Climate-Change Denial: Aren’t We Past That?
New Planet Atheism blogger Tom Stelene (Al-Kafir Akbar!) seemed promising, but he moved quickly from some initial rational posts into full-bore “wingnut” climate-change denial.
- what a delusion environmentalism is
- what politically-motivated junk science is behind it
- how it is a secular religion
- how it is more destructive collectivism
Even Ronald Bailey at Reason, author of the 2002 Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, isn’t buying it anymore. Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Arctic ice in 2007 was at its lowest recorded level, and Greenland’s ice-sheet is breaking off in mile-sized chunks that are so heavy they cause earthquakes when they slip. What will it take for the denialists to get the memo, personal drowning in rising seas? What more evidence do they need? Rhetorical question–clearly theirs is not a supportable position.
Stelene continues:
In addition to excuses to raise taxes, congressmen are using climate change hysteria to funnel money into their districts. Rep. David L. Hobson, R-Ohio, secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists. Money for similar boondoggles is being called for by members of both parties
As if carbon-neutral energy development was some kind of pork-barrel pipe-dream, instead of a business opportunity or vital necessity. Let’s look at the nature of our situation: Aside from radiation coming from the sun and other parts of space or the occasional meteorite coming in, and whatever heat is reflected or re-radiated into space going out, Earth is a closed system. Each of the 6.5 billion people who live here therefore have the right (an inherent human right as opposed to an arbitrary legal right) to fully use 1/6,500,000,000th of its resources and atmosphere, which are decidedly finite. If Stelene or Matt Drudge or Michael Crighton want to use more than that share of atmosphere or non-renewable resource, they need to purchase it from the people whose share they are consuming. That’s the free-market, right? It’s a classic problem of the commons, and even smart libertarians recognize this. They usually recommend privatization, which is one potential solution (carbon-trading markets). The other is regulation or Pigovian tax (carbon taxation).
If humans spew more CO2 into the atmosphere, it will get hotter. Empirical data, theoretical extrapolation and computer models all prove this point. Not to mention heat induced tipping-points and cascades that could release even more potent methane. Not to mention the reality of 700 degree temperatures on C02-shrouded Venus. Anthropogenic Global Warming is just about the most extensively studied phenomenon in human history, and the conclusions are in. Yet the denialist machine runs full tilt. Why? To make a few bucks. Make that about $100 trillion bucks. Pity they don’t realize there’s even more money to be made in green tech.
But even if there weren’t, if there is a threshhold beyond which the environment begins to destroy human life, then we humans have a moral obligation to each other, and to other animals which will be affected, to prevent the damage from happening. If we fail to do so, it’s morally equivalent to murdering the people who will be affected, not to mention whole ecosystems.
Atheist Ethicist Alonzo Fyfe has posted extensively on the subject. U.N. Secretary Ban Ki Moon has called the Darfur conflict the first climate war. I’m sorry I have to single Mr. Stelene out like this, but as a participant in Planet Atheism, he has a responsibility to the facts. So I’m not just talking to him, but to anyone–ever–who tries to casually throw down this ridiculous denialist agenda. It’s an insult to all our intelligence.
While atheism is simply a lack of god-belief and has no other prerequisites, a strong corollary is rationalism, which includes paying attention to what science has to say.
If you want to deny climate science, it’s not enough to come up with a few fringe papers to support your position, or to cite link-farms pointing to right-wing propaganda mills, or to quote “free-market” rhetoric (so-called Capitalism magazine) to justify stealing other people’s rights to the atmosphere or resources. Current government policies are far from the free-market. They represent a legacy of heavy continuing and historical subsidies of fossil-energy, and a complete contempt for the concept of unpaid externalities or protection of the rights of the disenfranchised in the developing world.
I posted the following comment on Mr. Stelene’s blog, which has comment moderation enabled.
Your blog seemed promising at first. But now you want the carte blanche to piss in the public reservoir (atmosphere) and wonder why people want you to pay for the cleanup.
Denialists such as yourself have no concept of equitable allocation of shared resources, or the finite nature of resources and natural capital. You think you can do whatever you want and you have zero responsibility to the other 6.5 billion people on the planet.
It’s not about the government, it’s about ethics and personal responsibility.
How would you propose to limit carbon releases if not through regulation? Sorry, you’re not smart enough to claim we don’t need to; when thousands of the world’s top scientists say otherwise.
Dingell’s bill was actually a political satire to make carbon taxation even more unpopular. If you don’t already know, Dingell has one of the very worst records on the environment, and he never intended for his bill to pass.
The world’s premier scientific bodies including the IPCC and the Nobel committee obviously think the carbon situation is urgent. On the other hand, the global-warming denial peanut-gallery is as cynical, baseless, irrational and without the support of evidence as religion–or for that matter holocaust-denial.
Tom, even if you don’t post my comment, please do yourself a favor and get educated on this subject. If for no other reason, carbon-trading is projected to be the largest commodities market in human history. Get with the program or you’ll miss the boat.