Incredible Libertarians and the Skeptics Creed
Posted by Jeff Id on July 11, 2010
While reading around the internet I was directed to an article by Bart Verheggen who makes some observations about different sorts of climate skeptics.
It might make you giggle a bit but here’s his reasoning:
- Ideology can be a strong driver of how people view the science: Mitigation of climate change is seen as threatening by many libertarians, because they associate mitigation with government intervention, which they oppose.
- Psychology can also be very powerful: To some it feels good to be the underdog and get celebrated by anonymous fans on the internet and phoned up routinely by newspapers, TV and other media (that counts for the ‘spokespeople’ only). Many people have a psychological predisposition to side with the underdog (that counts for their fans). The mitigation challenge is very great indeed, which means that it is psychologically favorable to downplay the problem (so as not to get depressed or feeling guilty about everything you do and don’t do). Recently I hear more often that people side with skeptics because they are ‘nicer’. A little odd, but if that plays a major role with presidential elections, than it’s only to be expected that it also plays a role in trusting scientists (or not).
- Still others suffer from what I call professional deformation: Some well educated people from other disciplines view the science through the lenses of their own specialty, which, if they’re unable to take a bit of a helicopter-view of the situation, could skew their vision.
- And of course some are just confused. With not a little help from the media, who, in an effort to provide ‘balance’, bias the coverage towards the “skeptical” compared to the mainstream view.
- Then there are organized efforts at muddying the waters, which bear a resemblance to tactics used by e.g. the tobacco lobby. It is based on manufacturing doubt amongst the public regarding science that produces “inconvenient” results. This mainly applies to certain thinktanks and a few handfuls of individuals, but they exert a disproportionate influence on the media and public perception of the issues. The ‘tactics’ used are in more widespread use, whether consciously or not.
Well I’m a conservative who is often labeled Libertarian, who doesn’t care about being an underdog, I’m an engineer who works in optics , I do spend a lot of time being confused about climate science and besides showing up at the Chicago ICCC conference am unassociated with any organization for climate.
Bart ends his post with this:
The more contempt they show for science, the more they argue the big picture of what’s known, the more they rage against emission reductions and talk about ‘world communist governments’ and other paranoid ideas like that, the less serious I take their criticism. Because to me, these are not characteristics of sincere skepticism; to the contrary.
So I read the comment as, the more that we recognize the socialistic aspects of the climate science community, the less the climate science community will take us seriously. My conservative viewpoint of their politician puppetmaster’s goals, their widespread and willing compliance to accept those goals makes my views less credible to ….um…. the socialists.
What’s going on here is that the environmental activists of the world, ignore the signs on the walls, because they like them. They don’t pay attention when Hugo Chavez gives a speech blasting capitalism in favor of his brand of socialism at Copenhagen and ends with the room in standing ovation. They were the ones clapping.
Us conservatives weren’t, because we remember our history better than that. We understand what ‘wealth redistribution’, and help the poor really means. We’ve seen where that path leads, over and over across the whole globe and it’s a bad bad idea. Evil in fact, but we’re the ones with no credibility on climate science because of our political views.
But wait, isn’t science separate from political views? Doesn’t the data determine the theory and outcome? Why would a conservative view make one unable to read data?
And if a conservative view of the governmental environmental solutions proposed, makes one less credible, doesn’t it follow that the leftist view which is so pervasive in the environmental climate science movement, makes climate science less credible???
I must be confused again.
So I’ll remind Bart (who is obviously a leftist) of a few quotes from the original copenhagen document which was leaked prior to the convention. Link here – un-fccc-copenhagen-2009
Here is one of many important quotes from the document:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
The COP was the totality of nations, they vote to determine how much money they get from the few nations considered wealthy. We, the wealthy, pay for everything deemed necessary by these poor impoverished ‘developing nations’ – who have many many more votes. In addition, we transfer all technology they require, all administrative support they require and set up an office building to help transfer that information. This has every aspect of a socialist program for wealth redistruibution to corrupt defective, Muslim, communist and socialist governments across the world. Of course they wouldn’t need help if they had functional governments but guys like Bart, consistently turn a blind eye to that little detail – because they are leftists.
The original Copenhagen document quoted above, set up a global organization called ‘government’, including systems of taxation, organization, for the purposes of wealth and technology distribution from a few functional countries to hundreds of non-functional ones. Systems of verification, reporting on compliance would have little meaning without a mechanism for enforcement. If China ever signed this document, you can bet your asses that they wouldn’t have followed it, however it was China, who in the end saved all of our butts and refused. It turns out that communist China is in love with Capitalism, including cell phones, tv’s, movies, cars and air conditioning (which means heat and cold over there) – most don’t have both.
The point is, that despite what some in climate science would say, Copenhagen was about setting up a world government. A worldwide wealth distribution government with self determined taxation, compliance and the whole breadth of expected wonderful services. Pretending to ignore that fact, as Bart appears to, can serve no purpose. If we science minded people are going to ‘save the earth’ perhaps we should be allowed to discuss the political mechanisms for doing so without being disparaged for a differing (and correct) political view.
So I’ll return Bart’s favor and let him know that not one single negative effect of climate change has been verified. Not one single problem has occurred. So the more climate scientists deny the socialist, global government nature of the UN, IPCC and environmental community and the more they argue that immediate ’emission reduction’ is necessary, the more they argue for global taxation and CO2 limits, the less credible I find them.
In my opinion, freeing the economy to build coal and nuclear plants is the best possible way to reduce emissions. Arbitrary limitations through taxation do nothing but slow technological development, create stress on economies causing increased populations which are always the result of poor countries and you get — more emission. They claim to be experts in science, how come they are also experts in politics.
I’ll finish with the skeptics creed:
I believe in the radiative capture of CO2
I believe radiative capture creates warming
I believe in climate feedback to warming
I believe the rest is unknown