QUORA: ‘What further proof do climate deniers need?’

 QUORA: ‘What further proof do climate deniers need?’

I posted this answer:

Proof won’t convince the actual “climate deniers,” because facts don’t matter to them.

There is a mountain of evidence and of analysis by a deep, broad bench of experts, drawing on decades of research of both private and governmental sources, that refutes the deniers’ argument that a climate emergency is imminent (or happening already) and that mankind faces an existential crisis that demands the immediate abandonment of the main energy driver of human civilization, fossil fuels.

Yet the climate hucksters in the political, media, and renewable energy industries who keep peddling their “climate emergency” witch doctory keep denying the full picture for their own self-serving purposes. The terms climate emergency, and the alternate climate crisis, are in themselves logically incoherent terms.* The dissenting and objective view is that warming is happening, is in part caused by human activity, has positive and negative effects, but is mild and manageable. No totalitarian "unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society" need be forced on us, as the UN claims. The objective view holds that climate change has not yet led to meaningful negative consequences, but may present problems in the future. But it is a long term, that is decades and centuries, issue. The best way forward, therefore, is to avoid dramatic, risky short-term disruption and instead pursue pro-liberty (i.e. Capitalist) policies that lead to more prosperity and innovation, the only path to dealing with potential increases in weather extremes while promoting prosperity climate resiliency. 

There is a principle that guides medical practice; “First, do no harm.” That principle should be applied to the issue of climate change. Humans can continue to flourish while continuing to master negative effects of climate change, whether natural or man-induced. Precipitating a massive life-crushing energy crisis is a “first, do harm” utopian strategy.

The facts are readily available and made accessible to the non-expert public by better thinkers, such as Bjorn Lomborg, Ronald Bailey, Alex Epstein, Roger Pielke Jr., Steven Koonan, Patrick Moore, Robert Bryce, and Michael Schellenberger, to name just a few. 

The “climate denier” charge is usually used to smear the people who reject the climate catastrophist narrative and related statist political agenda. But the alarmists who call for drastic immediate action to head off some imagined “climate emergency” regardless of the affect on human lives are the real “climate deniers”—or, to be more precise, people who disregard the full context of climate and the actual evidence. They ignore the true state regarding current climate, which can only be understood in the context of Earth’s climate history. They take on faith what the biased political and media elites tell them “the science” says, but disregard what the science actually reveals.  

My advice to the climate catastrophists is to start thinking about climate. Get all of the facts. The real climate deniers are the alarmists, not the dissenters they accuse of being deniers. To the people who pose a question like “What further proof do climate deniers need?,'' ask yourself; What are the alleged “deniers” saying that the alarmist thought leaders don’t want you to hear? You owe it to yourself to learn. Listen to all of the perspectives and opinions, including opposing views, observe the world around you objectively, and make up your own mind. As a climate thinker, I concluded that human progress, and the freedom that makes it possible, not regression into authoritarian central economic planning, is the best way forward. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says in his highly informative book, “Let’s hope real science and reason prevail against the current epidemic of ideology, misinformation, and fear.” (p. 160)

* [Climate is a long term average of weather data taken over decades or centuries. Climate is not real. It is a mathematical abstraction. How can climate possibly be an emergency? An emergency is “a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.” There is nothing sudden about a changing climate.]

Related Reading:

Who is the Real ‘Science Denier’?

Anti-Concept ‘Science Denier’ Exposes Climate Witch Doctors’ Fear of Rational Counter-Argumentation

O'Malley the Climate Witch Doctor

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

On Trump and Government Scientists

Ad Hominem No Substitute for Reasoned Criticism

What If the Climate Change Catastrophists Actually Have a Point?

Climate change has become so politicized that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about the subject. If you disagree with the statist/Environmentalist/socialist agenda of the Democrats and their media supporters, you are automatically labeled a “denier” of some kind, regardless of what you actually say and believe. For people who oppose that Leftist agenda, opposition often consists of outright refusing to accept the possibility of human activity causing harmful climate change, if for no other reason than to defend free market capitalism. This is understandable, because the catastrophists' position is unequivocally anti-freedom and wrapped up in a socialist push, causing some to conclude that defending freedom necessitates ignoring or minimizing the actual science and facts of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of us remain uncompromisingly true to valuing freedom but reject both positions and try to stay objective about climate. I'm one. And while I listen to both of these sides, sorting through the bullshit to get at the substance of what they’re saying, I depend on certain leading independent  thinkers who are not on either of those sides to help shape my thinking to maintain a balanced view without sacrificing my free market radicalism.

So when one of those thinkers alters his position, I sit up and take notice. One such thinker is Ronald Bailey of Reason. Recently, Bailey ran a column titled Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?, in which he announced a significant alteration (or evolution) in his position on man-made climate change. (His column was seconded by Jonathn H. Adler.) Bailey rejects the hysterical panic-mongers who see “a ‘collapse in society’ in about 10 years.” And he never denied the possibility that climate change may become “a significant problem” longer term. But in his recent article, he goes considerably farther:

I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings. (For a more detailed review of current climate science, visit reason.com/climatedata.)

He goes on to discuss various proposed options for dealing with it, divided into three broad categories; Option 1: Privatize It, Option 2: Regulate It, and Option 3: Ignore It. And he concludes:

Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing the scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.

I have great respect for Bailey, especially after reading his terrifically informative book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, in which he argues that freedom and economic growth, not statism, are the only effective, progressive means of mitigating negative climate effects.

But this one statement raised a nagging question in my mind:

It's time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don't offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.

“Unfriendly to market capitalism” is extraordinarily generous. “Capitalism hating” is more precise. That aside, “I’m wondering if Bailey and Reason (and others) are leaning more towards catastrophism not so much because they believe it but because they fear that freedom-fighters are losing to the statists. So by giving a nod to the catastrophists, the pro-capitalist forces can more credibly advance their policies and head off the truly catastrophic assault on capitalism being waged by statist/Environmentalist/socialist forces in the name of “saving the planet from global warming.” In short, pro-capitalists need a “seat at the table” so it’s best to get there through the “climate crisis” door.

I may be wrong. In any event, a free market response to the “Green New Deal” thinking that calls for government force to “totally remake the American economy to address the climate crisis” is desperately needed. Bailey remains loyal to his defense of freedom, while  seemingly opening the door to governmental policy solutions: 

Continued economic growth and technological progress would surely help future generations to handle many—even most—of the problems caused by climate change. At the same time, the speed and severity at which the earth now appears to be warming make the wait-and-see approach increasingly risky.

In his latest article, Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change, Bailey highlights a Wall Street Journal article by Ted Nordhaus, who argues that “The deniers and alarmists may make headlines, but behind the scenes, an expert consensus is taking shape on how to respond to global warming.” Nordhaus observes:

Beyond the headlines and social media, where Greta Thunberg, Donald Trump and the online armies of climate “alarmists” and “deniers” do battle, there is a real climate debate bubbling along in scientific journals, conferences and, occasionally, even in the halls of Congress.

I will add that I have seen no evidence that Bailey is backtracking on the wisdom of his book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century. He seems to be building on it.

I’ve been in the camp that climate change is real, humans are contributing significantly though not exclusively to it, likely has both positive as well as negative consequences, and that restrictions or banning of reliable, economical energy would do far more harm than the negatives. I’ll be paying close attention to this debate, and what respected experts like Alex Epstein, Ron Bailey, Michael D. Shellenberger, and other leading pro-capitalists energy/environmental thought leaders have to say about this. 

Related Reading:

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

The Climate Debate Should Focus on How to Address the Threat of Climate Change, Not Whether Such a Threat Exists--JONATHAN H. ADLER for THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY 

Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here's Why.--JIGAR SHAH AND ROD RICHARDSON for Reason.com

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation.

That's the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone's right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition.

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change--Ronald Bailey

The Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus urges Americans to reject both doomism and denialism.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

Climate Expert Shreds Claims Made By Ocasio-Cortez, Thunberg In Congressional Testimony--Ryan Saavedra for DailyWire.com

Related Viewing:

Fossil fuels are not mankind's enemy--Illinois Channel TV interview with Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Politics, Science, and National Unity

Congressman Rush Holt: Lawmakers need to use a scientific approach to formulating views: So heads a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column by former NJ Congressman Rush Holt, published last December in response to Donald Trump’s election and his subsequent selection to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The first few paragraphs put forth, seemingly, a sound argument. After acknowledging that politics can be contentious, Holt writes:

I recognize, of course, that policymaking does not take place in a laboratory. I am not suggesting that science should be the only factor that lawmakers consider. But when it comes to the factual basis lawmakers use to inform their policy views, and to decide on a process for evaluating whether a particular policy has worked or failed, science should be the tool of first resort.

The stakes for our democracy are high. Many Americans are fearful that our elected leaders have forgotten how to find common ground, or don't want to, and that they continue to make assertions in disregard for each other. A scientific approach to formulating views and evaluating policies will provide politicians what they need to hone their proposals and, perhaps, walk back from some of their previous positions. That's not easy - I know, I've been there - but political arguments must resolve into policy choices at some point. Those choices should be pragmatic and informed by hard evidence and sound reasoning.

Having laid this reasonable-sounding groundwork, Holt’s real motive becomes apparent: It’s really a plug for Leftist policies regarding climate change and energy:

The stakes for our planet are high. We know, based on the work and expertise of the vast majority of climate scientists and virtually every leading scientific organization in the world, that human-caused climate change is real and dangerous. It is folly to ignore this scientific consensus - obstinate and irresponsible in the extreme.

And yet, a climate-change doubter has been put forward as the possible head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the next administration. There is no reason for such an appointment when there are scientists of every political stripe who adhere to the scientific method, have the humility to accept when they are wrong, and would be willing to serve their country if asked by an incoming president. I urge the president-elect and every incoming member of Congress to make use of the country's deep pool of talented scientists to serve as political appointees, staff members and outside experts.

What about scientists that dispute the alleged consensus?  The “hard evidence and sound reasoning,” it turns out, means disregarding reasoned analysis of the hard evidence of those who disagree. We as a nation must unite, says Holt, behind the statist climate agenda of the Left.

I left these comments:

The stakes for our planet are high. We know, based on the work and expertise of the vast majority of climate scientists and virtually every leading scientific organization in the world, that human-caused climate change is real and dangerous. It is folly to ignore this scientific consensus - obstinate and irresponsible in the extreme.

But should science be held up as an infallible authority? Climate change dogmatists routinely use the terms “scientists say” to shut down debate on their political policies and “climate denier” to smear anyone who dissents from their reliable energy-hostile statist “solutions.” Science—all science—should be consulted, not obeyed. We as reasoning individuals should do the evaluating.

What about political science? History and theory have demonstrated that political and economic freedom for individuals leads to steady human progress. Shouldn’t that knowledge and experience be integrated into the energy policy discussion regarding climate change? Voluntary consumer choice in a free market, not government coercion, should determine the energy sources we use.

What about the science of morality? Is it wrong for humans to change the climate, and the environment generally, in pursuit of human benefit? What is our moral standard of value? Is it maximizing human well-being and flourishing? Or is it minimizing human impact on the planet? Climate change dogmatists routinely assume the premise that human-caused climate change is bad per se. But is it? By what standard is it bad? Considering that the progress humans have made since the dawn of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that human-caused climate change, to the extent humans are the cause, is a very manageable and acceptable side-effect—and not necessarily all bad. The standard policymakers choose will determine if the policies they pursue will be constructive or destructive of human well-being.

What about the science of economics, which tells us that reliable, economical energy is vital to industrial civilization. Reliable, economical energy has made the environment much safer and climate dangers much more manageable for humans. Without it, immense human suffering would result. This is important because the more consistent environmentalists insist on eliminating fossil fuels and nuclear power regardless of whether any viable alternative exists (These are the naturalists, whose moral standard of value is minimal human impact). What about the demonstrated benefits of fossil fuels? Shouldn’t they be objectively weighed against the catastrophic negative impact on humans of outlawing them in the name of climate change? Where are the champions of fossil fuels?

Then there is this question: Should science funding be politicized, as it is now because of government funding of scientific research? What good is the “scientific consensus” when most research scientists rely on politicians for funding? Is it really a consensus that “human-caused climate change is real and dangerous?” Dangerous, to what degree? To whom or to what? Or is the much-touted “97% consensus” a fraud; nothing more than a wide diversity of scientific viewpoints mashed into a loose and essentially meaningless “consensus” that climate change is real and humans play a role, which no one disputes. We need the separation of science and state if we are going to have a fair and objective discussion of political policy based on science.

Should “scientific” prediction and speculation be equated with what is scientifically demonstrated? We have been hearing for decades that imminent catastrophe awaits humans because of climate change. Catastrophe, we are constantly told, is what “scientists say.” Yet life keeps getting better and safer for more and more people around the globe as reliable energy from fossil fuel use keeps growing. And no climate catastrophe. Only more and more failed predictions. Climate catastrophe, to quote Annie, is “always a day away.” Climate catastrophe is speculative. Mild, manageable, partly beneficial warming is the reality—as are the enormously greater benefits of fossil fuels. If someone said we should eliminate vaccines and antibiotics because they have some negative side effects, Holt would probably say—rightly—that they are crazy. But that’s where fossil fuel enemies are today.

It is the Left that is "obstinate and extreme." This article is just another plug for statist policies hiding behind science. If science is to be the common value that holds America united, then the climate change Left must stop demonizing and silencing rational dissenters to its political energy policies. The unchallenged premise is that climate change is bad and fossil fuels should be eliminated. This side has been in charge for too long. The climate catastrophists must stop hiding behind science and answer the dissenters openly and honestly. The dissenters are as much, if not more, attuned to science than the catastrophists ever were. It’s about time we had a balanced debate. Our energy security depends on rational pro-energy policies, not anti-climate change dogma. We may now, hopefully, get that from a Trump Administration.

Related Reading:

Anti-Concept ‘Science Denier’ Exposes Climate Witch Doctors’ Fear of Rational Counter-Argumentation

Who is the Real ‘Science Denier’?

America’s ‘Science Problem,’ America’s Ideology Problem

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

The Democrats’ Fascist Fangs Exposed in Crusade Against ‘Catastrophic’ Climate Change

The Democrats’ attack on dissenters of the government's official catastrophic climate change narrative, which started with Exxon, is reaching more and more private citizens for the crime of speaking their minds. Now, the attack has hit Alex Epstein’s Center for Industrial Progress. The Daily Caller published Epstein’s “terse response to a subpoena sent by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Wednesday.” Michael Bastasch reports:

Healey demanded the oil giant ExxonMobil hand over 40 years of documents, including information pertaining to the company’s dealings with about a dozen think tanks and trade associations, which have been targeted by environmental groups for opposing left-wing global warming policies.

Healey’s subpoena targeted the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank founded by Epstein. Epstein wasn’t exactly happy about being targeted for disagreeing with Healey on global warming, so he sent the AG’s office the following response: “Re: your demand to seize my emails—Fuck off, fascist.”

The Washington Times also reported on Epstein’s response:

Mr. Epstein is a proud fossil fuel advocate, a believer that the benefits from cheap, reliable energy are more than offset by any still-under-debate problems from rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His views are laid out in his 2014 book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” (Penguin Random House).

For this, he finds himself on the prosecutor’s radar. His advocacy group, the Center for Industrial Progress, was named in an April 19 subpoena issued by Ms. Healey’s office demanding 40 years of communications between ExxonMobil and a dozen free market groups and universities.

Epstein himself writes in Forbes (First the Government Went After ExxonMobil. Now They’re Going After Me):

The government has no right to demand a single email of mine or Exxon’s unless it has evidence that we are committing fraud by concealing or fabricating evidence. In the case of the climate impact of CO2, this is impossible–because all the evidence about CO2 and climate is in the public domain, largely collected and disseminated by government agencies or government-funded educational institutions.

But [ExxonMobil] ended up being right. The speculative claims turned out to be false. We have experienced mild (not runaway) warming that is only loosely correlated with CO2–and global fossil fueled development has helped bring climate-related deaths to an all-time low. How can you say #ExxonKnew about an imminent climate catastrophe that wasn’t real?

Healey is part of a cabal of Democrat AGs using (actually, abusing) the prosecutorial power of the state to silence global warming dissenters. This attack is being waged under cover of anti-fraud laws. But as Epstein continues:

There is a fundamental distinction in civilized society between fraud and opinion. By calling dissenting opinions fraud, the Massachusetts Attorney General and others are making independent thought a crime. To do this in the name of science is obscene. Science thrives on the open, competitive exchange of evidence and arguments–not of suppressing dissenters. True scientists can win on the competitive market of ideas. Newton didn’t need to suppress dissenters to advance his three laws of motion and Einstein didn’t need to suppress dissenters to advance his theories of relativity. Only those with fallacious conclusions are desperate for government to descend on their opponents. The opponents of the heliocentric theory did need to suppress Galileo. And the opponents of fossil fuels, who have staked careers and status on what are now clearly exaggerated assessments of CO2’s warming impact and clearly underestimated assessments of fossil fuels’ life-and-death importance to billions, cannot win on a competitive market of ideas. This is why they are so desperate to claim that “the debate is over,” to indoctrinate young students into climate catastrophism before they can think critically, to deny government research funding to scientists who disagree with them, and to falsely claim a 97% consensus.

In my view, this modern day inquisition is proof that the catastrophic climate change dogma is a load of crap. The inquisition should remove all doubt that the American Left represents fascism.  

[One positive note: As the Washington Times reported, “[Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E.] Walker wound up dropping a subpoena in May against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is pursuing sanctions against the prosecutor. The institute is one of the dozen groups named in the Massachusetts subpoena against Exxon.” We’ll have to wait and see if that is the beginning of the unraveling of the entire Democrat inquisition.]

Related Reading:

Alex Epstein Leaves MA Attorney General Maura Healey Naked With A Gun—Craig Biddle

First the Government Went After ExxonMobil. Now They’re Going After Me—Alex Epstein

What Does Climate Change have to do with Pollution? Nothing

With its urban population choking and 60 percent of its groundwater polluted, China is taking significant steps to clean up its act.(Jalopnik.com)

The picture above accompanied the New Jersey Star-Ledger’s editorial What's the GOP excuse for climate inaction now?, which employed the smear tactic “science denier” and which was the subject of my post of 11/7/15. That picture was meant to conflate the non-problem carbon dioxide emission-generated climate change with a real problem, actual pollution. The editorial addressed China’s announcement that it will institute a cap-and-trade system to reduce climate affecting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Whatever “significant steps” China is taking to clean up its actual pollution was not addressed in the editorial.

I addressed this bait-and switch tactic in one of my comments on the editorial:

First, about that picture from China above the editorial: It has nothing to do with climate change. The picture and accompanying caption depicts actual pollution, which is caused by improper development and burning of fossil fuels, not fossil fuels themselves. That is to say, China lacks the advanced pollution control technology like that adopted by the West. America has made great progress cleaning up its air and waters even as its fossil fuel use and thus its economy has grown stupendously because we recognized long ago that rational anti-pollution laws and effective anti-pollution technology must go hand in hand with industrial progress. China is just coming to that realization.

Cap & trade, as it pertains to CO2 and “the fight against climate change,” may be politically and strategically expedient for China. But it will do nothing for China’s pollution problem. Carbon dioxide is a harmless gas, vital to life, and is not the cause of the smog shown in the photograph. The debate over climate change and what, if anything, government should do about it has nothing to do with pollution.

Related Reading:

The Convoluted Logic of the “Climate Lobby”

Forget "Global Warming Pollution." Legalize Direct-to-Consumer Car Sales Anyway

A Humanist Approach to Environmental Issues—Alex Epstein