Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

[Illusion]

Shadow1980 said:

Nonsense on stilts. While science is as a matter of principle considered provisional in nature, it's foolish to think that because it's provisional that we should never accept the general consensus. All or nearly all of the big theories in science have been confirmed to such a ridiculous degree that it's hard to think of anything that might overturn them entirely. While a lot of the details are frequently in flux due to new discoveries, the general ideas don't change much if at all. Stephen Jay Gould once said "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." And in science, every theory has cranky detractors who "perversely" withhold provisional assent. Despite how well general and special relativity are confirmed and how some of our technology (GPS, nuclear energy) are based on them, there are some cranks who claim that relativity theory is false and that essentially every practicing physicist is knowingly lying to everyone.

But most cranks don't get any traction with the general public, because most theories in science don't have any immediate and obvious public policy implications. Global warming does have such implications. If all the world's climatologists (save a vanishingly few contrarians) are corrent, then that means that our current energy economy is inflicting what could be the single largest negative externality in history. The consequences of this are obvious: negative externalities almost invariably invite new government regulations. Because government regulation of economic activity is anathema to most conservatives and libertarians, they are faced with two choices: 1) admit that, at least on occasion, their belief that "government is always the problem, never the solution" is wrong and that regulation is necessary in this instance, or 2) reject the science out of hand. They've chosen option #2, and instead of coming up with solutions that are more palatable to them, they just wilfully ignore the very existence of the problem and proclaim that scientists are in cahoots with "left-wing elites" to defraud the American public.

Political conservatives and big businesses have always had this knee-jerk reaction whenever scientists discover something that could invite new regulations and thus potentially impact a corporation's bottom line. In decades past we saw it with tobacco, leaded gasoline, and CFCs (funnily enough, there are some that are so intransigent that they still claim smoking and CFCs are harmless). Now we're seeing it with global warming, though this time the pushback against science is far larger and more aggressive because we're dealing with a far larger problem that will require far larger and more expansive changes to fix. But just because you don't like the implications of science doesn't give you a moral right to ignore the science. If your beliefs contradict physical reality, then your beliefs are wrong, period. I don't give a damn how strongly you believe in lower taxes and small government. In reality, continents drift, matter is made of atoms, the universe is expanding, stars are powered by nuclear fusion, microorganisms are the cause of infectious diseases, vaccines do not cause autism, and, buddy, the world is warming and anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause. Trump, James Inhofe, the Heartland Institute, and every other right-winger that rejects that claim simply doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Did you consider that the "pushback against science" might be far larger in this case because the "science" supporting AGW is far weaker than it was for issues such as the ozone depletion?  In the case of the CFC emissions there was a clear problem, a solution was identified and implemented and now the issue has been largely rectified.  With regards to climate change, however, Al Gore told us in 2008 that there would be no ice in the arctic in 2016 and it turns out that up in Canada it is winter as usual here.  Climategate emails in 2009 showed clear falsifying of data to support AGW.  The word "global warming" has been dropped in favor of the more vague term "climate change."  The hockey-stick curve that was once used to convey global warming to the masses has been completely falsified and wierd explanations about the ocean absorbing surplus heat has been used to explain the global warming hiatus we have been seeing for the past two decades.  Honestly, if your side had truth you wouldn't need to ban all contrarions, the power of your argument would be strong enough to silence the vast majority of your detractors exactly like what it is for factual science like general relativity.  What I see for the topic of AGW, however, is a poorly defined problem with those in power acting as though it is 100% certain with the convenient solution being massive taxation and government regulation.  Half of the American public doesn't even buy the science behind AGW and yet US governments are moving to make it illegal to even question AGW.  This isn't science, this is a tyranny.

If you want to people to believe that AGW is science fact to the same degree that people are convinced about the truth of general relativity then you first need to admit the possibility that you are wrong.  I need to be willing to do the same.  And the funny thing about truth is that it doesn't have a need to force itself down people's throats, it has a way of speaking for itself.  Until people on both sides are willing to do this, even discussing this topic is a complete waste of time.