Classical Values :: Why they hate free speech

March 17, 2007

Why they hate free speech

Dr. Helen's reflections on how quickly and dramatically members of a New York audience changed their minds after a global warming debate drove home the deep significance of the sharp scolding Al Gore gave the MSM for daring to present both sides.

While it's very easy to condemn Al Gore for what appears to be an outrageous position "against free speech," that's a simplistic, even moralistic, approach. It's fine if the goal is just to dismiss the opposition, but I think that when someone of Al Gore's stature goes out of his way to advocate against presenting dissenting views, the reasons why are worth closer scrutiny.

I think there has been a huge rush job to sell the public on the anthropogenic theory of global warming, and now too many people are asking inconvenient questions (especially if they get to watch inconvenient documentaries).

For people who have been dominating (and basically winning) the debate for a long time, this must be incredibly tedious. I think that accounts for a growing emotional need to simply end the discussion! Without getting into the merits of either side (I remain a skeptic), I think that there might be some kind of emerging rule along the following lines:

The bigger the debate and discussion grows, the greater the need to declare the discussion over.

The problem is, this is not simply a scientific debate. While is of course that, in addition it is:

1. a political debate within a scientific debate; and

2. a scientific debate within a political debate.

If it were purely a scientific debate over a long-settled and repeatedly verified scientific fact I could see the argument behind simply telling people to shut up, as well as criticizing the media for "balance." I mean, there are people who believe the earth is 10,000 years old, but it would be highly misleading to claim that there's a scientific debate over whether this is true. It is no more true than the contention that the earth is flat.

The problem is, advocates of policies like the Kyoto protocols and carbon taxing hold that their support of them is "science," and cite for support the fact that "thousands of scientists" have endorsed what are inherently political proposals. To be against a tax or a treaty is not to be against science, but against a particular human remedy for a problem over which the scope and causes are still being disputed -- yes, even by some scientists.

What has annoyed me the most about this debate is the huge advantage that one side has. By being able to claim that "science" is behind them, they don't need to understand the science. They can be totally ignorant, yet their agreement with "science" puts the onus on anyone who disagrees in the position of having to gain an understanding of the science in order to justify his disagreement. If we assume a debate between two completely ignorant laypersons, one taking the position for anthropogenic global warming, and the other against, the former has the advantage of being "on the side of science" (even if he knows nothing about it), while the latter is necessarily put in the ridiculous position of being not only ignorant, but against science!

Factor in the human tendency not to want to look ridiculous, and it's easy to see which side the ignorant will choose.

In logic, it's simply an argument to authority.

A lot of what passes for argument in this debate consists of the invocation of favorite authorities for or against. Few take the time to read through and understand the authorities they're citing.

M. Simon has far more patience and stamina than I do where it comes to slogging through these endless debates, and he wrote a number of (twenty seven, at last count) excellent comments to this post by Megan McArdle. McArdle simply titled it "Open Comment Thread" and to her credit, took absolutely no position on the debate she started by her two posts at InstaPundit.

An engineer by training, M. Simon has written a great post called "Climate Alchemy" which discusses his own comments in detail. It's a must read.

A few commenters criticized Megan McArdle unfairly, and considering that she started a comment thread when she didn't have to, it's highly disingenuous to accuse her (as this commenter did) of "suppress[ing] public discussion of a very important topic, about which one would think people would want as much info as possible." Another commenter seemed to think she suggested it wasn't worth debating:

When you say something is not worth debating you are telling a lot of us to shut up, that we don't have a right to tell our point of view.

Again, I don't think that's what she did. She raised an issue, and went out of her way to give people a chance to discuss and debate it. How many other anthropogenic global warming proponents have done this? I think she deserves praise, as I think this issue needs more -- not less -- debate.

On one minor point, I disagree with the idea that the views of Ron Bailey are controlling one way or another, and I think this comment is simply an argument to authority:

Who's Ron Bailey and what authority is he?

Ron Bailey writes for Reason magazine, and he's much smarter than you and everyone else here.

This is relevant because Megan McArdle stated that "when you've convinced Ron Bailey it's happening, you've convinced me."

(While I greatly respect Ron Bailey, I don't think there's anyone about whom I could say that convincing him convinces me. It would impress me, and it might force me to look more closely, but I can't be convinced of something simply because someone else is convinced. Plus, I'm a bit skeptical of Bailey's apparent advocacy of "Green Economics," and I hope the Green Economics Institute hired him in order to have a diversity of opinion.....)

Another commenter expresses the exasperation which I identified earlier:

From Jane Smith:
I am greatly disturbed at the general public's tendency to believe this theory without serious, critical thinking
As we have told you over and over, we have already had "serious, critical thinking", we have already asked the "hard questions", and we now have a consensus on the answers with which no rational person can even find the smallest crack to debate. End of discussion!

As you can see if you take the time read through the 216 comments, no matter what position one takes, it's wishful thinking to declare the discussion at an end.

There are too many parts to the anthropogenic global warming debate for the discussion to end. Too many arguments within arguments, and suppositions within suppositions. This argument will not end soon, nor should it.

Considering that the methodology of measuring temperatures has come into question (and I have long wondered by what right the MSM says "highest ever" when it means "highest since 1880"), and that even assuming there's a statistically significant increase there's a debate between CO2 and solar activity as a cause, it's quite a stretch to maintain the debate is settled over what could be done about it, and from there to what should be done about it. (Hell, there's even an argument that deliberately warming the planet might be beneficial and not evil.)

I'd say not only has the debate barely started, but there's a lot more than one debate. More will emerge. (Again, one of my pet peeves is that according to the data cited by the theory's proponents, eating animals is the number one cause of anthropogenic global warming. So why is it "scientific" to target fossil fuel?)

People who oppose debating make me think they're either weak on their arguments, or have completely made up their minds and are unwilling to think any further.

I think the people who don't want this issue debated would prefer that the ignorant remain ignorant, in the hope that when the ignorant masses make up their minds, it will be on the side of what they are told is "science." The more people learn about the science the greater the chances of having a real argument in which people can make up their own minds.

But history shows that the purveyors of inconvenient truths don't like inconvenient arguments.

MORE: I just got in from extensive shoveling. Well, "shovel" is not a complete description, as I had to first use a splitting maul to crack the ice before I could get the shovel underneath to throw it aside.

A thought did occur to me though.

Anyone remember this scary-looking picture of greed?

If people continue to desert the Northeast and temperatures continue to rise, wouldn't heating oil consumption go down dramatically?

Or would it be better to invoke the precautionary principle proactively, and transform the Northeast into a population-free zone?

What would scientists say?

UPDATE: I completely forgot about the Gore effect (also known as the "coldening"), but Glenn Reynolds got back just in time to remind me that when Gore speaks, ice descends.

I know correlation is not causation, but hasn't this coldening thing happened a few times too many?

At this rate they'll have to nickname Al "Frosty."

posted by Eric on 03.17.07 at 12:46 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4768

Comments

Dig the comments, but I don't understand why the Age of the Earth is in a different category.
Another Debate

Jeremy · March 17, 2007 04:52 PM

An intersteing post, but a few points:

"If it were purely a scientific debate over a long-settled and repeatedly verified scientific fact I could see the argument behind simply telling people to shut up, as well as criticizing the media for "balance." "

Obviously, AGW is not long settled or repeatedly verified--that could take centuries. But it is true that the vast majority of the literature points toward CO2 as the cause for the recent warming--especially since 1950. To pick out the dozen or so (if that many) studies which question the CO2 theory does not give an appropriate view of the state of the science, especially if those studies are often corrected or proved invalid in subsequent studies.

"In logic, it's simply an argument to authority."

In pure logic, the appeal to authority--esp. used alone--is a fallacy. But in the real world, we fall on appeals to authority to make many crucial decisions. We rely on doctors to help us make decisions out of ignorance, and while we certainly might be part of a big medical decision, we are too ignorant to micromanage an operation. The same is true of clmate science. Look at any discussion and you will find sceptics who say "CO2 isn't even the strongest greenhouse gas, water vapor is." That argument--to anyone with a smattering of atmospheric knowledge--is a complete red herring. The people who make such arguments may not appeal to authority, but they appeal to their own ignorance, which is far worse.

"there's a debate between CO2 and solar activity as a cause"

There really isn't. There is in op-ed pages, but in the scientific literature, there is a debate of whether the sun is responsible for a max of about 30% of warming. And there are far more scientists who argue solar has next to no impact on the last 50 years. A look at a TSI chart will show how little solar has changed in the last half century.

And then there is the basic physics of CO2--something the sceptics rarely talk about. ALl in all, the scepticism in the media is scientifically poor--though unfortunately most people are not able to see it as such.

Boris · March 17, 2007 06:06 PM

Boris: As an advocate of the theory of global warming, can you please tell me what causative proof there is linking warming to CO2?

Jon Thompson · March 17, 2007 07:12 PM

Just one problem with the "CO2 causes warming" idea: climate data shows that increases in CO2 happen *after* the warming, not before.

Bob Smith · March 17, 2007 10:04 PM

Yet the debate over homosexuality is finished. done.

Global warming, perhpas needs more debate.

Homosexuality, done. Solved.

anonymous · March 18, 2007 12:37 AM

Boris,

Solar output has a better correlation than CO2.

In any case, as Bob Smith points out, CO2 follows warming by around 800 years. Which kind of says that the AGW folks have cause and effect backwards. They have to do that or their political program gets no boost.

It is not about CO2, it is about political power.

M. Simon · March 18, 2007 07:26 AM

Jeremy,

Your single data point only shows something about rocks where He is used as a dating method.

U/Pb ratios are harder to discredit.

Not only that - you have a size of the universe problem.

DNA mutation rates. Ice cores. etc.

Do the young earth folks agree on the age of the earth or is it 10,000 years and up?

It is possible you are correct. However, so far the evidence is heavy in the other direction.

M. Simon · March 18, 2007 09:54 AM

By the by, is it wrong for me to say I love Patrick Moore? He also does great work on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

Jon Thompson · March 18, 2007 04:14 PM

The Vostok ice core samples have shown conclusively that CO2 rises following all past episodes of global warming.

Therefore, since cause can not precede effect, increased levels of CO2 could not have caused global warming.

But CO2 as the cause of global warming is the central pillar of the Gorebots' argument. Without that argument, which has been decisively destroyed, the Goron's implosion has begun.

Furthermore, the rridiculous statement above that: ...there are far more scientists who argue solar has next to no impact on the last 50 years... is flat wrong. This noaa chart clearly shows the direct corellation between Solar irradiance and the ''Little Ice Age'' in the late 1600's, and also the very mild warming starting around the year 1900 and continuing for the next century [the little squiggles on the chart reflect the approximately eleven year sunspot cycle].

''Who ya gonna believe, Al Gore, or your lyin' eyes?''

Smokey · March 18, 2007 05:25 PM

I guess I can't hotlink the noaa chart above, so you'll have to cut 'n' paste it:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

It's worth seeing for the Solar irradiance/Earth temp corellation.

Smokey · March 18, 2007 05:29 PM

While there do seem to be flaws in the movie (the graphs they use on temperature over the last hundred years stop to early and one of them was listed as being from NASA but it wasn't), two points stand out:

Troposphere warming isn't happening the way GW advocates say it should be.

Ice core data shows warming happening before, not after, CO2 increases.

These are pretty devastating points.

Jon Thompson · March 18, 2007 06:09 PM

Hi,
Solar output has a better correlation than CO2.
In any case, as Bob Smith points out, CO2 follows warming by around 800 years. Which kind of says that the AGW folks have cause and effect backwards. They have to do that or their political program gets no boost.
It is not about CO2, it is about political power.

Autoversicherung · March 19, 2007 07:32 AM

"Ice core data shows warming happening before, not after, CO2 increases."

It is true that the paleo record shows that temp leads CO2 by about 800 years. But this is in no way "devistating," for a variety of reasons.

First, every climate scientists knows that T leads CO2 coming out of glaciations. These glaciations are caused by orbital (Milankovitch) fluctuations. But what is important is that CO2 contributes to the warming of the earth out of a glaciation. If it were not for CO2, the earth could not fully rebound.

Second, the CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution is undoubtedly human caused. We know this through several lines of evidence, but mainly from the chemical equation for burning fossil fuels and carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere.

Third, CO2 is a known grenhouse gas. More of it will increase surface temperature. This has been known for over 100 years, though our knowledge has been refined. CO2 contributes around 15% to the earth's greenhouse effect. (Because of the way GHGs interact, it is hard to determine exactly how much CO2 contributes--but it is certainly between 9 and 26 percent, best guess around 15).

As to Smokey's and et al's better solar correlation argument--look at Smokey's graph again. There has been no increase in total solar irradiance since 1950, yet looking at any temp. graph shows dramatic warming since the late 1970s. Solar can't cause warming if it is not increasing, and as Smokey has shown, it has not increased during the latest warming. No one argues that solar irradiance caused, for instance, the early 20th century tempature rise.

And this gets at what I was talking about: people with little or no training in the sciences claim to have "destroyed" scientific arguments when it is clear they have yet to understand them.

Boris · March 19, 2007 11:36 AM

That should be "No one argues that solar irradiance DIDN'T cause the early 20th century warming"

Boris · March 19, 2007 11:42 AM