Al-Kafir Akbar: A Denialist Digs Himself In Deeper

It’s on. As a staunch defender of the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), which has recently been reaffirmed by the decisions of the IPCC, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Nobel committee, I was joined by Heather at Why Don’t You Blog? who contributed an excellent response to this “Environmental Action Day” post by Tom Stelene.

Now comes Mr. Stelene with yet another installment of indefensible rhetoric which could be taken right from the pages of Capitalism Magazine. (I know, because I used to faithfully read Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al, and held similar jaundiced views on the environment before I understood the seriousness of the AGW threat, and learned about Natural Capitalism and sustainability).

But this is not a simple logical debate. We accepters of consensus science have now been compared to religious believers:

Amidst the latest politically-correct trend of environmentalists to throw out the smear, “global warming deniers” I sense that by and large they probably have little familiarity with the science and reasoning as to why some deny “global warming” - as most narrow-minded religionists are unfamiliar with the reasons and arguments of atheists - or, better still: “God-deniers.” Heather, who wanders form topic to topic and throws in a few insults along the way in her post on me, and Black Sun, have called me “denier” and say that I do not know what I am talking about.

Precisely because science is not my area (that being philosophy) I have to carefully consider both sides, and for some twenty years as a curious observer (if man causes global environmental problems I obviously want to know) I have read and listened to environmentalist claims - which get plenty of publicity - yet the science that challenges them gets ignored.

Actually, science doesn’t ignore any evidence. It challenges itself and continually self-corrects. What the media reports is less than meaningless to the conduct of scientific inquiry.

Here is environmentalism in a nutshell. Considering the whole of the course of the environmentalist movement since its inception, it has a consistent history of making tremendous doomsday predictions that have not happened, and, being at the least, incompetent, and at worst, deceitful, with its use of science. Philosophically, the movement is driven by egalitarian-collectivist-statists of all stripes. Many of their intellectual leaders are communists and socialists (like the several Marxists referred to by Al Gore in his book whom he calls “environmental thinkers“); they set its agenda and its goals.

Now we’re communists. Please. Here’s my full comment refuting Mr. Stelene’s baseless accusations:

Tom,

It won’t work to claim AGW (anthropogenic global warming) proponents are religious. By your own admission, you are not a scientist, so really you are in no position to directly debate this issue. All you can do is pass judgment on what authorities you choose to believe. So anything you say is an opinion based on argument from authority. The other side are actually scientists, so when they cite authorities, they have actually read their peers’ papers and reviewed their data. Something you clearly have not done and cannot do.

Politically and philosophically, I have to answer your charges with some questions:

1. What evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is a legitimate issue?
2. Are you really asserting AGW is entirely false, or just that it’s not as bad as some experts have claimed?
3. If you accepted it to be real and urgent, would you support a mechanism for immediately allocating shared financial responsibilities?
4. Do you, in general as (I presume) a Libertarian accept the idea that people should pay their own way? That they should shoulder the true costs and consequences of their actions, inactions, and consumption?

I think the difficulty here is that you still think there’s a case to be proven. This is typical tactic of a losing argument–shifting of the burden of proof. If the shoe were on the other foot, and the people interested in proving AGW were facing a 99% [scientific] global consensus to the contrary, I think you’d agree it wouldn’t just take a few web links, but mountains of evidence to prove your case. That’s exactly the burden you face. Put up or shut up. [That means specific and countervailing scientific evidence on AGW, not scare-quotes from past environmentalists with the admonishment "so-and-so was wrong before."]

Your use of the term environmentalist as a pejorative betrays your bias, and is itself an ad hominem attack and therefore meaningless to the factual question. If you want to talk about environmental falsehoods, cite specific examples.

In general, I would agree that some environmentalists have in the past engaged in blind insistence on protection of nature at whatever cost. I don’t share that position. I am a true capitalist. I’m in favor of cost-benefit analysis. I take the position that humans are the preferred species, and we should maximize the use of the planet for human prosperity. Using long-term instead of short-term analysis, human prosperity dictates a conservationist approach to natural capital and biodiversity [and species diversity]. It also dictates a concern for sustainability (concern for future production) instead of devil-may-care growth and (unlimited present) production. What good is resource exploitation if it leaves a damaged and depleted planet for our descendants? It’s irresponsible and shamefully short-sighted.

You say environmentalists should “admit they were wrong.” About what, specifically?

Your accusations of political correctness have little to do with scientific evidence. If the evidence supports it, I’m going to go along with it, as would any reasonable person. What good is evidence if you don’t accept it? That’s what peer review is for, and the peer review of AGW has been done to death. You really think with stakes this high it’s all just some grand conspiracy?? You just don’t like the conclusion. So you attack the process.

Your comparison of 99% of the scientists in the world to narrow-minded religionists or (outrageously) Soviets, just shows how weak your position is. Tell that to the IPCC, U.S. Supreme Court, and the Nobel committee.

Finally, I’ll address the collectivism accusation: Actually, it is the AGW-deniers who are the collectivists. They support allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to keep engaging in practices that essentially levy a heavy tax-burden on the rest of us. By depleting natural capital, the extractive robber-barons are externalizing their costs to other citizens and future generations. A true individualist libertarian would insist that everyone pay their fair share in the present-day rather than sloughing it off on their children, right?

If you want to refrain from sounding completely ignorant and backward on this subject, you need to read and understand the concepts of Natural Capitalism, Externalities, Sustainability, and the Tragedy of the Commons. If you don’t, you have no business claiming to be a true Capitalist. Ayn Rand would probably even be ashamed of you for such a flagrant oversight. (I kid, I kid).

Regardless of any of those philosophical concepts, it comes down to evidence which, despite your protestations, is overwhelmingly against your denialist position.

You have attempted to smear anyone who advocates the acknowledgment of human responsibility for the environment, and efforts toward a better way of doing things–efficient and sustainable living. I don’t see the problem! We all get a cleaner planet and improved living standards out of the deal. The only people who lose are those (essentially thugs) who don’t want to pay their fair share.

You present a false dichotomy of pro-growth “reasonable” Libertarianism vs. intellectually dishonest tree-hugging environmentalism. Given the facts, this is a simplistic and dangerously arrogant view.