Should an attempt be made to distinguish disagreement with policy from disagreement with science?

Question

There are a lot of people who participate on this board who have little if any training in science yet hold a very strong opinion of the science behind global warming.

My guess is that the majority of people listed above simply disagree with potential policy changes that may be implemented in attempt to prevent and/or remediate damages.

Do you think that those who do not support these policies would be better represented by arguing against their disagreements with the policy instead of arguing against the science?

Answer 1

Certainly, and I think you've touched a seemingly obvious but very often overlooked point with regards to the issue of climate change. There was a c-span book tv segment on a few months ago with Erik Conway, co-author of Mechants of Doubt along with Naomi Oreskes, where he makes a similar point -- in a democratic society like America, we can use the information that AGW is an accurate and descriptive theory, that if left unabated our emission of CO2 will cause potentially dangerous warming in the future, but decide not to do anything about it. Or we could create the ubiquitous "one world government" that denialists are always blathering on about. The issue is, as you imply, when people believe that one particular policy decision for dealing, or non-dealing, with climate change must necessarily follow from the science. Denialists are certainly guilty of this, but so are radical environmentalists. And even realists, even scientists are guilty of it as well. But this is *rarely*, if ever, the case.



As part of the small minority of conservatives that accepts the realities of anthropgenic climate change, I have long argued that my "colleagues" would do well to enter the policy debate. So far, the voice advocating policy has really only come from one particular side of the aisle, and more likely than not, you're not going to like what they have to say. But science doesn't support cap-n-trade any more than any other strategy.



I, for one, don't believe that an issue like climate change reveals the failings of the American system. Rather, it could very well be the opposite.



EDIT:

Conservatives and republicans denying AGW because of "leftist" policy implications is really a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. As long as repubs continue to deny the overwhelming scientific support for the theory of AGW and its consequences, and refuse to even entertain the idea that something needs to be done about it, the left will continue to dominate the policy discussion with "leftist" proposals. And more than that, as long as they deny, demand will never be large enough for the free-market system to effectively and efficiently deal with the problem.

Answer 2

This is one time when I have to admit that the anti's have a point:  our policy is completely f***ed up.



Let's go back to the Clinton administration.  One of its first initiatives was to put a carbon tax on fuels.  This got very complicated as they attempted to have many different tax rates on the same fuel depending on the type of user (e.g. motor fuel vs. heating oil), and the whole idea collapsed.



But what did the Department of Energy do under Hazel O'Leary?  It pushed a cancellation of the Integral Fast Reactor project, which would not only have generated massive amounts of carbon-free energy, it would have done it using waste from our current fleet of light-water reactors.  Using the byproduct "depleted uranium" from enrichment that we already have, IFRs could literally run the entire USA for about 300 years.  The project was CANCELLED, despite it costing more money to refund Japan's contribution than to carry it out.



I am pretty sure that the reason behind this is political influence from coal interests, but it all plays into the hands of the leftist doomer contingent too.  They are both enemies of an industrial society using cheap, clean energy to live lightly on the earth.

Answer 3

Yes, we should all try to keep the differences between science and policy in mind, and make sure that the science is influencing policy, but policy is not attempting to influence the science.



If people feel strongly that policy choices must be made that conflict with the science, they should acknowledge that choice rather than make pseudo-scientific arguments such as "there is no warming" or "AGW is all based on models."

Answer 4

Absolutely.



But the problem is psychological. I'm sure that AGW deniers honestly believe that climate scientists are idiots or scam artists or that there's serious scientific debate about AGW. After all, there is a lot of misinformation out there, particularly coming from the right-wing media. Just look at jim's answer - "The science is distorted by leftists to push their socialism". I have no doubt he honestly believes this even though it could not be more ludicrous.



People aren't very good at admitting their biases. So while their denial is totally transparent to those of us in the real world, I'm sure deniers like the jimzulu bros think their climate science denial is perfectly justified.



So it's easy for us to say that they should just argue about climate policy if that's what they have a problem with. The problem is that in many cases, they don't realize that's the source of their denial. Most don't have a problem admitting that they oppose putting a price on carbon emissions, but they honestly believe they have a scientific basis for that opposition. After all, if AGW is just a scam/fraud/hoax/etc., then we probably don't need any climate policy.



I very much wish people could just accept the scientific reality of AGW and move on to debating about what policy responses would be appropriate. That would make for a good debate. You don't want cap and trade? Fine, then offer an alternative which will reduce GHG emissions sufficiently. I'm all ears.



I think a main problem is that AGW deniers don't have a viable alternative. It's a whole lot easier to deny a problem exists than to find a solution to it. Deniers want to continue with business as usual with massive subsidies to fossil fuels, no price on carbon emissions, and cheap energy and gasoline. The options are either to enact a policy which will result in modest fossil fuel price increases, or allow the climate to change dangerously rapidly. Neither option is ideal, so deniers just deny that these are our options. It's a psychological problem.



Coincidentally, Skeptical Science - which up until now has only discussed climate science - appears to be on the verge of publishing some articles pertaining to the science of climate policy solutions. For example, I've drafted up a rebuttal to the denier argument "CO2 limits will harm the economy". Hopefully this effort will help move the debate in the right direction.

Answer 5

If I disagree with the science (or lack of science), then why in the world would I agree with the policies. The policies are leftist policies that are harmful. The science is distorted by leftists to push their socialism. Those are the facts. You can't run away from them. It is no coincidence that you and every other alarmists posting is a far leftist. Alarmist simply cannot look in the mirror and admit they believe in AGW because of their political leanings. My skepticism is based on my science background. My vehement disagreement with alarmists comes from their attempt to push their failed political agenda on us using bogus science. It has harmed science and if they get their way it will destroy our economy. I don't disagree with science. I disagree that you are as informed as you think you are.

Answer 6

Personally I think so, but I think many people delude themselves into thinking that they know some secrets about weather and climate that people with doctorates in the subject don't know, so they use their "knowledge" to argue the the effect is not real then dismiss mitigation policies out-of-hand. Instead of contributing to a useful discussion on what the best approach toward mitigation might be, they just insult scientists and make fools of themselves.



EDIT: The Bigfoot twins couldn't have been better examples for my point if they'd tried. Even though I believe neither one has any advanced knowledge of atmospheric science, physics, meteorology or climate science, they deny the science because proposed mitigation methods are in conflict with their political world view, so they delude themselves that they know something about the science that people in every branch of science have missed.



What can you say to people whose political views have warped every aspect of their scientific knowledge?

Answer 7

The real climate records as in the day to day weather records only go back about 150 years and the planet is 5 billion years old give or take?? Would this be like trying to predict a persons life by looking at 1 minute of a 80 year span?

Answer 8

Where have you been for the last 250yrs? This is probably the closest science will ever come to influencing legislative policy. Pray it stays limited to its confinement.

Answer 9

Yes. Absolutely. Some people come here to ask real questions and get real answers, but the get bunches of crap: It's not true because Al Gore leaves his car on and becuase we all don't wanta pay no taxes!



What it going on, how fast its going on, and why it is happening are entirely different subjects for what any specific country should decide to do about it.

Answer 10

Science requires something to actually exist in the real world rather than just in the fantasies of deluded leftists. You can't argue science with religious zealots that think their delusions are actually true. You need to keep them out of power in the first place.