What an Excellent Point

One other thought, vis a vis climate and economics.  Obama, I suppose, would be one to argue that the science of catastrophic global warming is "settled."  But does he really think it is more settled than, say, the science that free trade leads to general increases in prosperity?  The left is all for the sanctity of science, except in economics.

5 thoughts on “What an Excellent Point”

  1. Just so I know, you are suggesting that the proposition that “[f]ree trade leads to general increases in prosperity” is a precise, unimpeachable statement of scientific fact, disagreement with which indicates a lack of regard for the “sanctity of science”?

    Tim adds: Note that there is actually a comparison there. In comparison with the “science of catastrophic global warming”, yes.

  2. In comparison with the “science of catastrophic global warming”, yes.

    Tell me more about this relative truth you espouse…

    Tim adds: Umm, depends what you mean. That some things are more true than others I think is obvious. That in vacuum,in a constant gravitational field, items of different mass fall at the same rate is one level of truth. That the big chunks float to the top in politics is a different level of truth. The existence of Ed Balls in the Cabinet does not prove that latter to any scientific level of truth. But it’s still a reasonable approximation of the real world.

    Some things we know about the universe have been proven to higher standards than other things we think we know about the universe. They are, in the way I am using the phrase, “relatively” more true than some other beliefs.

    Does trade increase the general wealth? Yes….this has been proven to a higher standard of proof that the “science of catastrophic global warming”.

    We can change this if you’d like: the simple physics of Arrhenius, that the rise in CO2 concentrations will, absent other factors, lead to a rise in global average temperatures? Yes, that’s proven as much as the trade argument is. But it’s the “absent other factors” that isn’t. We don’t know, really, we don’t know, what is the balance of negative and positive feedbacks that then result from that change. And “catastrophic global warming” depends upon there being positive feedbacks, on balance. Something as yet, projected, but unproven.

    For example, from the IPCC, the direct climate sensitivity of a doubling of pre-industrial levels of CO2 is less than 1oC. It’s the feedbacks that make it more (or, if you prefer, less) than that.

    That voluntary exchange makes the participants richer than they were before said exchange is indeed “relatively”, in the sense I am using it, better proven that “the science of catastrophic global warming”. We’ve seen, noted and participated in the former. We’re modelling the latter on assumptions that may not turn out to be true.

  3. …the simple physics of Arrhenius, that the rise in CO2 concentrations will, absent other factors, lead to a rise in global average temperatures? Yes, that’s proven as much as the trade argument is.

    So you are, in fact, placing basic physics on a level with a hazy claim about trade. That was all I wished to establish. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *