According to R&D on their XDA blog, http://rfraley301.blogspot.com/, “the left” regards Western civilization as “a sort of cancer” spreading through the world, destroying less-civilized, more noble cultures. In the Rousseau-inspired worldview of the left, “our current way of living has to be bad” and will therefore be ultimately punished by the consequences of this bad behavior, the consequence du jour being Global Warming. They are driven to this conclusion not by rational thought, but by its apparent nemeses “emotions and feelings”. “The right” on the other hand, led by a Spock-inspired “logic and analysis” and the “cool, cool light of reason” are highly skeptical of GW (Global Warming, that is – they are not skeptical of GW Bush) and led by a (presumably unemotional) bias for their own culture. These are “the basic differences” between left and right.
Unsurprisingly, I think this view is risible. (I am reminded of the Catholic view that the sin of homosexuality is being justly punished though HIV). Let’s first of all tackle “left” and “right” (I’ll put to one side reason being a “slave of the passions” for now!). We have come to see the political spectrum in terms of this binary divide, and it’s apparently doing more harm than good. “The left”, in this dichotomy, includes international socialists, communists, Marxists, European socialists, American liberals, and Tony Blair. “The right” includes conservatives, libertarians, monarchists, theocrats, autocrats and Genghis Khan (where Hitler et al. fit in is a matter of debate – fascists are traditionally right wing, but “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”). Both of these bags of viewpoints are so mixed as to prevent useful generalizing, particularly as they each include views that would seek to overthrow the kind of representative government we enjoy in the West. In that sense, R&D are right that extreme left elements would love to replace our government with a one run on socialist ideals – but then extreme theocrats also see Western civilization as decadent and immoral, so no marks there. I’m sure there are many on the political extreme who “use” GW as an issue to further a broader revolutionary agenda. I vote we ignore them. And let’s talk about liberals and conservatives, instead of “left” and “right”, which are after all rather sinister (pun intended), emotional terms, are they not?
So why are the liberals more prone to emphasize GW as an issue, while conservatives are skeptical? Well, I’m a liberal and I love our culture, in fact I marvel every day at the luck that had me born into this wonderful civilization at this point in time, when our collection of scientific theories, art, music, social sciences and technology is so rich, and our moral sensibilities are, well, getting there! I would suggest that liberals are motivated precisely by a longing to see this culture continue to flourish and prosper, and by a moral sense that sees as repugnant the idea that our continued enjoyment of our culture may prove to be at the expense of less fortunate societies and perhaps the world in general. And why are the right skeptical? Well, let’s quote a source R&D recommend, Mr. Boortz. At http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.html his top reason (I mean positionally, which usually is an indication of primacy, despite “no particular order”) for being skeptical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.” Hardly cold, cold logic and analysis, but indicative, I would suggest, of a motivation that is somewhat close to the liberal one – a longing to see this culture continue and a moral sense that sees as repugnant suggestions from those who don’t share this view that it is sewing the seeds of its own demise.
And who is right? Well, we need to turn to the scientists, and herein are problems. The first is that scientists are great at gathering data and producing theories to explain it and how it got here (think Plate Tectonics, Natural Selection, Atomic theory, etc), but less good at predicting the future (other than results of experiments), perhaps exponentially so relative to how far into the future. The second is a persistent confusion between science (a human activity) and its subject matter (the world, reality). Hence the Crichton quote: “science has nothing whatever to do with consensus” but merely requires “one investigator who happens to be right”. And how do we know which investigator is right? Well the one whose theory best matches reality. And how do we know that? We don’t have an Archimedean point from which we can see which investigator is right, and even if we did, we would have to await the future point in time to make a determination. We must rely to the scientists, who, while they don’t operate using “consensus” (unless you believe Boortz that they conspire to distort), as Thomas Kuhn pointed out half a century ago, do operate with shared rules, assumptions and paradigms. Occasionally, anomalies in observation lead to paradigm change (Lavoisier, Roentgen), but that’s the exception, and seems less than relevant in this case – there’s no data been uncovered that’s anomalous to a prevailing theory, just disagreement on what to make of the data.
So we consult the scientific community, and make our judgments. We know the globe is warming and the atmosphere is receiving ever more CO2– there does seem to be consensus on that. There seems to be a lot of scientists who think that the latter is causing the former and because of that, GW will worsen and become a Problem (known as “dangerous anthropogenic interference” (DAI)). Samuelson seems to accept that in D’s “mandatory” article – he must, otherwise the lack of a solution would neither exist nor be a “dirty secret” (some cool logic there for you). Liberals (and I suspect a lot of conservatives) take the view that if scientists of the caliber of James Hansen at NASA and Stephen Hawking at Cambridge are expressing concern at DAI, then it merits focus as an issue in our society and government, and if alleviation of DAI by reducing carbon emissions is not an option, we should be investing heavily in R&D (er, I mean research and development this time) for alternative energy sources. Why, didn’t our president himself just advocate that recently? Maybe he does have feelings, after all!
