Post by Kahlessa on May 26, 2007 22:51:04 GMT -5
Global Warming: Narrow Theory vs. The Grand Theory
This is from the article "Global Warming, Global Stifling"
by Gary Jason, Liberty magazine, May 2007
libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_05/jason-warming.html
In the article, Jason distinguishes between the narrow theory of anthropic global warming and the grand theory of global warming (hereafter, the "Grand Theory").
He describes them thus:
The Narrow Theory lies exclusively in the domain of climate science, and holds simply that:
1. The earth's climate is warming significantly.
2. This warming is exacerbated by the generation of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
3. This warming threatens to induce widescale ecological changes.
The Grand Theory — as presented on television and in several recent movies — is vastly more than a theory of climate science. It is a multiple-domain metanarrative or integrated worldview, including both moral assumptions and policy prescriptions. In essence, it posits twelve theses:
1. The world is warming dramatically.
2. This warming is unlike any other warming or cooling in the history of the planet.
3. The warming is caused primarily by humans' burning of fossil fuels.
4. If we keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate, warming will accelerate and increase without end.
5. The result of warming will be a huge increase in the number of ecological and meteorological disasters, which will be of biblical proportions.
6. These disasters will not be counterbalanced by any favorable effects of warming.
7. Both warming and disaster will occur with such rapidity that mankind will be unable to adjust.
8. The process can be reversed or controlled by drastically curtailing the use of fossil fuels.
9. The only way to do this is by drastically curtailing the use of fossil fuels.
10. The best plan is to slash the use of fossil fuels in the United States and other countries of the developed world, while leaving the less-developed world (including Brazil, China, and India) alone.
11. Use of fossil fuel can best be curtailed by the exploitation of wind and solar power, and by massive "conservation."
12. Whatever this will cost, directly and indirectly (and estimates range from trillions of dollars to nothing at all), will be less that the costs of the damage wrought by continued warming.
Jason then makes these points:
• There is general agreement about the Narrow Theory — though there are varying degrees of this agreement, depending on the particular thesis being considered.
• Turn to the Grand Theory, and things get very curious. While there seems to be a preponderance (though nowhere near a complete convergence) of opinion on the Narrow Theory, there isn't even anything approaching a consensus on the Grand Theory.
• My own doubts about global warming are yet to be stifled. Concerning the Narrow Theory, I'm willing to agree with the majority of experts, because I am not an expert — though I still wonder why, if the evidence is so overwhelming, complete convergence has not been achieved. But it is with Theses 4 through 12 of the Grand Theory (which go beyond the Narrow Theory) that I have real concern.
• So much for my own doubts regarding the Grand Theory. I'm concerned about the theory itself, but I'm also alarmed by the way the debate about the theory is proceeding. There are two particularly striking phenomena that trouble me, and I think they are connected.
• First, I see an ongoing attempt, by the groups that are predisposed to favor the Grand Theory, to equate it with the Narrow Theory in public discourse.
• More troubling still are the concerted efforts now being made to achieve complete convergence by means of political and economic force and mass-oriented propaganda. I call this "Global Stifling," the oppression of the critics of global warming. A common warning sign of pseudoscience is the use of political or emotional coercion, instead of the force of evidence, to silence opponents of a pet theory.
This is from the article "Global Warming, Global Stifling"
by Gary Jason, Liberty magazine, May 2007
libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_05/jason-warming.html
In the article, Jason distinguishes between the narrow theory of anthropic global warming and the grand theory of global warming (hereafter, the "Grand Theory").
He describes them thus:
The Narrow Theory lies exclusively in the domain of climate science, and holds simply that:
1. The earth's climate is warming significantly.
2. This warming is exacerbated by the generation of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
3. This warming threatens to induce widescale ecological changes.
The Grand Theory — as presented on television and in several recent movies — is vastly more than a theory of climate science. It is a multiple-domain metanarrative or integrated worldview, including both moral assumptions and policy prescriptions. In essence, it posits twelve theses:
1. The world is warming dramatically.
2. This warming is unlike any other warming or cooling in the history of the planet.
3. The warming is caused primarily by humans' burning of fossil fuels.
4. If we keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate, warming will accelerate and increase without end.
5. The result of warming will be a huge increase in the number of ecological and meteorological disasters, which will be of biblical proportions.
6. These disasters will not be counterbalanced by any favorable effects of warming.
7. Both warming and disaster will occur with such rapidity that mankind will be unable to adjust.
8. The process can be reversed or controlled by drastically curtailing the use of fossil fuels.
9. The only way to do this is by drastically curtailing the use of fossil fuels.
10. The best plan is to slash the use of fossil fuels in the United States and other countries of the developed world, while leaving the less-developed world (including Brazil, China, and India) alone.
11. Use of fossil fuel can best be curtailed by the exploitation of wind and solar power, and by massive "conservation."
12. Whatever this will cost, directly and indirectly (and estimates range from trillions of dollars to nothing at all), will be less that the costs of the damage wrought by continued warming.
Jason then makes these points:
• There is general agreement about the Narrow Theory — though there are varying degrees of this agreement, depending on the particular thesis being considered.
• Turn to the Grand Theory, and things get very curious. While there seems to be a preponderance (though nowhere near a complete convergence) of opinion on the Narrow Theory, there isn't even anything approaching a consensus on the Grand Theory.
• My own doubts about global warming are yet to be stifled. Concerning the Narrow Theory, I'm willing to agree with the majority of experts, because I am not an expert — though I still wonder why, if the evidence is so overwhelming, complete convergence has not been achieved. But it is with Theses 4 through 12 of the Grand Theory (which go beyond the Narrow Theory) that I have real concern.
• So much for my own doubts regarding the Grand Theory. I'm concerned about the theory itself, but I'm also alarmed by the way the debate about the theory is proceeding. There are two particularly striking phenomena that trouble me, and I think they are connected.
• First, I see an ongoing attempt, by the groups that are predisposed to favor the Grand Theory, to equate it with the Narrow Theory in public discourse.
• More troubling still are the concerted efforts now being made to achieve complete convergence by means of political and economic force and mass-oriented propaganda. I call this "Global Stifling," the oppression of the critics of global warming. A common warning sign of pseudoscience is the use of political or emotional coercion, instead of the force of evidence, to silence opponents of a pet theory.