Global Warming is about Social Science Too


David Calderwood's picture

AGW bears all the signs of a sect of the statist religion. Its adherents claim both perfect knowledge (it's "settled science") and the ability to apply simple physics (policy input A will lead to outcome B) to a problems that are defined by complexity. To even answer the question, "is the planet warming" is exceedingly complex and, using currently available methods, probably impossible.

As a belief system it is therefore impervious to reasoned argumentation, and as a foundation on which to apply the coercion of the state, pervasively pernicious.

Suverans2's picture

Also, if the planet is warming, and it is not caused by human activity, then it is natural, and trying to "fool Mother Nature" can, as we have seen all too many times, bring with it, "That Which is Not Seen".

    ...look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it... ~ Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), July 1850

Example: In eastern North America, Multiflora Rose is now generally considered an invasive species, though it was originally introduced [with the assistance of government] from Asia as a soil conservation measure, as a natural hedge to border grazing land, and to attract wildlife. ...Some places classify Multiflora rose as a "noxious weed". ~ Wikipedia

Let me put it this way, it is so "noxious" (it is nearly impossible to kill it), and aggressive, that combating it, in the mountains of the place called North Carolina, kept a roof over our heads and food on the table for over ten years! "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."

David Calderwood's picture

Disconnection between "benefit" and "cost" is the hallmark of political system activity. Since no actor within the political system (from EPA consultant to a "scientist" on a government grant) reaps the downstream costs of his or her actions or proposals, there is no negative feedback loop to induce a degree of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" common sense.

I'm a lover of axiom, and for me, it is axiomatic that if the proposal originates within or is to be implemented by the political system, it will produce outcomes 180 degrees opposite those espoused by its proponents.

Simple rules for my simple mind.