In the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I am convinced that it is largely a constructed scam on the part of many uncoordinated but interested parties. As an environmentalist, I am very sympathetic to the position that we should always be alert to the unintended impact of any emissions of any sort from the processes which make modern life so much more endurable than decades and centuries ago.
Our capitalist system does a pretty good job of minimizing inputs for maximizing desirable outputs. We reward efficiency. We are less practiced at minimizing negative externalities since that is usually done belatedly and via less effective mechanisms such as taxation or regulatory edict. It is a known issue which we need to continue to improve.
So a concern about negative externalities related to energy productions is not inherently unwarranted. And indeed, we addressed much of the pollution aspect of that in the 1970-80s. But AGW posits a very specific mechanism (CO2 emission) as a control knob on a chaotic, evolving, kinetic system (climate) on lengthy time scales for which we have little reliable data and no demonstrated forecasting capability.
It is entirely, for the time being, a manufactured crisis for political and commercial gain. As can be seen based on the fact that the people who claim an AGW crisis demonstrate no moderation in their actions or behaviors that would reflect a genuine concern about the putative crisis. Revealed preference is a powerful tell.
If you fly private jets to AGW conferences, you don't believe there is an AGW crisis. If you buy seashore or island property, you don't believe there is an AGW crisis. If you own more than a single home and it is above 2,000 square feet, you don't believe there is an AGW crisis. If you drive a SUV, you don't believe there is an AGW crisis. If you undertake any discretionary vacation travel, you don't believe there is an AGW crisis.
So I should be in general agreement with Steve Milloy, a deep AGW skeptic. However, Milloy is very dismissive of the AGW crowd. And I agree that they are wrong. But there is almost always an implied "They are wrong and stupid" tone in his statements. It feels to me to be the wrong way of saying something with which I agree.
On the other hand, his is sometimes clearly an effective communication strategy.
One of the things I profoundly hate is for AGW people to preach the gospel that weather is not climate whenever the weather is in conflict with their climate forecast but then to always offer weather events as evidence of climate warming when it suits them. They are correct - weather is not climate. Regardless of what the weather is doing. I just want them to be consistent.
NPR is especially horrible in this regard. There is hardly ever an unusual weather event (or natural event) which occurs which is not shanghaied as evidence of global warming. An early freeze is global warming. An Indian summer is global warming. A low hurricane season is global warming. A high hurricane season is global warming.
Holding two pieces of opposing condition as both evidence of some underlying hypothesis? Now that is stupid. Milloy is right.
And he is a dab hand at turning their foolishness against the AGW scam.
"While seabirds naturally experience some lean years," [we now arbitrarily blaming everything on 'climate change'].
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) December 14, 2022
Mass bird die-offs happen from time to time. None can be credibly linked with emissions.
Climate is a hoax.https://t.co/MoZxdOs3tZ
I dislike the self-evident anti-empiricism of the AGW fanatics. I dislike arguments that devolve into name calling and mockery verging on abuse.
But the facts are what they are. Misusing evidence for political and commercial gain is by far the greater sin over simply disregarding the niceties of polite debate.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment