del.icio.us
E-mail this
Facebook
Twenty-one years ago I kicked off my job at the Reader with a monstrously long profile of the then-newborn Heartland Institute and the philosophy of libertarianism.
For years now, Heartland has been frittering away its credibility, wasting its resources, and discrediting libertarian thought in general by claiming there's no such thing as climate change--and that if there is, people have nothing to do with it.
Libertarians pride themselves on dealing with the economic world as it is, not as do-gooders wish it was. Why should it be different where other sciences are involved? Real climate scientists agree that there's a problem here that we need to deal with. Hell, even Lloyd's of London has figured that out. There are ways of dealing with climate change that will enhance government power, and ways that will harness the power of the market to improve matters. Those are the issues worth debating, instead of presenting Michael Crichton--a fiction writer with a flimsy conspiracy theory--as if he were some kind of authority on the planet's climate system.
A good deal of my writing over the years has been influenced by libertarian thinking, much of which I learned at Heartland. These days I find myself hesitating to mention their good stuff because of their crackpot position on climate change. It gives the impression that libertarianism really is a right-wing philosophy, lined up with anti-science Republicans who think evolution is some kind of dubious hypothesis. What possible reward could be great enough for intelligent people to seek such company?
and otherwise. Recently updated blogs are in bold text.
>Crichton--a fiction writer with
>a flimsy conspiracy theory
reference?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260
http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_...
with some good points, but comments aren't enabled there. I'll sleep on it before replying.
http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_...
that “Sound science, not scare tactics, ought to set the agenda for environmental protection.”
I agree. But what is “sound science” except the consensus of the qualified scientists as published in peer-reviewed journals? It’s not what’s convenient for any political philosophy. The consensus is that
human-caused global warming is real and will have adverse
consequences, which may be inconvenient for those of us who value freedom; in another area, the consensus on genetically modified
organisms is that they are unlikely to be harmful, which may be
inconvenient for some environmentalists or traditionalists. Neither side is justified in using its political agenda to claim that the world isn’t the way it is.
Michael writes that the science is hard to understand. I agree again.
But if that were Heartland’s position, it would be printing both sides’ positions instead of staking its reputation on one marginal position (that there’s no long-term warming trend) -- just as it recently printed both pro- and anti-ethanol articles.
I often have this problem as a journalist, and one way to tackle it is to become a specialist. Another way is to observe adverse testimony. Judge Richard Posner is no leftist and no scare-tactician (no libertarian either), but for his book Catastrophe he counted
peer-reviewed articles and the score was 55-2 for the consensus.
Michael writes, “Global warming for the most part is a POLITICAL argument that the government must ‘act now’ to solve a looming, yet still invisible environmental
catastrophe. It isn't a stretch to say that many libertarians (myself included) would prefer to take their chance at dealing with the consequences of warming as it happens rather then authorize the government to enact "preemptive" policies that abridge our freedom. I would bet Harold and many of his reader would in fact agree with this is strategy with regard to the war on terror. But for some reason when it comes to global warming reverse course.”
No way. First, the case for global warming being a problem is
scientific, not political. And it’s not invisible. Second, it is corrupting the discourse to decide first what’s good for libertarians (or environmentalists, or black people) and then use that to decide what’s “sound science” and what isn’t. Third, the “precautionary principle” (don’t do anything until you’re absolutely sure) is just as bogus when invoked by libertarians as when invoked by environmentalists. Cass Sunstein at the U of C has demolished it because it can be invoked by anyone at any time to prove anything. I hope to get back to this in the blog because it cuts across political lines too.
Michael writes that no debate is ever over. In theory, yes. In practice, no. There are still people who think the earth is flat, or that it was created in 4004 BC, or who don’t buy plate tectonics. Reasonable people follow Keynes on this point if on no other: when the evidence changes, they change their opinions.
http://www.fromtheheartland.org/blog/2006/07/what_...
with some good points, but comments aren't enabled there. I'll sleep on it before replying.
Of course comments are not enabled there. Those who are fighting TRUTH must use CENSORSHIP....
Look at all the fake "blogs" such as IPCentral. We need a new name wfor these blogs that are not blogs...maybe something based one the word monologue....Any ideas...?
"Reasonable people follow Keynes on this point if on no other: when the evidence changes, they change their opinions."
thing is, a lot of this isn't about opinion, "reasonable" or otherwise, but about DESIRE: "this is what i want for myself/my world, but can i still want it if x is 'true'?" * but in fact no amount of "truth" NECESSARILY (weasel word, but hey, it's what logic's all about) negates your ever wanting anything, much less indicates any specific actions to be followed, either personally or institutionally ... unless other unmentionable (i.e., "moralizing") factors intervene (like, "why have government at all if not for x?"; or "can't live with myself if x ever happens"; or "individuals can't hack it, the problem's way too vast--but collectively ..."; or "the livability of the planet's far more important than maintaining 'free markets'" ... unless, of course, they're ultimately the same!--like, duhhh) * so: should "government" (as opposed to whatever "nongovernment" surrogate you choose--"private initiative," that delusional rubric, to keep the devil at bay, etc) "do something" about "global warming" taken as "scientific fact" (meaning, i suppose, that we'd place our bets on its being "true"--or vice versa--like lloyd's of london, as harold points out)? * however you answer, the basic "fact" of global warming needn't be denied: you can assent to the "truth" without subscribing to the program--in THEORY, anyway, though in practice i do wonder ... as i suspect the deniers do also: might account for a some of the "resistance" there, like some weird guilt-avoidance subterfuge ...
also unspoken in the heartland's argument is the assumption that whatever havoc's been wreaked on the planet by human agency can ultimately be undone by it as well * but why should anyone assume this?--certainly the weight of "scientific opinion," or at least what i know of it (see, e.g., http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131), gives no reason for such optimism * and why expect the parties most directly threatened by our negligence and/or indifference, by our reliance on "market mechanisms" (entropy by another name) to do the work of consciousness, to share in this touchingly sanguine, albeit "unscientific," providential notion (a kind of religious "faith," actually, almost purely wishful--or maybe wistful is better), since some of us obviously aren't: too advanced in age to witness the coming devastation; too removed geographically from the areas most at risk * which means that if you're living in the maldives at six feet above sea level max, these anti-global warming assurances start looking specious mighty fast * so where'll ya place your bets, folks?--but then there's florida, so quien sabe? ...
there's more (like popper's "falsifiability" idea, from a philosopher of science no less) but i'm plum tuckered ... sorry to leave y'all hangin' like this