Data Breaks In The Global Dawn-A Few Peace Pavilion West Updates

If there’s anything certain data can tell us, it’s that people with various levels of understanding of certain data should use it to create laws, rules, and edicts the rest of us must follow.  Once the knowledge claims are established, accurately predicting the future, then favored data glitters like a thousand stars in the morning sky.

Global Utopia!

All of the local, old oppressive laws, rules and edicts are no longer load-bearing anyways.  Some international institutions can stay, but only if they accept the new knowledge.  Okay, go:  Right NOW.  Or now.

Please note that there is absolutely no sarcasm below.   No somewhat ham-handed attempts at satire.  All of the below is absolutely true.  Peace Pavilion West is just waiting for People to fill the pews of the Human Pagoda:

You know, instead of the arts reinforcing religious beliefs or biblical stories, or the Romantic return to Nature, or the aims of high-modernism, music just ought to reflect the feelings of bodies juxtaposed in postmodern space.  Music should echo thoughts about the Self seeking other Selves within global communities awaiting climate catastrophe:

Will all roads pass through the solar and wind energies of Peace Pavilion West, and the rooftop kale gardens of Manhattan’s Peace Plaza East (in the international, brutal style, of course)?

Will all (P)olitics, (H)istory, (A)rt and (S)cience finally be united in the utopia to come?

We shall have to wait and see.

Possibly related:

The Founder Of Peace Pavilion West-The Early Years

Repost-Cass Sunstein At The New Republic: ‘Why Paternalism Is Your Friend’

Repost-From Michael Totten At World Affairs: “Noam Chomsky: The Last Totalitarian”

Who Wants To Help Build A Technocracy? Repost-Megan McArdle At The Daily Beast: ‘The Technocratic Dilemma’

 

Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘A 16 Year Pause In Global Warming?’

Full post here.

Yet:

‘Late last year, a study by Grant Foster (for those in the know, Grant is the climate blogger Tamino) and Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research analyzed temperature data from 1979 to 2010 taking into account the effects of El Ninos, volcanoes, solar variation and found a consistent upward temperature trend of +0.014 per year.’

I’d say to the skeptics, keep an open mind.  I’d say to the scientists and physicists thinking about this:  there are hordes of people who are signing on to your research because of political, politically philosophical, and various other reasons that will drive social and economic change the way they want it to go.  You may be useful to them, for a while.

Addition:  I should add that I recognize a Burkean defense of tradition, stretching across time, and maintaining a robust functioning of our institutions and political freedoms by people entering into arrangements more freely, may be at odds with climate change which requires subsequent changes in our economy, politics, and institutions, often from the top down.   I think this naturally appeals to many modern liberals, some of whom are turning climate change into political opportunism, a cause celebre etc.  Many such people want social change anyways, and will appeal to climate data to implement more equality through a regulated economy, or use this research to steer education and popular sentiment toward their preferred ideals for running our institutions.  For some, its a mere cap upon a desire for greater power and political influence.

For many on the other side, a reasoned skepticism of climate research is not head-in-the-sand ignorance (though it can be), but often a conservative approach to change, what we see as continued maintenance of our political and social institutions as well as a healthy skepticism of the demands being made to change them drastically, according to climate research.  There are ideas, and perhaps, actual natural processes unfolding outside of the scope of current climate research (the typical skeptics’ approach, I grant, and a metaphysical discussion which presents a much more difficult challenge I certainly haven’t met here).  You don’t throw climate research out wholesale, and you don’t sign on blindly.  You try and keep an open mind.

My two cents.

Related On This SiteJonathan Adler At The Atlantic: ‘A Conservative’s Approach to Combating Climate Change’ …Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Delusional in Durban’A Few Links On Environmentalism And Liberty

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

From The Access Resource Network: Phillip Johnson’s “Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea’…I don’t think Dinesh D’Souza is up to the job:  Repost-Dinesh D’Souza And Daniel Dennett at Tufts University: Nietzsche’s Prophesy

From Edge: ‘Re: What Makes People Republican? By Jonathan Haidt’…Evolutionary psychology and moral thinking: Franz De Waal At The NY Times 10/17/10: ‘Morals Without God?’

From Darwinian Conservatism By Larry Arnhart: “Surfing Strauss’s Third Wave of Modernity”

Add to Technorati Favorites

Richard Muller At The NY Times: ‘The Conversion Of A Climate Change Skeptic’

Full op-ed here.

‘Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.’

and:

‘Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.’

Addition: As a friend points out, there’s still a lot of work to be done in illuminating the true-believing, absolutist, sometimes totalitarian cult of people beneath the more moderate Western Left (who in turn just want a highly taxed and regulated economy and much of your liberty on the back of an enormous, perhaps even global, entity).  The secular doomsday is upon us.  Nature has spoken.  As for the science, that’s another matter.

Another Addition:  More here and here.  It bears watching.

Yet Another Addition:   Ronald Bailey has more at Reason.

And Still More:  Watts Up With That has a post and a link to a Rachel Maddow interview.  I think anybody interested in the science and in free thinking would be wise to mostly stay away from the public sphere, where important political and cultural battles are being fought daily. 

Related On This Site:  From Youtube Via Reason: ‘Robert Zubrin: Radical Environmentalists And Other Merchants Of Despair’Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Delusional in Durban’A Few Links On Environmentalism And Liberty

Jonathan Adler At The Atlantic: ‘A Conservative’s Approach to Combating Climate Change’ Monbiot invokes Isaiah Berlin and attacks libertarians:  From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”Repost-From if-then knots: “Response To Yetter On AGW”

From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate FeedbackFrom Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

Add to Technorati Favorites

Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Skeptic Wins Global Warming Bet’

Full post here.

‘In 2008, Research Institute for Global Change climate modeller James Annan and David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist who is a scientific advisor with the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain bet a £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new global temperature record set by 2011.’

And from the comments:

‘Changing our opinions on the whole debate–given the latest data–makes us awesome. That’s what science is all about–formulating opinions based on the data and changing those beliefs, when merited, as new data becomes available.

There’s one thing we can always be consistent on, though, which is that whether AGW is a big problem or just a small problem–or no problem at all–the solutions are the same: innovation and economic growth.’

Just tell that to the current administration…

I also think there’s some general post-industrial Western wish deep in the public mind for all things green.  People want to “be good,” and work toward some overall moral or ethical good that green thinking embodies.  This public sentiment likely leads to more votes for more regulation and public policy that will conflict with the moral and ethical goods served by open markets and open trade.

Related On This Site:  Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’

Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Delusional in Durban’A Few Links On Environmentalism And LibertyFrom The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset….The Weather Channel’s Green Blog: A Little Too GreenFrom The Washington Post: The Weather Channel’s Forecast Earth Team Fired

Add to Technorati Favorites

Repost-From if-then knots: “Response To Yetter On AGW”

Full post here. (Our author responds to another piece on global warming/climate change)

“A skeptic withholds judgment until evidence is provided. A denier either refuses to look at the evidence or refuses to change his or her judgment in light of the evidence.”

How do you maintain a reasonable skepticism as regards global-warming when so many people are claiming that the “science is settled,” and then using that conclusion to achieve other political and ideological goals?

You can point out the inevitable corruption that will result from mixing grant money and political interests.  You can argue that it may yet be another wave of post-Enlightenment Western Idealism with its own attendant problems:

I will add the following quote by Albert Jay Nock as far as the politicization (which those claiming action are seeking to do):

‘It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one’s needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so.

When is it ever settled?

Derek Lowe at In The Pipeline has a good post about politics in the lab.  Does it profit at all to mix politics and theory with the sciences?

Add to Technorati Favorites

Repost-Tunku Varadarajan At The Daily Beast: ‘The Skeptic’s Guide To Copenhagen’

Full post here.  (A-Z).

“I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, or that it’s made up, or that there aren’t plenty of informed individuals who believe it entirely apolitically. However I also believe that the left desperately want it to be true, and would be crushed if some miraculous evidence came to light that disproved it beyond question.”

Worth a look.  It’s entirely reasonable to be skeptical of the foolish idealism and re-sentiment being directed toward government action and economic regulation.

Related On This Site:  Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire):  From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics

From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate Feedback

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.

Add to Technorati Favorites

From Fora.tv Via A & L Daily: Bjorn Lomberg @ COP15

Full video here .

Don’t argue the science, Lomberg has been saying for a while now, but try and allign the problems more with the science, because much of it suggests that CO2 warming will likely present problems.

We’re cramming way too much into a tiny idea (capping carbon emissions), and the media coverage absurdly demonstrates this (Mugabe?).

I still reserve the right to be entirely skeptical (what if it isn’t happening at all?), but the more time I’ve spent with data, the more I think.

Related On This Site:  Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire):  From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics

From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate Feedback

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Tunku Varadarajan At The Daily Beast: ‘The Skeptic’s Guide To Copenhagen’

Full post here.  (A-Z).

“I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, or that it’s made up, or that there aren’t plenty of informed individuals who believe it entirely apolitically. However I also believe that the left desperately want it to be true, and would be crushed if some miraculous evidence came to light that disproved it beyond question.”

Worth a look.  It’s entirely reasonable to be skeptical of the foolish idealism and re-sentiment being directed toward government action and economic regulation.

Related On This Site:  Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire):  From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics

From Watts Up With That: Richard Lindzen On Positive Climate Feedback

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.

Add to Technorati Favorites

From Forbes Via Reason: Shikha Dalmia On Global Warming

Full post here.

The moral idealism of the ecologically inclined (the earth must be saved at all costs, for all of our sakes) will continue to meet the political and economic realities of the developing world… 

“…the world has far more immediate and scarier problems than climate change to address right now.”

See Also On This Site:  Bjorn Lomborg has been saying this for a long time now:  Bjorn Lomborg On His Book: ‘How To Spend $50 Billion To Make The World A Better Place’

Add to Technorati Favorites