You write: ” We live with many unsolved problems. Some are even scarier than global warming — like nuclear proliferation, the development of biological weapons of mass destruction, and the rising volatility of the international financial system.”
Are these not concerns that nudge us in the direction of a more unified system of world governance, as opposed to the more multi-polar world you seem to be predicting (if not favoring)? Or perhaps I misunderstand you?
Mr. Mead, let me call your atention to two objections.
First, those so very respectable climate scientists have a dismal track record with no correct predictions (remember also those hurricanes that were supposed to follow Katrina).
Second, isn’t it true there is no overt international conflict going on at the moment in all the world and that that is a state of affairs unknown to the history of previous centuries?
If my objections are correct we should desbelive the climate scientists until they deign to produce believable science and concentrate on fixing the world economy and stoping the creeping increase of terrorism, wich will eventualy will cause more international conflicts (because peolpe who suffer it will retaliate). If decent countries sink in the mire of another fruitless attempt to ban war while they try to ignore the most likely reason for it to return to the world stage, they shall have commited the same type of mistake the the greens have, with matters of war and peace in a world with nuclear and biological weapons.
Very good piece, Mr. Mead.
To your credit, you’re not a man-made global warming Kool-aid drinker like that the inbred prince.
Revisit this subject in a year from now and you might be surprised as to how far the concern for global warming has continued in its precipitious fall from the public’s radar.
How certain are we that global governance would yield a solution to this problem? If the institution had an element of popular representation, it would seem to me to be pretty easy to assemble a majority of the world’s citizens from the global south, the poor, and the developed nations skeptics who would largely dismiss climate concerns in favor of economic development aimed at immediate improvements in wealth and health for humans. If our global institution is rather an authoritarian technocracy that would impose a solution, why would people surrender their sovereignty to the rule of the allegedly wise?
While I am more skeptical than Dr. Mead on the soundness of the AGW hypothesis, it seems to me that his political analysis that AGW is one of many threats and clearly one of the more distant threats is accurate. Incrementalism is the order of the day for the Greens.
“First, there’s significant evidence that something unusual is happening to the world’s climate, and a very strong case exists that it is related to human activity.”
The earth has apparently warmed over the past century. However, it was not a steady increase. There was a point (c.1970) when some of the same alarmists now predicting disastrous global warming were predicting a new ice age. And for the past decade or so, the global has apparently stopped warming and may be cooling. How do you explain this in light of steady increases in carbon emissions, which are supposedly causing the warming?
What is the “strong evidence” that any of this is man-made? Note: the output of computer models is not “evidence;” it is theory. The outputs essentially reflect the ASSUMPTIONS made on inputs. As we have seen with the CBO models of health care costs and the financial models of derivatives, the principle of “garbage in-garbage out” prevails; or, if you prefer “fantasy in-fantasy out.”
BTW, are there any global warming alarmists who are not on some government payroll–or angling to be so?
There is a simpler explanation for the observed warming: the sun. Has that been disproved yet?
– The science is right.
– But, the scientist got rolled, politically.
– … And, it’s easy to mock Prince Charles.
– Therefore, the science is wrong.
Sort of, ‘the wisdom of crowds’ meets ‘proof by anecdote’.
Truth is best verified by the scientific method. The global warming crowd’s hypothesis of a warming world due to carbon dioxide has failed to predict the fact, (as stated by Phil Jones of climategate fame) that there has been no warming since 1995, and that the medieval warm period (when they were growing grapes in Moscow and colonizing Greenland) was likely half a degree warmer than today. When a hypothesis isn’t predictive, the hypothesis is at best seriously flawed, if not outright wrong. Changing the hypothesis’s name from Global Warming to Climate Change is just an example of “If you can’t blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”. If you want the Truth of global warming just follow the money, millions of dollars in donations to environment organizations, millions more in scientific grants, billions of dollars in subsidies to alternate energy companies, billions more to carbon credit traders.
I agree that there are more important problems in the world, and one of these is the global economy. It is another area where the Truth is best verified by the scientific method. The neo-classical equilibrium model of the economy, the one used by nearly all the central bankers and economists in power today, is seriously flawed. They have admitted as much, when they stated that no one saw the Global Financial Crisis coming, thus experimentally demonstrating that their hypothesis isn’t predictive. THESE CLOWNS ARE STILL IN CHARGE. The fact is that central banks can’t fight deflation with interest rates, as they can’t charge less than 0% interest. And so they have lost one of only 3 tools available, the other 2 being bank capital requirements, and the creation/printing of money. It’s called Capitalism for a reason, Capital is what fuels it. And so you would think that the central banks would keep track of the money supply, but the Fed stopped calculating M3 in 2006, they said it wasn’t economical for them to continue. The Fed had a profit of $50 billion last year, by far the most profitable bank or company in the world, but it’s not economical for them to do their job “keep track of the money supply”. http://www.shadowstats.com/ As long as we are deflating nothing these BOZOS do is likely to help, as their model is massively flawed. Most of them now are afraid of inflation, (M3 is still falling despite $1.5 trillion printed) and they look to the very narrow basket of consumer items CPI, to see if it’s here yet. They are likely to raise interest rates with an already declining money supply, choking to death an economy that is already desperate.
Say hello to Great Depression 2.0 to be accompanied by Megalomaniacs 2.0, Now with Extra Horrifying WMD.
“May you live in interesting times” Chinese curse
Pingback: Doing What Comes Naturally - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest()
I totally agree with the primary point of this post but I don’t understand the statement supporting the ‘science’ behind ‘anthropomorphic global climate change’ being sound. The science has turned out to be totally corrupted. There is actually little to no evidence that any significant statistical change in global temperatures has been outside a normal historical variance. The recent peak temperature was in 1998 and has been slowly receding since as measured by satellite readings.
There is no doubt that man’s actions can and do cause serious local and regional environmental issues that to the point of this post are far more serious than some abstract global problem.
One of the major issues with supposed global temperature discussions is the lack of definition of what exactly constitutes a ‘global temperature’. There is no global temperature but rather a serious of lots of local ones that are subject to natural variance as they have throughout the long history of this planet.
Given all the corruption that has been revealed at the IPCC and other global research organizations, I just see nothing whatsoever that should lead me to believe that there is some sort of global problem caused by a life necessity CO2. While I’ll grant that there are certainly earnest and honest scientists following where the evidence leads, this has mostly been a scam to gain more money for ‘researchers’ and more power for politicians.
The ‘actual science’ behind AGW is not in fact strong at all, the following are closer to actual science then the corrupted nonsense that’s been spewing from the IPCC and related organizations:
1. Solar events and ocean current changes have a far greater impact on our climate than man made CO2
2. By far the largest concentration of ‘green house gas’ is water vapor from our watery planet
3. CO2 MAY not even be a ‘green house’ gas and if it is, the natural production of CO2 vastly outweighs by many orders of magnitude any CO2 produced by human activity
So please help me understand the actual strong science alluded to in this post as I don’t get it.
One final point…all the ‘conclusions’ from a warming planet stress the negative, where as, there’s a great amount of benefits that also flow from a moderately warmed planet. In fact the benefits likely outweigh the negatives but this conclusion doesn’t fit the crisis hypothesis needed to wring money and power from the people to the elites.
An uncorrupted science would be much more balanced in the analysis of possible climate changes.
As the planet inevitably cools a bit we’re going to see histerics and ‘solid science’ about man made CO2 contributing to the coming ice age…oh the humanity.
I like the point that phil g made. There are benefits to a slightly warmer climate. Melting glaciers provide tons of fresh water; I say we just put out some buckets to catch it all.
“significant evidence that something unusual is happening to the world’s climate”
No there isn’t. The key word is unusual. Current changes are not unusual and are in fact rock steady compared to natural variations of the past like the end of the last Ice Age or the Medieval Warming Period.
The science is sound. But only science in AGW is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming. CO2, however is not a very strong greenhouse gas, it needs augmentation by stronger greenhouse gas namely water vapor. And here is where the computer modeling comes in to extrapolate its effect. But water vapor also make clouds, some clouds will help hold in even more heat, but some clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth causing cooling. Climate is the epidomy of a chaotic system, if the model does not have all of the relationships exactly right, it will not work.
It doesn’t work.
It appears that Mr. Mead believes that truth in science, like politics, is determined by a consensus. Actually, science is about making a hypothesis that leads to a prediction (e.g. a free falling object in a vacuum will accelerate at 9.8 m/s2, e= mc2, or increasing CO2 levels will cause the world’s temperatures to continue to rise above its unprecedented levels). Then, if the prediction matches results, the theory is accepted. If it doesn’t, then there is obviously something wrong with the theory.
In 1900, 90% of scientists believed in eugenics and everybody “knew” mass and energy could neither be created or destroyed.
New scientific ideas are generally greeted with skepticism. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity wasn’t broadly accepted until 1922 when Mickelson’s measurements of a solar eclipse showed that light waves were bent by the sun’s gravitational pull, exactly as Einstein had predicted.
Over the last 15 years, the world’s temperatures have obviously not increased as predicted by AGW proponents. Yet WRM acts as if the underlying science of global warming is sound.
It is apparent that WRM has not made even a cursory attempt to move beyond MSM provided information because he talks about the Antarctic melting. Circa 2002, Dr. Hansen announced that this latest climate model predicted that AGW would cause the Antarctic to cool and for its snow & ice mass to increase. This modification to Dr. Hansen’s model was necessary due to the overwhelming evidence that Antarctica had been cooling for decades and the snow/ice mass of Antarctica had increased by 20-40%. Just because Dr. Hanson chose not to correct Al Gore and other high profile AGW proponents when they talked about Antarctica melting, doesn’t mean that Dr. Hansen’s model supports Antarctic ice melting. It just shows that Dr. Hansen has chosen political expediency above honest scientific discussion.
Pingback: Good News For Gloomy Greens - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest()