere are causing dangerous warming that I could be persuaded that the economy- and freedom-killing projects to control CO2 emissions are wise or even only mildly harmful.
And the laughable lengths that global warming advocates go to deny the plateau in global temperatures that we've experienced for the last decade and a half doesn't impress me on that side's ability to be persuaded by data.
The scientific consensus always looks good until the science is reversed by later science. Yeah, the old beliefs always look stupid, no?
By all means, work on things to make our environment cleaner. We already have in the West in major ways. But destroying the village in order to save it is madness. Where's the science in that?
Tips to Instapundit.
