Who Decides?
A Guest post by Evan Jones.
We are currently in the midst of a serious policy debate on the highly technical subject of world climate change. What is it happening? Why is it happening? What are we to do? And ultimately who is to decide what we will do? I attempt only to answer the last of these questions here.
The important decisions facing this world will, in the future as in the past, be decided not by experts but by laymen: the public at large and/or our elected officials. In a significant majority of important policy cases, the decision makers are not expert in the field. They are (usually) not scientists, economists, historians, or strategists.
It is notable that a technocratic, authoritarian “solution” has been advanced on many occasions, including, recently by David Shearman, Joseph Wayne Smith in The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which seriously recommends rule “by experts and not by those who seek power”.
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C34504.aspx
Seeking power but not in the name of seeking power is, however, an inherently self-contradictory proposition. The free citizen and his elected representatives alone have the right, and wherewithal to make these decisions.
Yes, experts must inform us. In fact, their advice is indispensable. Without expert advice, many of our decisions would be made in a fog of ignorance and uncertainty. The expert has a special status and a deserved esteem. However, it is the role of the expert to inform, not to decide. This is as it should be. The alternative is a technocracy which not only excludes the common citizen from the decision making process, but results in intramural conflict between the technocrats themselves.
A courtroom operates along the same lines. In many cases, the advice of the expert is essential. Only the expert can inform us about a DNA match, a bullet grooving, or even mundane details of, say, phone records. It may be fairly said that in many if not most cases, both the decision and the remedy hinge on expert testimony.
Yet it is not up to the expert either to reach a verdict or to pass sentence. And it up to the judge to act as “gatekeeper”, not the experts. It is very poor form for an expert to refuse to divulge data or methods. It is at the very least an anti-scientific attitude and should be regarded by the layman as such.
Experts are excluded from the jury, deliberately separated from the decision process. In the realm of politics, the unelected expert plays much the same role as in a trial: Decision makers may well call upon expert testimony and advice. But when it comes down to the hanging chads, the expert has only his vote as an expression of power, a vote with no more absolute weight than that of Joe Shmoe.
In the role of advisor, the expert has a considerable obligation. He is expected to be truthful and objective. He is expected to limit his advice to his realm of expertise. He is expected to tell the story straight and not exaggerate for effect or to ensure a particular course of action.
He is expected to be responsible. He is, in a sense, our shepherd. He must not cry wolf for “amusement” nor in response to every passing shadow. This is important. There are real wolves out there, and there are times when only the shepherds can provide us with warning. The obligation of the shepherd is not only to cry wolf when there is a real potential danger but also not to cry wolf when there is not. The decision whether or not to cry wolf is up to the shepherd, not the public at large.
This leaves the layman in a difficult position, for the public, as decision makers must pay heed to a cry of wolf. They are not experts on wolves. And the solution to a false crying of wolf is not to ban shepherds. Nonetheless, in terms of climate as well as wolves, the layman can and must play the role of arbiter, and play it well. If the public at large were not capable of deciding basic issues of policy, democracy itself would long since have proven an unworkable farce.
However if the individual expert or decision maker is found to be acting deliberately in bad faith, he may be held accountable. For example, as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, it is against the law to promote a mining enterprise using only the richest ore samples.
But where to draw the line between outright fraud, mere intellectual dishonesty, or irresponsibility becomes moot. What then of the infamous email reported by David Denning, saying, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” in order to “pervert science in the service of social and political causes”.
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
This, if true, is clearly dishonest, but it is not at all clear that it is actionable.
In the climate debate, three examples of legal though clearly deplorable advocacy spring readily to mind.
1.) Heidi Cullen’s suggestion that the AMS should withhold certification from weathermen who did not, “truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,” leaving no doubt as to what the conclusion of said education should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Cullen
Note, however, that it would be perfectly acceptable to decertify (or even prosecute) a weatherman who deliberately misreported an approaching storm in order to make a killing by short-selling the stock of the local insurance company.
2.) David Suzuki’s challenge, “to find a way to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” i.e., those who stood in the way global warming legislation. (This is especially unseemly, coming as it does from an official of a human rights group.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
Yet it would be perfectly appropriate to do so in the case of an MP who accepted a bribe from an oil company in return for a vote against GW measures.
3.) David Roberts’ deplorable comment that, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106
It is the responsibility of the layman to recognize such statements, whatever their source, for what they are: advocacy of the suppression of free and open debate. He must consider only the legitimate points from both sides of the controversy and come to a rational policy decision.
No matter how complicated an issue may be, it can generally be broken down into basic questions and decision points that can be expressed on the side of a postcard. But in order to do that, the layman requires unbiased advice, or at least the advice of both sides. For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. It is not the layman’s responsibility to become an expert on every subject requiring a decision. Furthermore, it is a practical impossibility. It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman’s terms.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave the island. Appeals to some vague authority and a wish to save us against our will are not my ideal of democracy.
This John A Davison on his blog “proclaims, EVOLUTION IS FINISHED.” This is code for saying he has the insecure frozen-in, fixed-in-place mindset that is just so disconnected, maladaptive. i.e. Rote learners like this do not have the capacity to evolve.
It is fascinating how some people strike you as insecure, disconnected products …. hardly a carbon based lifeform like the rest of us. Whilst it is not uncommon for most people to at times become disgruntled with modern life in general, may I suggest that it is the mind that is playing tricks and that some observational diligence may just help things. Rather than mind over matter it needs to be mind out of matter.
It’s too bad that our side is so queemish about using the government mechanisms available to us. The Warmers don’t share those qualms.
Conservation groups sue over polar bears…
This is a direct result of Al Gore’s movie.
You seem contented to make silly bets with people whose livelyhood depend on never admitting that AGW is a hoax.
Is there one thing in that movie which is true? Is there a single assertion in it that has passed the test of scrutiny? How many of you here on this messageboard have children in public schools being force fed this death cult dogma?
You wouldn’t sit still as teachers taught the kids about the virtue of suicide.
So why are you content to let them infect the minds of future generations via “An Inconvenient Truth” without a challenge?
Put up or shut up yourself.
Indigo~ I find it hard to believe that he can say ‘evolution is finished.’
He just repeated one of his earlier posts almost verbatim.
Surely, he is an evolved Parrot.
(no offense meant to real, Thinking parrots)
In California teachers are holding a rally on the Capitol steps, beseeching Governor Arnold to not cut their jobs.
The State is 16 Billion in the hole. Which means they don’t have discressionary funds to fight a legal battle over the validity of AIT.
If the thing is pushed school districts across the State will roll over like obedient hound dogs.
Let the thing be pushed. No more then that, take AGW by the throat and shake the life out of it.
Is it a matter of not having the proper lawyers to argue the case?
Fred Thompson isn’t doing anything.
Is it a matter of not having money for a prolonged battle?
The Coal industry is none too fond of Al Gore. If you ask nice I bet they could find a spare million or two for the cause.
Is it that in some niggling corner of your mind you harbor a belief in AGW?
I’d vote that Mr. Davidson be allowed to stay, but No feeding the trolls!
Fred Singer is the biggest charlatan of all time. Anyone who would cite him is oblivious to reality and incapable of objectivity.
These several reponses to my assertions are living proof of Einstein’s lifelong determinism –
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
This weblog, like most, is little more than a magnet for like minded ultra-liberal “prescribed,” born that way,” “dyed-in-the wool” victims of their predestined fate to contribute absolutely nothing of value to the intellectual world. Most of the participants have never published a word in a refereed scientific journal, at least not one that dealt with the subject of the weblogs they frequent. If they had they would most certainly not remain anonymous. Anonymity is nothing but license for abuse of ones adversary while remaining secure from identification. It is one of the most despicable and revealing features of a degenerate human personality. This forum, like most, crawls with such vermin.
Even many that disclose their identity, like P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins have never published a significant word on the subject they so rabidly defend. I suspect the same is true for the internet “experts” on global warming as well.
“Men believe most what they least understand.”
Montaigne
Watts up with that? is no different, no better, no worse than P.Z. Myers’ Pharyngula, RichardDawkins.net, Panda’s Thumb, EvC, ARN, Uncommon Descent and most all other weblogs and forums. Nothing of significance has ever come from any of them. They are nothing but intellectual fraternities spontaneously populated by like minded victims of their predestined lot to never amount to a hill of beans. They are genetically homozygous and homogeneous “groupthinktanks” with no agenda except to see their names, mostly anonymous, appear in the ephemeral, utterly useless world of cyberdumb.
Meanwhile, real scientists discover and then publish their findings under their real names in refereed scientific journals. That is what I did for a half century. Now, in my dotage, I am content to expose chicanery, arrogance, stupidity, cowardice and intellectual bigoty wherever I find it. It is a dirty job but some one has to do it and I enjoy the opportunity immensely!
I love it so!
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison. free.fr/
Mr. Davison, why do you keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over, and say that no one should DARE question your opinion? Its getting old. Frankly, its that outright fascist (and I mean that in a nice, HG Wells “liberal fascism/enlightened” sort of way) mentality that turns so many people off. Repeating lies often enough doesn’t make them true, and repeating trivialities over and over doesn’t make them significant. You seem to be a deeply troubled individual, I pity your inability to tolerate disagreement. Its sad really.
Whilst I regularly drop into Anthony’s blog and greatly respect and admire his contribution, this is the first time I’ve actually strayed to the comments section, and it will probably be the last. To have actually acknowledged the presence of a troll was immature, responding to him was juvenile, but then to keep it up was infantile. As for suggesting and then harping on a wager, well that is just beneath contempt. The original thread topic is completely lost, and the whole discourse has degenerated into meaningless drivel. It only takes the simple but essential discipline of never reading beyond the first rant and never, ever making mention of it.
REPLY: Spot on Adams, thread hijacking, which is my issue with Mr. Davison.
So that we can all get back to a semblance of order. Mr. Davison can no longer post comments. The reason is as I stated: thread hijacking on two different threads, not for what he says or his views but because he simply repeats the same thing over and over until somebody engages him.
I’m just as guilty as others of feeding. But the solution is clear.
I stand on everything Ihat I have ever published and on every statement I have ever presented on every forum where I have been allowed to speak, including Watt’s Up With That?
The only issue is what are you going to do about it? If you choose, you can do what EvC, ARN, Uncommon Descent, RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb did long ago and deny me a voice here as well. That choice is yours alone.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
REPLY: My choice is that if you want to make points about things you believe in, you are more than welcome to do so. Unlike the majority of people here, you have you own blog. My advice is that you concentrate on that and exercise your ideas there, where you can expound to your heart’s content. If you wish to post simple RELEVANT comments here for example, something like this:
I’ll be happy to post simple things like that, so that people who choose to do so can visit your blog and discuss the issue there. But no more hijacking of the threads here, no more repetitive posts saying the same thing over and over again. But you’ll have the opportunity to suggest discussion on your forum. That’s not banishment, but the ability to suggest redirection as a courtesy.
Bear in mind that any more than a sentence or two with URL where it can be discussed on your blog is all that I will post. If you are unhappy with that decision, so be it, but you’ve been rude, condescending, repetitive, and disruptive, and all the while being completely unapologetic for doing so. My patience (and that of many others) is thus at an end for this boorish behaviour.
In closing, I’d like to point out this from the policy page: “Everyone who visits here is welcome to post, but please treat your visit like you would a visit to a private home or office.” So like a rude house-guest that has overstayed his welcome, off you go, but we’ll still post the occasional postcard with a return address from you if you wish.
John A Davison seems quite disgruntled with poor old Richard Dawkins whom i have generally found a pleasant personality. I don’t see much connection between Dawkins and skeptical thoughts on AGW unless it is to do with the anthropic principle.
My disenchantment with Dawkins is that he still believes in a finite, expanding universe a la the big bang cosmological nonsense model. Now that is belief in belief or religion which generally builds down from some anthropic principle using deduction. Of course even though billions is spent, they will not find one skerrick of deductive evidence for a finite gravity only universe. It is not hard to see AGW alarmism similarly.
e.g.
All the people involved with the bigbang nonsense and AGW are not about DISCOVERY but are involved in an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. I believe that good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. i.e. WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories.
To this day we see lies built on lies because of this now obsolete assumption of finite universal causality where people prefer not to need the real world when they can have an inexorable and schemingly designed fake one ……. and throw in god (a big teddy) as a perpetual broadcaster too? As two examples …. AGW and the big bang fictions.
This simply isn’t true. Many show cooling over the last 100 years while others show warming. Nothing is settled. Show me 3000 weather stations that ALL show warming, then show me the cause. Put up or shut up. So far you’ve only made gratuitous assertions, which can be just as gratuitously dismissed.
Of course, like Hansen, he’ll claim that you’re attempting to silence him. I didn’t think they let people like him have internet access at the Home.
FWIW, I favor, for lack of knowledge and grounding, in an infinite universe in which there may be an enoromous number (possible one of those “non-dense infinities”) of big bangs.
But this is a climatology blog not of the astrophysics kind.
So back to the actual topic:
My last paragraph. And yes, it is a tall order. One that is commonly unavaliable on a whole host of important subjects, and therefore regarded as impossible to achieve.
If one were to boil down global warming points to one side of a postcard, you’d get a metapostcard with perhaps a dozen or so of the most basic poits, each point of which would merit a postcard of its own.
The most casual observer could easily learn the issues on card 1. He wouldn’t know all the answers, but at least he’d be able to frame the questions. Anyone who cared to look into the subject casually (the “one evening rule”) could easily get the second set of posdtcards under his belt.
That is about as much as a standard voter will warehouse on most subjects. The idea is to draw up those “postcards” in such a manner as to allow the voter to “drill down” on any given point. The probelm is that we all to often begin drilling down without even having warehoused the very basic broad spectrun (i.e., postcard #1.
It is up to the experts and the teachers among us to make sure that the limited space it utilized to effect. We are not teaching man as we would have him; we must teach him as he is, with all his modern limitations (and advantages).
FOR EXAMPLE
If you are going to learn the history of China (all of it), postcard #1 consists of a list of the major dynasties (and interregnums) with perhaps a single sentence characterizing each one. And perhaps athe most prominent dozen names and achievements. That’s it.
The next set of postcards is one dynasty (or “time of troubles”) apeice. With a sentence or two on each of the main military/political, cultural/religious, economic/wealth issues and people.
Once you know that much, as little as it its, you cn go ANYWHERE.
You’d be very surprised how many honors students of Chinese history can’t rattle that off (even the first postcard’s worth). Too much damn Southern Sung peasant life gets one lost in the muck if one does not have command of the signposts. Yes, drilldown is necessary for specialization. But before you can take off your skin anbd dance around in your bones, you lack perspective.
This is very basic knowledge and can be easily acquired in a very short period of time by the layman. But one he has it down (or at least has his reference handy) he can hang any piece of knowledge on the tree.
The expert all to often can’t bear to do this. He must needs shove moldy tomes at a body and drone on for hours of confusing details, leaving one overwhelmed, discouraged, and possibly less wiser than before. But when he does this, he is not performing his most necessary function to society at large.
It is my intention to do that first double set of postcards for Global Warming. And the third set as well. Drilling down ONLY as necessary so as to inform the controversy (as opposed to providing a full course in Earth Science, Biology, and Wave Physics).
There are a lot of these issues voters must deal with besides GW, for example, economics and military/foreign policy. So we must make the GW knowledge very basic, very easy, and very informative so as to leave enough room for the others. (Mark Twain is quoted as saying, “I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.”)
Prof Davison — (Don’t make the decision yourself. Pass the buck to your drooling, mostly anonymous, mindless clients to do it for you.)
Anthony — as one of the drooling, mindless, anonymous “clients”, I say he stays, and uncensored at that. Unlike the petulance and sheer arrogance of Tamino, RC, etc this place is civilised — and it is just now becoming better known. Wait until the bot swarm hits if you think the Prof is bad. Skeptics are a number of things, and civilised is among the qualities. We’re polite, and we’re polite because we work at it — any idiot can sling mud and be a jerk. It takes no special ability. Politeness suggests restraint. There is little that speaks louder than this, especially to the newcomers who will inevitably stop in and judge the goings-on as this place gains fame.
StevenMosher — I defer to your superior skills in Pascal-Fu.
Anthony and Evan, there are benefits in flushing out all manner of responses. I’ve been concerned for some time that if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, then we have to believe in reason and that requires open public debate. In the past i’ve had a great deal to say about the stooopidity of the big bang religion because nothing cannot be the cause of something if there ever was such a thing as nothing which is impossible anyway. Here with the hot topic of climate we see a similar anthropic mindset with its priest class and afraid to grasp the big picture.
For supposed expert scientists to get our universe so glaringly wrong for close to a hundred years with their absurd fiction simply points to a failure of the peer review process which is now evident in this issue on earth’s climate. It also points to some glaring inadequacies with the popular media. e.g. Debate isn’t happening in science in Australia which should represent the warning sign that there is something rotten to the core.
All we see on very important scientific issues is the rise of a particularly nasty media priest class with an obvious promotion of ugly `scientism’. This is a formula that holds scientists above criticism and unaccountable to anyone. It is an anti-democratic view of the world.
Have we reached the frontier of our knowledge and there are no more new mysteries? Hardly. The main challenge here is our ability to separate cause from effect (which we all do to some degree every day) …. i.e. what drives change that creates derivatives else we will simply be left with this psychosis giving us closed systems “experts” who do their best to design their own climate with their faulty modeling, and unable to see outside the earth’s troposphere.
Evan, I appreciate your thoughtful article, and I agree, there are many compelling reasons in life …… political, pragmatic, economic, health and environmental, for improving our environment and life, for conservation of energy and water, for developing alternative fuels to finite fossil fuels, etc, but human contributed global warming with its CO2 fear mongering is not one of them.
randomengineer
You claim “we’re polite and we’re polite because we work at it.” That is partly true, but some of you have made my insult list on #71 on my WHY BANISHMENT? thread. For documentation I recommend you consult that thread.
I think it is an encouraging sign that I have lasted as long as I have here and I appreciate that. That elevates this blog above the several that have summarily banished me for stating my sincere convictions.
I am a deeply religious person who believes there is a purpose in the universe and that each of us is predestined to be what we are. I am a determinist like Albert Einstein and I make no bones about it as I have stated on my weblog and elsewhere.
My Providence is to resurrect some of the greatest minds of the past and present, minds that have often been treated with contempt or ignored. Those great minds served to provide me with the raw materials for my own contributions which I have published.
It is true that I have published nothing on the issue of global warming and probably won’t. But that will not stop me from declaring my convictions on whatever venues are available. It is also true that I am intolerant of those that are, for whatever reason, unable to recognize that which is so transparently evident to myself. If my stance is unacceptable there is nothing I can do about it. We are all victims in a sequence which I have described in my 2005 paper – “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.”
I am convinced that the way we each view the world is also largely predetermined, a position supported by studies on separated monozygotic twins. One of the most significant books of recent times is William Wright’s “Born THat Way” which summarizes that evidence. I feel the same way about Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers.” When one encounters another writer who has independently reached the same conclusions that you have reached yourself, that can exert a powerful influence on ones world view. It certainly has in my case.
“No sadder proof can be give by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle
I am also convinced with the greatest mind of all time that –
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Albert Einstein
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
You’d be very surprised how many honors students of Chinese history can’t rattle that off (even the first postcard’s worth).
I wouldn’t be surprised at all. I read last week that over 20% of high school students can’t find the @ur momisugly$#&^%! PACIFIC OCEAN. And yet, those people VOTE — they vote for representatives who will (in line with the topic of this thread) make important decisions for them.
Evan, I didn’t quite get your previous reference to post cards. Thanks for clearing it up. I think it’s an excellent idea. I hate to keep bringing up my email exchange with Bob Carter last fall, but he made so many great points that I think parts of it bear repeating, especially as they pertain to the topic of your post:
I’m prime evidence to the truth of what Dr. Carter says. Most of the math, physics and statistics goes right over my head, but I understand the basics.
In order to accomplish what you suggest, you need only possess two qualities: a basic understanding of the topic and the ability to put it into words that even a dummy can understand. “CLIMATE FLASH CARDS FOR DUMMIES — I like it! There are a number of regular visitors (including yourself) to this blog that possess both of those qualities. As I stated near the end of a previous thread, one of the first post cards has to describe what normal is, how it’s measured (and whether or not the measurements can be trusted). And that’s what this blog is really all about — right?
Evan, I found your post on “postcard knowledge” very interesting. Up until Jan. ’07 I believed the hype about AGW, simply because that was all I heard, and I am (or was – I don’t know where I stand now politically) a Democrat. I would occasionally see these ridiculous letters in the paper saying GW is a hoax blah blah, liberals blah blah, and decided I’d respond for once, figuring it would be a slam dunk rebutting them. So I was really looking for proof of AGW, and expected to find it easily. I didn’t. Something about the AGW arguments rang hollow, and it always revolved around C02, and their ASSUMPTION that it drives or can drive climate. It was upon this foundation that all of their horror story predictions were based. The problem was, they never proved it. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic, and I began (and continue to) writing anti-AGW letters based on science, not politics. If you want a good exercise in distilling the argument against AGW, try doing so in 250 words max. It really boils down to; it’s not C02, it’s the sun that drives climate. With only 250 words you can do some drill-down into the second set of cards, but not much.
Davison should stay, I haven’t laughed like this in a while.
I think we should take a lesson here. If we start taking ourselves too seriously, we’ll end up as misguided as the “experts”.
It seems we can’t even recongnize parody these days.
[Whether he’s joking or serious, I’m still laughing!]
Evan,
Better you than me. After your first post card states that CO2 concentrations have gone up to a whopping .038% of the total atmosphere, and temperatures might have risen by .6c over 100 years – where do you go? If you talk solar cycles, earth axis, cosmic rays, the entire effort will be dismissed.
As I attempt to dial down my cynicism, I think that there is a strong undercurrent of rational people who a starting to smell a rat in the conventional wisdom on AGW and may be receptive to a cohesive message. The challenge will be getting the information into their hands.
As for the post topic, you know who I think should decide – the Free Market! People operate in their own best interest and use their dollars to their advantage. I am all for conservation of resources because it is to my economic advantage to do so. If you allow energy resources to trade at market prices, those prices will influence where research and development dollars are spent. When oil was $11 a barrel, there was no economic incentive to explore or develop alternatives. Now that we are at $ 107 the incentive is there and will be exploited.
I recently went to the Energy Dept.’s web site and calculated what it would cost to replace ½ of my $200 monthly electric bill with solar. To save that $100 would cost $100.000 in a new solar system. Their calculator, factoring in increased home value and not maintenance stated that it would be 45 years to get a return on my investment. I think I’ll let the TVA continue to make my power. But as technology advances, chasing those energy dollars, new batteries and panels will be developed and when the same system can be bought for $10,000, I just might take the plunge.
The government has no constitutionally defined role here. I am reading a John Adams biography and really wish this nation could return to that clear thinking about the role of government, and what it should and should not be. As an example, how has mission creep seen the National Aeronautics and Space Administration involve itself in atmospheric temperatures? I understand that these departments are first about their own survival. We need a political class that can say no.
The government subsidies of ethanol have wreaked havoc on food prices. Allowing artificial, government inspired market influences on the energy market will further weakening the economy. With the war on terror, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, the threat of inflation, the weakening dollar, the oil price spike – we don’t need a carbon tax, or a windfall profit tax either.
Bob_L — (As for the post topic, you know who I think should decide – the Free Market! )
One problem overall is that there are at least two classes of skeptic. The most prevalent is the political skeptic who is suspicious of the abuse of science by what can only be described as environmental fascists. This suspicion is exacerbated by the continuing and mounting evidence that these environmentalists have an agenda and will stop at nothing to promote it as follows —
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece
This article has nothing to do with AGW per se but does illustrate the mind set. One can expect a Dan Ratheresque statement to follow to the effect that this paper may have been misquoted but it’s still true.
Who decides? Ultimately what the environmentalists and the Malthusians and the various cousins of this group want to implement a top down regime ruled by the “intellectuals.” Certainly this appeals to those who are or consider themselves to be intellectuals — why would it not? Their problem is that the US is a republic, and this group has no chance of succeeding without overturning the constitution. The best they can hope to attain is to twist the electorate via indoctrination. The fact that sites like this exist says that this is not going to happen without a major pissing match, and my money says they’re ultimately going to lose. The answer? WE the people will decide.
Has anybody visited Mr Davison’s Blog?
Under “Global Warming” there are over 50 comments, only about three are by others than Mr. Davison. This seez all!?!
(Sorry for being off topic)
Yeah, I took a look at it. It’s just him talking all over himself. The funniest part, though, was where he says if we apologize (those whom he named, such as me) our names would be removed from his hate list. ROTFL!!! This coming from the “man” who’s first post called everyone here snotbags. Who should be apologizing to whom?
Another funny thing, he embodies EVERYTHING he accuses others of being/doing.