Gordon

A long diatribe that is peppered with errors of fact and reasoning, I'm 
afraid, amongst a good background. Unfortunately, I have no time to 
respond to it. This is dangerous argumentation. Are we supposed to 
accept what you say, ignoring the errors, which could therefore be 
propagated, or are we supposed to say you have no credibility because 
you have made some errors? Many of the persons reading it may have 
insufficient knowledge to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I will take you, or rather Klaus, up on one sentence:
"In his first sentence he cites three examples of what
he takes to be political correctness: Gore's film, the Stern report, and
the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
How can these three documents be compared? Gore's film is purely 
political with no first-hand science. It is even against the grain in 
most of the Anglo-Saxon world, so how can it be politically correct? The 
Stern report is an economical analysis. Economics and politics are often 
bedmates, granted, but it is foolhardy to call it "politically correct" 
when it tries to discuss the consequences of different scenarios. The 
fact that it was commissioned by the government (at a time before Blair 
turned his coat to the green side, out of expediency) is neither here 
nor there. As for the IPCC report being politically correct, this is 
just risible: the panel is the one organ that has attempted to make an 
honest scientific assessment of ALL the possibilities from all the 
available data. It is very frank when it says where data are 
insufficient and are a cause for doubt. It is neither politically 
correct nor incorrect; it is a statement of fact as it is known. The 
same cannot be said of media and politicians and many NGOs who make up 
arguments to suit their respective agenda.

Brian

Davy, Gordon wrote:
> Todd,
> 
> Please forgive me for misunderstanding what you wrote, and thanks for
> clearing up that you meant it was Klaus and not I who was making grand
> sweeping statements without factual basis. But I am still puzzled by
> what you say, so please forgive me in advance if I've misunderstand you
> again in your Friday posting. Why do you say that Klaus' essay has a
> "complete lack of supporting evidence" for his claims of threats to
> freedom by political correctness, and of the alarmists as being
> "Malthusian pessimists"? Do you mean to say a) that you think that there
> is no evidence for his claims, or b) that he did not present such
> evidence? 
> 
> I believe that Klaus' essay does present adequate evidence for his
> concerns, particularly given the limited space available in the
> Financial Times. In his first sentence he cites three examples of what
> he takes to be political correctness: Gore's film, the Stern report, and
> the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am
> not an expert on any of those, but they have been discussed in this
> forum. 
> 
> You object because Klaus labels as "Malthusian pessimists" those who "do
> not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
> ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
> undoubtedly enjoy..." To deprecate or ignore the benefits of economic
> growth and technological progress seems pretty pessimistic to me. I know
> I'm in favor of both for myself - aren't you? So if economic growth and
> technological progress, which occur naturally in a free society, are
> bad, who should be deprived of them? By what means should these elitists
> deprive other people of their liberty and pursuit of happiness? Isn't
> that a threat to their freedom? Shouldn't they feel threatened? 
> 
> If his criticism of them is invective, what level of disapproval would
> you direct at them? What would you call people who don't believe in
> economic growth and ignore technological progress? Is he just imagining
> such people, or do the three examples he cites reflect lack of favor for
> economic growth and ignore the benefits of technological progress? How
> does one cite chapter and verse of something that should be there and is
> missing? If Klaus is wrong, and the three reports he cites show that
> they really do exhibit a belief in economic growth and recognize the
> benefits of technological progress, maybe someone would care to cite the
> evidence so as to refute his claims.
> 
> Turning now to the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant
> contributor to global warming, I'm sure that you will agree that those
> who favor it have more visibility (and, in many areas of the world,
> political clout) than those who disagree. In fact, that preponderance of
> opinion has been used by those who favor the notion as evidence for its
> truth. So I will put this question to you: are you aware of attempts to
> silence the dissidents - in any of these three examples or elsewhere? Is
> Klaus just imagining it, or is it maybe such attempts are so well known
> as to need no further documentation?
> 
> As for the "biggest threat to freedom" being a superlative, if there are
> at least three threats to freedom, there must be a biggest one, so
> what's so wrong with his stating his belief that it is "ambitious
> environmentalism"? I'll ask what I asked before: if he's wrong, what do
> you see as today's biggest threat to freedom? Which do you say is
> greater - this threat to freedom or the threat of global warming if we
> fail to take the steps that Gore and others are urging us to take? 
> 
> To refer to those who "completely dismiss the contributions of humans"
> as having a "marked disdain for science" and desiring to impose
> "doctrinal totalitarianism" is to erect a straw man. Many of those who
> challenge the majority position are scientists, including Professor
> Richard Lindzen of MIT, whom Klaus cites. It's hard to see how they
> exhibit a marked disdain for science, although I'll grant that they may
> well have a marked disdain for some of what the majority represents to
> be science - that's why they disagree. There aren't enough of them to
> exert any kind of control, let alone totalitarianism, unless
> totalitarianism means saying things that might induce people to not get
> with the agenda. 
> 
> I also disagree with your characterization of those who promote a
> position with certainty as propagandists. We expect people to promote
> their position with certainty - who'd bother to pay attention to anyone
> who didn't at least appear to know and believe what he was talking
> about? It isn't certainty but dishonesty in the presentation of the
> evidence and arguments, with an intent to mislead people, that
> constitutes propaganda. As I've said before, those who challenge the
> paradigm are much less likely to engage in propaganda because they know
> they will be challenged.
> 
> I don't see how it helps advance the cause to cite the IPCC conclusion
> that global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin". The
> issue is not whether human activity has had any influence but whether it
> has had an influence that is so significant and so detrimental to the
> public welfare as to warrant the costs associated with attempting to
> stop or reverse that influence. 
> 
> Also, to talk about "one hundred percent certainty" before taking action
> is missing the point. Where, outside of mathematics and the physical
> sciences, is there ever one hundred percent certainty? We elect leaders,
> whom we refer to as politicians, to sort out competing claims and
> interests and arrive at decisions in the absence of such certainty. That
> could even be taken as a brief job description. When they decide in
> accordance with our wishes, we laud their statesmanship. When they
> decide against our wishes, we don't conclude we were wrong; we dismiss
> their decisions as "just politics."
> 
> I have written for years on this forum and the Leadfree forum of what I
> have been calling demagoguery by environmental activists. In the case of
> removing "hazardous substances" from electronic products, it has been
> obvious that they don't have any evidence.
> 
> The case of global warming is clearly more complicated. No one disputes
> that the greenhouse effect is real or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or
> that its abundance in the atmosphere has been rising. But those facts
> taken together do not constitute any kind of evidence that anthropogenic
> CO2 is causing significantly more global warming than would be going on
> otherwise. There is a logical fallacy referred to by its Latin name:
> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - after the fact, therefore because of the
> fact.
> 
> In weighing the evidence and arguments, you don't have to be an expert
> to look for the extent to which the protagonists are willing to
> acknowledge and discuss the non-anthropogenic contributions to climate
> change: variations in the sun's output, atmospheric dust, and water
> vapor (a greenhouse gas present in orders of magnitude greater abundance
> than CO2), and the clear geological evidence for climate change before
> human activity could have been extensive enough to contribute - i.e.,
> before the level of atmospheric CO2 began to rise measurably. If you
> don't see variations in those natural, non-anthropogenic causes
> discussed with the same level of detail as anthropogenic CO2, be
> suspicious and look for an agenda. This isn't just a scientific debate.
> As in any other story, the advice given to reporters is valid: follow
> the money.
> 
> If your concern with global warming is about a deplorable oceanic
> encroachment on low-lying populated areas due to a rising sea level,
> have you ever seen a discussion of why the top layers of many areas of
> the earth, including many lofty mountaintops, are made up of sedimentary
> rock? I'm not a geologist, but I know that sediments deposit under
> water. Why, if such large areas of land now above sea level were
> evidently once covered by water, presumably due to natural causes, is it
> so obvious that this time a rising sea level is contributed to by human
> activity? 
> 
> On what basis does one conclude that sea levels must and can be held
> fixed? I recall a story of a Greek king a long time ago who tried to
> hold back the tide. In fact, to refer to an activity as "holding back
> the tide" is synonymous with calling it "futile." Have we become so
> sophisticated that are we now able to do something about the weather and
> to keep the mean sea level fixed? The Greeks had a word for this:
> hubris.  That's pretty close to arrogant, so maybe by your criterion I'm
> being propagandistic, too, in my comments.
> 
> Whether it's lead in electronics or global warming, these people claim
> that the situation they are concerned about is so serious that we must
> act now - we can't afford the luxury of ordinary reasoned discourse to
> reach a consensus before committing to a course of action. They say that
> their opponents are contributing to the worsening of the situation by
> not getting with their program now. That is demagoguery. I have asserted
> that their real reason for such alarmist rhetoric is that they know that
> their case would be weakened or fall apart if subjected to an ordinary
> cost-benefit analysis. 
> 
> The activists even trot out their "precautionary principle" when it's
> convenient, yet ignore it otherwise. Have you ever seen environmental
> activists discuss how the precautionary principle applies to the
> consequences of the draconian changes they advocate? Yet by their
> principle, it's up to them as proponents of change to show that when all
> consequences are considered the change they advocate won't make things
> worse. How thorough are their environmental (and economic) impact
> statements? Do they want to coerce the earth's inhabitants to revert to
> a style of life before the industrial revolution? How is that better? I
> wonder what they would advocate if we were experiencing global cooling.
> 
> Make no mistake. They don't just want to convince us of the truth (or
> likelihood) of their claims, they want to persuade us to adopt their
> remedies - their agenda. If they can't convince us with their evidence
> and arguments, they're willing to frighten us. They are much less
> interested in the integrity of their means than what they see to be the
> importance of their end. They don't want us to take the time to consider
> any consequences other than the ones they promise. 
> 
> Without coming out and saying so explicitly, they don't just want us to
> believe that human activity is causing significantly more global warming
> than would be occurring without it, but to agree to force most people
> (but not them!) to cut back on doing the things that they say are
> causing it (at least enough to cause a significant reduction in the
> trend), and to believe that the cost of doing so would be less than the
> cost of not doing so. 
> 
> Cutting back on the things that they say are contributing significantly
> to global warming would require a significant reduction, not just of our
> freedom, but in our standard of living. Who would oppose it otherwise?
> The reason they want us to do that is because, they say, they are
> concerned about what will happen to some people's standard of living if
> we don't. Or, for some of the more misanthropic activists, because polar
> bear habitat will be affected. That is a matter to be sorted out not by
> science but by politics.
> 
> Gordon Davy 
> 
>  
>