politicalcivility.com Blog

Now that ExxonMobil has seen the light (green light that is), we’re going to have to find a new corporate whipping boy who dares to fund research that shows that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. 

And to think, I thought people grew out of peer pressure when they became adults.

I’ve been busy this week with EarthWeek at Sutherland which has kept me from posting more, but I wanted to throw out this question posed by Roy Innis during the first day. 

What’s the balance?  What’s the right balance between development and conservation?  What’s the balance between the principles of stewardship and economic progress?  What’s the balance between the development of ‘alternative’ fuel sources and asking consumers to pay significantly more for life’s basic necessities (food, shelter, warmth/cooling)?

This balance question forces us to start making clear what is the principle and priority framework we are coming from rather than relying on the rhetoric or emotional hysteria that can accompany both sides of the issue.

As I look at the issue of climate change/global warming here are a few of principles/priority frameworks that guide how I look at this debate.

1. Stewardship: As I have stated on this blog before I am a firm believer in being a wise steward of the earth’s resources, but inherent in that belief system is the idea that the resources should be used. 
2. Cost: For me the balance question has to look at cost with a heavy bias toward human cost (this goes back to my post about conservationalist philosophy versus a preservationist worldview).  Human life takes highest priority.  So when millions begin to starve or die because of “green” policy then those policies must change.
3. Government Expansion: This goes back to my belief that any “war” so called on an issue (environmentalism, poverty, terrorism, you fill in the blank) leads to significant government intervention (which leads to greater inefficiency and subsuquent increase use of resources) and loss of freedom.  Also if you want to see how well the a government controlled economy handles the environment look no further than the former USSR and China.  Both stellar examples of clean air and water.
4. Cause & Effect: One of the most glaring issues of the IPCC report is the misuse or lack of use of appropriate cause and effect analysis.  Much of what the IPCC calls “cause” is actually just correlation.  There is a huge difference. So getting this right is critical if we want to really make a difference or know if we really can make a difference.
5. Everything on the Table: If we are to have a serious discussion about environmental problem solving, we must stop arbitrarily removing proven solutions and dismissing legitimate scientific research and inquiry.  Let’s put everything on the table: wind, solar, nuclear, manmade versus natural warming effects and see what is real according to the science and economics and then balance that with the cost to the environment and cost to society to see what makes the most sense.  Then we need to step back and let the market work. 

Just a few of my thoughts.  The floor is now yours.

This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog.  Her comment:

“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”

My first response to this question is a question.  How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth?  This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming. 

I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace.  Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.

I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world.  I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view.  This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation. 

This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly.  The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever.  It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.

As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty.  With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything.  This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment.  It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward. 

My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior.  This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty.  So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes.  Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not.  Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no. 

Thomas Huxley would classify this as an ”ugly” fact, which has the potential to ruin a beautiful hypothesis: global warming. 

Let’s look at a positive of global warming: Bio-Diversity.  The colder the earth gets the more rapid the rate of species extinction.  The reverse is true that as the earth warms we experience expanded bio-diversity in plant and animal life.

If global warming is really happening, why do we only hear how bad it is when in actuality the earth is better off when it is warm.

Here are some quotes from the global warming conference I attended earlier this week that ought to help inform the global warming/climate change policy debate.

From Thomas Huxley:

1. Skepticism is the highest calling of a true scientist. 
2. The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
3. Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. [In this case the creed is Global Warming??? Just another note on this, don’t global warming advocates sound an awful lot like Chicken Little?]

From Alfred North Whitehead:

“It is the business of the future to be dangerous, and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties.”

1. STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER: This professor back in the 70’s was one of the leading proponents of global “cooling” where he and others were making dire predictions about the earth freezing in 50 years and now he’s switched his position.  I don’t mind the fact that he’s looked at new data and come to a different conclusion, but what bugs me is that now he is somehow infallable and his research is unquestionable.  How can he consider himself a real scientist.  The true scientist is a natural SKEPTIC not conformist.  Here’s to Dr. Schneider joining the cooling bandwagon in 15 years.
2. Money Conflicts: I keep hearing (from global warming activists) about how because certain think tanks have accepted Exxon mobile money they are compromised and have a conflict of interest and so their research cannot be trusted.  OK.  Let’s follow the money then. Exxon has funded approximately $19 million worth of research into climate change over the past decade.  By the numbers no think tank has received more than 10% of their budget from any oil company.  Now let’s compare that to global warming groups.  These groups have received $19 billion from special interest and government grants over the past decade.  That is a 1,000:1 difference in funding.  So whose science is really bought and paid for by special interest?  This is a huge $$$ discrepancy and yet nothing from the media.  Why? 

I’m in NYC right now attending a conference on climate change or global warming and have come across some interesting facts, actually I’ve got a bundle of information that I will be posting over the next several days, but let me just start out with a couple of “inconvenient” truths exposed at this conference:

1. The equivalent of the US Federal Court System in the UK has found that Al Gore’s award winning documentary contains 9 fundamental flaws in his data and reporting of in certain cases gross misinformation regarding the actual data.  As such the court has ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can not be taught in elementary schools without providing sufficient rebuttal.
2. Polar Bear Population–A crisis?? Hardly, for those who are losing sleep about a dying polar bear population as a result of global warming or climate change, you’d better check the facts.  Since 1970, the polar bear population has grown by ~8,000 bears, which should make it easier for Coca-Cola to do their Christmas adds in the future.

More to come…

You may remember how GE and other fluorescent bulb makers lobbied successfully to force consumers to switch to their earth-saving bulbs.  Well, now the EPA has come out revising their recommendations for where homeowners should use the bulbs, because mercury levels in the bulbs could put your little ones at risk if they break the bulb and are exposed to the mercury in the bulb.  (There’s a story about this report on www.thebostonchannel.com)

I don’t know about you, but I get the sick feeling that energy saving bulbs, ethanol and the rest of the long list of earth saving technologies are actually going to do more damage than produce any carbon offset.  It’s what we deserve when we allow bad science and a big government approach to helping us be good stewards over our private property and natural resources.

I think one of the things that bugs me most as I talk to those advocating for adoption of the Al Gore enviroment plan is that I constantly hear them say that the science is settled or that the only discussion left is what we now do about it.  To me that is intellectually dishonest and prevents any sort of real dialogue about what we should or shouldn’t be doing about climate change. 

For those thinking the science and scientific community is settled, I recommend taking a look at this website: http://www.globalwarming.org/research.

Also, global warming is another one of those “wars” that I referred to in my post quoting Joseph Story.  Advocates are following the pattern perfectly at present.  Makes you wonder how much freedom we lose when they win.