Scientific hypotheses can have an enormous effects even if they are invalid, especially if they are widely believed. Can you guess which one I am describing? Here are some clues:
What scientific hypothesis
- has been shown to be invalid? [See here and here for specific problems; for more general discussion see here.]
- leads to policies that increase the poverty of the poor the world over, discussed here?
- is being used as the basis for trying to starve green plants of one of their essential nutrients in the name of environmentalism, as discussed here?
- is being used as the justification to increase the incomes of well placed supporters?
- is being defended by arguing that its validity should be decided by majority vote of “experts” rather than the scientific method?
- is being falsely defended by claiming that 97% of climate scientists support it, as discussed here?
- is being defended by calling non-believers “deniers” in the sense of holocaust deniers for public relations purposes?
- is being defended as helping to support enviromentalism when it actually makes life worse for many non-human species, particularly birds, bats, and green plants?
- leads to decreases in support for actual environmental improvements by lowering net incomes, which results in humans directing more of their income to necessities?
- is increasing the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government including the United Nations and reducing the role played by economics and market forces and thus economic efficiency, as discussed here?
- is being used to argue for lower global temperatures when humans do better with and prefer soemwhat warmer temperatures than we currently have?
- is being supported by the US Democratic Party even though it has resulted in major Party losses in 2000, 2010, and 2016? In 2000 Gore lost West Virginia and the Presidency in substantial part on the basis of his attacks on coal (based on the scientific hypothesis under discussion) even though West Virginia had long been a Democratic state. In 2010 the Democrats in Congress lost control of the House of Representatives in large part as a result of their votes for the Cap and Trade (Tax) bill, which again was based on the same hypothesis. In 2016 Trump won many usually Democratic states which were concerned by loss of income and jobs, resulting in part from support for the hypothesis.
You guessed it: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), discussed here.
Afternoon Justbeau,
After reading this post over at VOX- https://www.vox.com/2017/5/1/15482698/new-york-times-bret-stephens
“….As Joe Romm of Climate Progress has demonstrated, this is utterly disingenuous. Stephens called climate change a “mass hysteria phenomenon” for which “much of the science has … been discredited.” He said that people who accept climate change science are motivated in part by the “totalitarian impulse” and they worship “a religion without God.” He said “global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time.” In a column calling climate change one of liberalism’s “imaginary enemies,” he said this:
Here’s a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same…”
I can see why Dr. Romm would be a bit concerned.
From your comment: “…Climate change is about as plausible as a 15 foot tall rabbit named Harvey visible only to faithful believers in the UN and Mr. Obama.”
That rabbit, or his cousin, gets around.
https://www.masterresource.org/paris-climate-agreement/paris-last
I was alluding to the movie Harvey. It’s charming. Jimmy Stewart is amiable, but suffers a delusion that he is accompanied thru life by a giant rabbit by name of Harvey. Harvey is more like 7 feet. I am confident A rigorous scientist like Doc Carlin would never exaggerate Harvey’s height, provided the rabbit truly existed for Doc to measure. But just beau permits himself a little bit of poetic license upon occasion.
I would hope and expect Stephens can contribute much more to the Times than just smacking climate change. At Doc”s saloon or salon, we blab about the madness of climate lulus. We will tend to focus on this topic, in deference to our gracious host.
But there is more to life than just climate lunacy. The New York Times must be intellectually bankrupt in some additional topics. I don’t know the specifics any more than I know the headlines spewed out by Pravda.
There is one smart columnist Douhat but he hides in obscurities. Bill Safire was confined to semantics. David Brooks is a nice Rino. In contrast Stephens has the potential to shock pure snowflakes in their safe space bubbles on more than one subject.
What he could write is not even all that shocking, unless a times reader us deliberately and defiantly clueless as many must be.
Any of us can be too climate centric myself included.
Stephens has foreign policy expertise. He is supportive of Israel, as is the President among other New Yorkers.
Stephens was raised in Mexico.
He brings a conservative with strong credentials on board the Times to diversify its voices. He us young enough to make a long term impact if he stays and can easily land another job if he finds the climate too uncongenial.
I am processing the Stephens move and what it could possibly imply.
One plausible explanation is he became deeply skeptical of Trump, so joined the Times where incidentally his wife works. Smart Pulitzer guy. Adds to brain power at a business that could use oodles more. A business the President and republicans regard with profound skepticism. Financially propped open by a Mexican billionaire. ugh.
Meanwhile climate change fantasists are out of office and have little political influence on a national basis. Putting all your faith and business reputation in continuing to back yesterday’s heroes is an imprudent one way bet of your business.
Stephens has cleverly positioned himsel as virulently anti trump, so is well positioned to help the Times try to move toward a saner and less risky business model. Introduce some fresh outlooks and respect for free speech and civility even within the Times.
To sell the profound transition toward sense, Stephens embraces the federal government data bases that are claimed to indicate warming. The science is claimed to be good, protecting the Times, but there are some uncertainties. Duh!
this guy is in-house, not freeman dyson who can be dismissed as senile as well as disrespected by the 97 percent claimed smarter climate specialists.
The climate lemmings seem reasonable to be scared about where the sulzbergers are headed. And Stephens is correct to term them nasty leftists. He is tailored from other cloth.
Alan,
Some good news! Cracks in the “C”AGW meme are making it to the main stream media and the believers in the pre-cautionary principle are not pleased.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/04/28/out-of-the-gate-bret-stephens-punches-the-hippies-says-dumb-things/
I wonder why Greg hasn’t discussed why the California Climate Credit went down 40%. Or why “An estimated 25,800 PG&E customers suffer service terminations each month due to delinquent payments.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/02/23/pge-bills-headed-higher-in-march-and-in-2017/
Not an easy gig for Bret Stephens to move to the New York Times and thereby enter its surreally fake interpretation of science that it dishes out to the liberal faithful.
At least at the Wall Street journal, Stephens could write what he thought and be honest. He developed a deeply skeptical opinion of mr trump and wrote what he thought. He did not hold back. I did not agree with his opinion, but respected the journal for employing such a skeptic.
Stephens probably regards climate change as claptrap. Not sure if he has ever written about the subject. Climate change is about as plausible as a 15 foot tall rabbit named Harvey visible only to faithful believers in the UN and Mr. Obama.
Not easy for Stephens to tell all the earnest snowflakes who depend on the Times to do their thinking that just possibly a few little mistakes have been made with the shocking result and belated self-realization that we here at the old grey lady have been spewing out claptrsp for decades.
Heady times for doc carlin!
The democrats are not just down, but they are out of ideas and their credibility and trustworthiness are blown to smithereens.
This empowers republicans possibly for a long while. But it’s also not healthy for the long term for one party to be intellectually bankrupt, while marketing itself as smart. It’s a profound fiasco.
Mr Obama had only a few big agenda items to offer in his state if the union speech in 2009. Goose economy with deficit spending of the stimulus package. Further spend money we did not have by implementing a new medical entitlement. And combat nonexistent global warming as a cover story for imposing higher regressive energy taxes to help pay for the expanded governmental takeover of medicine.
This was big government on steroids. And it would predictably come to tears for his oarty, because this program was not going to do much to help the US economy. it contained the seeds of its own political downfall. Main outcimes were to help some folks on healthcare and to benefit Federal workers and their unions.
There have to have been major follies in US political history, but it was still strange and cynical to invent a nonexistent psuedoscientific problem like climate change and make this one of your main rationales for governance.
This presents a major problem for the democratic problem. They have said they know science and anyone who disagrees is stupid. And yet this agenda is fundamentally untrue, as shown here, here, and here by my book writing friend, Doc.
Someday they may be obliged to own up to their massive fraud of recent decades and do a mea culpa, to try to reinvent themselves as worthy of earning the trust of voters. they are currently not in a good place. Bereft of constructive ideas, championing and depending on psuedoscientific piffle.
The times are invigorating, much more than the fake news or New York Times.
Invigorating enough to punch a tired old donkey like climate change.
Show no mercy, Doc!