The religion of anti-environmentalism

Your quote from Wendell Berry reminds me of why mail from the Sierra Club always goes in the waste basket. It will do so as long as they continue to champion Edward Abbey, whose narcissism would be bad enough if it hadn't been for his gloating over Mary Austin's child being born disabled (I'm not quite sure how) so that she could concentrate on writing and conservation and not waste time on motherhood.

Actualy, you answered your own question in one of your recent Dallas Morning New columns. The right dismisses environmental concerns and most assuredly 'global warming' because they see such concepts as a threat to free market capitalism. And not incidentally, having Gore be the poster boy is, to the right, what having Jane Fonda speak at an anti-war protest. Need I say more. I was at the Majestic Theater in Dallas last Sat. night when Dennis Miller was the 'comedian'. He immediately launched into a diatribe about how global warming was the left's attempt to dismantle capitalism in the name of the ecology. He then made it personal about Gore (they always do), saying, "No one wanted him for President so now he's shooting for the Nobel (f____ing) Peace Prize." I wondered, among other things, if Miller recalled how more than One Million American voters more cast their ballots for Al Gore than for the winner, GWB. Fair is fair...."No One Wanted Him?" Welcome to the world of ,'Say it and they'll think it's true' selective history. In any case, I was just listening to a re-mastered Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" CD, more than 1/3rd century old, and the very questions about war and the ecology was the entire premise for that landmark 'concept' album. Darn shame our President, who was leaving college when that was the Grammy Album of the Year...was apparently listening instead to Willy Nelson's "Whiskey River".

I'm a Pacific Northwest native, a socially conservative libertarian, a free-market advocate, and a fairly committed conservationist. However, I went through a Naderite/Berryian phase in my mid-to-late twenties during which I was convinced our way of life would lead to ecological catastrophe. That phase was due in part, I'm now convinced, to my search for a replacement eschatology after I had given up the Left-Behind understanding of the Apocalypse that had formed my youth. Waste of natural resources, abuse of the land, indifference to the fate of other species: I abhor all of these things. However, given my own upbringing and intellectual development, I cannot help but see much of the scaremongering as much more than a post-Christian version of the end times. So, when confronted by the apocolyptic ravings of environmentalists--which, by the way, have a horrible track record--my urge to dismiss them is visceral. This urge is especially strong with global warming evangelists. Part of the problem, I think, is that they create the impression that if you admit to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, you have to buy--without reservation--into Kyoto and a whole host of other policies of arguable efficacy and wisdom. In other words, the common assumption is that the scientific consensus includes not only the fact of global warming but also the required responses to same. This is manifestly not true--no consensus exists, and indeed, could not exist on the latter, because these are fundamentally questions of policy, where competing claims must be weighed and reconciled. As I see it, there are at least three elements to the global warming debate. First, is the earth warming? The evidence that it is seems pretty conclusive from my lay viewpoint. Second, is the warming caused by human activity? Here, the scientific consensus seems to be that it is. However, notwithstanding the scientific consensus, questions remain. What proportion of the warming is due to human activity? Even assuming that humans have some role in this warming, what makes this warming period different from previous warm periods over the course of human history? Is it likely to be within the range of prior variations? To what extent, per Kuhn (and as noted by Iranaeus above), is the current theory due to the current scientific paradigm and its influence on funding and prestige in the world of science? Third, even assuming that global warming is caused at least in part by human activity, what is the proper response? Is it cheaper to mitigate the harms of global warming than to restructure our economy? Are there benefits of global warming? Do these benefits matter? Will a restructuring of our economy cause more death and dislocation than mitigating (a la Rachel Carson's DDT crusade and a million deaths a year from malaria)? Is a 90% reduction in carbon output by 2050 (a la Gore) viable, or even desirable? If the proponents--and popularizers--of global warming were willing to engage in debate over at least the policy issues under the third item in my list, I think that more of us on the right would be less likely to react with disdain and revulsion to concerns about global warming. But when they act as though there is (or could be) "scientific consensus" on these policy questions, and that they are indisputable by economically and politically informed laypersons like myself, I think I'm perfectly within my rights as a citizen to treat them as the fanatics they are.

My big problems with environmentalism as a movement are: (a) They use their concerns as a basis for supporting a Nanny State--more bureaucratization. For example, the over-definition of wetlands and control of what small property owners can do. (b) They tend to be unduly alarmist. Example: the alar scare. (c) Their tendency toward elitism and lack of identification and concern with non-elites. Concern for threats to the environment posed by industrialism are legitimate and real--for example, the depletion of fishing stocks and the spread of plastic trash over the entire ocean. Too bad it often gets expressed as authoritarian cultism.

Richard and St. Iranaeus have said it better than I ever could. They trace precisely why I am so skeptical about the bandwagon of "global warming." For my part, it is not because I'm some doctrinaire conservative (whatever that word means this week), i.e., I cannot stand Bush (never thought I could despise a president more than Clinton, but W proved me wrong again), I'm a member of a food coop which purchases local food from local farmers and ranchers, and I attended two peace rallies within the last month (with my children in tow).
So the premise that skepticism about global warming is based in a ideological world-view, though interesting, certainly doesn't describe me. No, I'm skeptical about global warming because it seems to be more grounded in hysteria and groupthink and less in logic and reason.

The comments above do not undercut the scientific consensus on global warming (on which we in the U.S. have spent billions, and which is indeed "superb" according to recent testimony before Congress) but they do illustrate the "self-segregation" that Cass Sunstein and Roger Pielke mentioned.
What's alarming to someone like myself, who thinks that global warming is an issue that should not divide along right/left lines, any more than automobile safety or second-hand smoke, is the fact that as the facts become more apparent, resistance to the scientific consensus seems to be rising on the Right.
Last week I heard Rush Limbaugh chortling about this, taking credit for bringing down the poll numbers of those who think global warming is a serious issue. "The scientists have reached a consensus, but you idiots don't get it!" he said (ironically). The scary thing is: This is true! And no, I don't believe it's the end of civilization, but we are talking about "a new era of drought in the Southwest" that the top researcher in the field, Martin Hoerling, expects to last and intensify for the rest of our lives...unless we reduce emissions, starting now. Ready to move to Minneapolis?

Robert Samuelson also wrote on this topic in the WaPo sometime in the last couple of months. I largely agreed with what he had to say; to wit, that even it one completely accepts that all of the recent warming is due to human activity, then there is absolutely no consensus as to what to do about it. Kyoto is a non-starter, because the countries which will produce the most carbon emissions over the next 50 years are China and India, and neither is required under Kyoto to limit their emissions. (And remember, the US Congress rejected Kyoto during the Clinton administration, i.e., during Gore's time in power - Bush has had nothing to do with it) In addition, the solutions proposed thus far will likely severely harm our economies, which means that people will not buy into them. And finally, echoing the point made by Richard - which is better, trying to drastically reduce emissions, or trying to adapt to the new climate?

"Regarding Gore, don't forget that it was widely publicized prior to the 2000 elections that he wrote a book back in ~1988 saying among other things that he wanted to take away our right to drive automobiles". In all due respect, as you said, call me silly also, but I am not prepared to accept on face value that indeed Al Gore said Americans should give up driving automobiles. There's bound to be a little paraphrasing here, if not quoting out of context. Gore was endorsed by the Auto Workers. I hardly believe that he would have been had he been actively trying to eliminate them.
I am prepared to think he perhaps reflected upon a time when Americans might HAVE to curtail driving, etc. In any case, I want specifics; book, passage, quote. Otherwise, it's like the recent commentary I wrote and aired on NPR that Rod posted last week on this blog, "I Heard It Through The Net-vine". Where someone reads something on a blog or circulated email and perpetuates an ever expanding popular culture 'urban myth'. Like Al Gore saying he invented the internet. In fact, that was never actually what he said. It is how people interpreted (or pretended to interpret) what he said. And no, I am not aGore-a-phobic fan. Just a bloke who thinks Al Gore is as boring as a cadaver, but also believes Gore has gotten a raw deal more than once.

Great topic. It is good to read why the right is so against the concept of global warming. Their arguments are understandable, just not logical. Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the irrational distrust they have for the eviromentalists comparable to the distrust the left has for the business knows best right? Aren't they both about believing the other side is defined solely by their extreme elements? I see the environmentalists that matter, those that make things like stiffer polution laws happen, as fiscal and social conservatives who saw the danger as real and personal. They're the ones with the know how and organizational skills that are required to mobilize an effective defense against greed dressed as freedom. We only have to look at the hunters to see how much difference conservation (enviromental conscience) for personal reasons make.

This is slightly off-topic, but speaking of Al Gore and making sacrifices, here's a quick comment about the Oscars ceremony this year.
There was a lot of talk about global warming throughout, and it reached a peak when Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio came out and announced, without giving any details as to why, that this year's ceremony was the "greenest Oscars" ever. That line got a huge reception and lots of people in the audience looked rather self-satisfied as the camera panned over the crowd.
I would have loved for them to have announced that, as part of the greening requirements, all limousines have been sent away and everyone would have to walk or take public transportation to get home. Imagine how that would have gone over!

I'd suggest folks read Michael Crichton's _State of Fear_ (extensively footnoted and researched, written by a non-conservative; he's also got several speeches on his website), I always read fiction with a non-scientist writer for my source of scientific facts as well.

Everything has a cost. We could emmit no CO2-and do nothing. The problem with envirmentalism is that it goes way beyond rationality. We all agree-we should be more energy-efficient, use less, conserve more, produce less CO2, preserve nature, keep the water and air clean.
But the the enviormentalists take it one step further into irrationality. We could very safely drill off the coasts and in ANWR.There's some proof the caribou even like nursing their young near the pipeline for warmth, and the indigenous people want drilling for jobs. We could convert coal deposits(which we have in abundance in the Rockies)into fuel. We could have wind turbines in numerous places.We could do each of these things relatively safely and with minimal disruption. Yet on each of these sensible things, they fight tooth and nail for nor real logical reason.It's more a fetish than anythinge else.

OK, here's another wrench in the works... What if we cut out *all* greenhouse gas emissions (somehow - I know there is no solution like that at present) and it *didn't* *stop* the warming? The globe is apparently warming - not to a record high, it's been warmer before - but warmer than the last ice age cycle. Speaking of which, we're overdue. It is entirely possible that humans have been affecting the climate for much longer and in different ways. I went to a scientific talk about how the ice age cycle seems to have started getting derailed when large-scale agriculture began. Global land-use patterns matter. Albedo matters. And yes, greenhouse gases matter. All of these can change for reasons that have nothing to do with human activity (e.g., volcanism), as well as by human activity. I don't think the consensus has come near to dealing with all the factors in play.
The environmental advocates certainly aren't dealing with more than CO2 in public, but that is exactly the kind of information societies need to evaluate (i) whether to do something about the warming or rather to adapt to it and (ii) what is the most effective (and least destructive to humans) thing to do, if we want to slow/stop the warming. What if a particulate haze in the atmosphere or blooming plant life in the oceans could do the trick rather than a de-industrialization campaign? That is the kind of informed debate I want, not carbon credits.

I agree with Alicia that "doing the right thing" should be our goal, but that's the nub of the matter, isn't it? On the face of it, banning DDT seemed to be "doing the right thing," given its purported effects on the ecosystem, but in light of the million or so people dying annually from malaria, which could easily be prevented by judicious use of DDT, perhaps not. The problem in these debates is that "doing the right thing" often gets confused with "acting with good intentions," and we all know which road is paved with them cobblestones.

Rod,
I think the passion of the right on global warming is a reaction to the passion on the left. The global warming prophets are constantly telling us to repent and stop production of everything to "save" the planet from getting warmer. Problem is they sold us that bridge in the 70s. Back then they claimed that humans were going to usher in the next ice age and there would be penguins waddling in front of the White House. This is the main reason I'm so skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If the alarmists were wrong then, why should I believe them now? Moreover, I think that initial wrong prediction has forced GW activists to ratch up the rhetoric, calling for an end to debate and labeling people who disagree with them as "deniers." How is anyone supposed to have a reasoned debated over the science when one side doesn't wish to acknowledge the other's right to dissent? Especially in science. Every day there seems to be a new science report that contradicts a previous one. There was a time when all fat in one's diet was bad. Then it was carbs. Then fat wasn't bad again. There are good fats and bad fats. Same with carbs. Scientists are constantly testing and retesting theories. Why does one side so quick to end this process? Seems to me that they fear they don't have a good argument (and after watching "The Global Warming Swindle" on YouTube, the GW activists do have something to fear). I also think that conservatives go ballistic because all the solutions for GW require even more taxes and government regulation, which means more government control over our lives. And conservatives just have visceral reactions any time we hear such plans. My question to you, Rod, is why do you put so much faith into a consensus of scientists? Do you think a consensus of scientists can't be wrong? The earth is billions of years old and has had warming and cooling spells before man appeared. Just how much faith should we place into 100 or so years of data when compared to billions of years? Especially if such blind faith is going to cost me even more of my money.

Friends, I'm trying to post and repsond to Aaron and Dub but beliefnet/haloscan is thwarting me. I'll try again soon.

The crux of this issue really comes down to (1) how plausible are the Doomesday scenarios touted by environmental advocates, and (2) in any case, what do you do about it? On Number (1): Within the past two years there have been widely publicized projections by Climate Change alarmists that (A) Southern Europe will become like the Sahara and Scotland will become home to Club Med within the next century, AND (B) global warming "may already be triggering" a shutdown of the North Atlantic conveyer belt, sending Europe into a new Ice Age. Such Chicken Little scare stories only invite skepticism. On Number (2): The Climate Change alarmists seem to me far more interested in bashing conservatives (and, of course, GW Bush) for "not acknowledging the problem" than they are interested in any plausible solution to it. If the West came around to the idea of accepting the enormous economic hit that significant carbon emission restrictions would entail, such restrictions still would have no impact since the developing world will never sign on. Even the Kyoto Protocol -- exempting India, China, et al. -- was a dead letter in Washington long before Bush entered the White House, thanks to Clinton's lack of interest and the negative votes of the entire United States Senate (Dems as well as Republicans). So what I see Climate Change alarmists pushing for are (1) symbolic gestures that don't mean a damn thing, and/or (2) regulations that will substantially harm the economy but which will not significantly affect the global climate. If I am mistaken on this point, please correct me. When you combine all that with the fact that much of this alarmism is coming from the same folks who warned us -- incorrectly -- in recent decades about coming ice ages, an "overpopulation bomb," and supposedly diminishing natural resources, it all starts to sound like some sort of secular End-of-the-World cult. Why would a conservative jump on board that bandwagon?

Friends, I'm trying to post and repsond to Aaron and Dub but beliefnet/haloscan is thwarting me. I'll try again soon. Yeah, yeah we know Crichton's not a dumb guy and well respected and balh, blah,blah. Fact is, I don't go to a work of fiction written by a non-scientists for my scientific information. Call me Traditional...

I think I've made this point on the blog before, but I think in general terms the divergence springs from one's theology/worldview. To the typical conservative (if such a creature exists), God has created the world and has a role in maintaining it. Humans have a role in conserving our environment, but the God who made our habitat certainly has the power to keep it from overheating, melting all the ice and drowning the majority of humanity. To the typical leftist (again, very broadly speaking), there is no God, or at least God is not intimately involved in daily events on our planet. We are responsible for what happens in our world. Our actions have far-reaching impact, even the CFCs in our hairspray can change the climate, and humanity is central to the universe. In a few words, do we have a theocentric or anthropocentric worldview? At least that's my (hyperbolic and oversimplified) take on the root of the controversy.

I, Fair enough. I don't agree however, and had never heard that argument used and it had honestly never once crossed my mind even while being a fervent believer in the realities of global warming. I would obviously imagine that some out there feel that way, but I wouldn't hold it up as a central argument of the side on which those who believe warming reside.

OK, so a couple of posters have stated that there is competing scientific evidence against global warming; could y'all put up some links for it? I keep hearing that it exists but nobody seems to ever actually point out where, and I'd like to see it for myself in order to make a more informed judgement. Thanks, Erik

Furthermore, I'm not sure how a work of fiction about a global warming conspiracy with a selective reading of actual data in an appendix equips one to understand the GW issue.

Driving is a privilege, it's not a right, at least that's what the DMV says.

Rawlins: "It's about money and...not so incrementally... power." Very well expressed, and encapsulates the debate nicely. A lot of us on the Right believe that the doomsday brigade is using global warming as a tool to gain funding, political power, etc. Let us not forget how many of the scientists, meterologists, etc. have a vested economic interest in all this.
A lot of folks on the Left are equally adamant that the Right is just interested in big business=big profits=big political contributions. Hard to argue with that after the last few years. Evangelicals (and many other religious conservatives) don't necessarily DENY global warming, but they do question its immediate urgency as regards a particularly Christian response.
If individual Christian believers can't even agree on or follow teachings on clear-cut matters of, say, abortion and gay marriage, why would they want to insert themselves into the middle of something where the whole topic is far less settled?

Let us not forget how many of the scientists, meterologists, etc. have a vested economic interest in all this. I'd be vastly more interested in comparing the numbers at stake for GW advocates in terms of funding versus the billions in profit reaped by the fossil fuel industry and those they have bought off in government. Most anti-GW 'research' pieces have fossil fuel as their funding source, but even that's beginning to change as previously vociferous deniers like Exxon-Mobil are 'coming' around.

Do you mean fuel economy standards? If so, I'd say the market is doing that now. Gas-guzzling V-8s aren't very attractive purchases these days. But this highlights another problem I have with GW. It's so generic it can be used to justify anything, and most of the good policies can be grounded on more concrete concerns. It's good to reduce fuel consumption, for example, because it reduces our dependency on foreign oil. That can be said independently of whether we pump more here or not.

Besides, keep ours here in the ground for the time being, let the rest of the world burn through the mid-east oil.

Here's a link to a Sydney Herald story... http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html (You can probably google the names of the scientists mentioned) and here's the link for BBC4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

I don't remember, Aaron -- it was one of those things where a clip from one person's interview was played on someone else's show. A geologist in the Sydney Herald story I just posted above says something similar, but I could have sworn that the fellow I heard was a Professor of Climatology. The name mentioned in the Herald piece, "Easterbrook," isn't ringing a bell.

One of the issues being discussed here is that environmentalists get emotionally attached to certain solutions to enviromental problems, and that those solutions are often informed by a liberal ideology. And sometimes people even over-hype environmental concerns to achieve other, liberal, political goals. But almost everybody here agrees that a healthy environment is important and that human activity can (but does not necessarily) cause aspects of the environment to become unhealthy. I even think everybody agrees that humans should take some sort of action to encourage a healthy environment. The scale (individual, neighborhood, regional, national, global), method and relative importance are quite up for debate. So unless you think the relative importance is very low, why not bring your conservative perspective to identify and solve the problems? I'd love to see conservative politicians in congress saying "Hey, we agree this is an important problem, but your solutions are wrong. Lets do X instead (but if X doesn't work, we'll think it over again)." Essentially, I'd like to see conservatives and liberals fighting over who's the most effective environmentalist, just like they fight over who's most effective on national defense and whether the emphasis is too far towards force vs dimplomacy and compromise.
For example: Isn't cap and trade over an otherwise mostly free market a "conservative" solution? It achieved a sparkling success reducing acid rain. The primary cause of acid rain is S02 and NOx, which largely come from coal plants. We still use lots of coal, but acid rain is largely under control. Cap-n-trade is effective for acid rain because SO2 and NOx travel long distances in the atmosphere, spreading, and making cap and trade an effective mitigating technique. S02 and NOx can be largely removed from coal plant exhaust in a manner which is quite affordable relative to electricty plant revenues.
Excessive CO2 as cause of GW is meaningful only on a global scale, making cap-n-trade likewise effective. CO2 can't be controlled with scrubbers, but IGCC coal plants (link wont let me go directly there: click "our products" and click the fifth icon from the top left)can greatly reduce CO2 emissions. IGCC requires totally new plants, so we may need to subsidize the replacement of non-IGCC plants with new ones. Anybody know how the cost of replacing all non-IGCC coal plants with IGCC compare with the amount we subsidize agriculture? How does it compare to the cost of the Iraq war? Or, for that matter, how does it compare to Medicare, education subsidies, or any other social program? It should compare quite well, especially considering that coal plants make lots of money and could get lots of loans. In fact, somebody'll get rich with that, which is a good conservative value. In fact, it'll probably be somebody who's already rich, which is THE conservative value (sorry, couldn't resist...). Now I admit Sierra Club may not like it, but its better than the status quo. In fact, it may be that individual action (encouraged through education) combined with a type of manipulation of problematic industries (spreading the pain but protecting the most vulnerable) might be enough to solve most of our problems.
In any case, instead of distrusting those who proudly wear the "environmentalist" label, why don't conservatives fight over the evironmental mantle? Fight for nuclear plants. I've never voted for a Republican, but I'd support high quality, safety conscious, highly regulated nuclear plants. Generally I don't think we'll be able to do a lot for the environment without some government spending & intervention, but I'm ready to negotiate over the nature and extent of it.

Richard, I think you are correct with one caveat: as in our courts, there's a difference between "reasonable" and unreasonable doubt. Many anti-GW (and anti-Darwin) folks would be able to produce valid scientific reasons for their doubt. This would be different than other scientifically "proven" ideas, such as heliocentrism or the germ theory of disease. (It's important to note also that many anti-Darwinians aren't anti-evolution; they may believe in evolution but find the Darwinian model lacking.) In other words, while a person may have a reasonable doubt about the human factor in GW, doubt about the germ theory of disease would be less than reasonable. This is why looking at both sides of the scientific evidence is vital; one needs to determine whether one's doubt (or belief, for that matter) is reasonable or not.

Perhaps. The contrast that is immediately apparent between heliocentrism and evolution is that the former doesn't necessarily have to be thought of in the abstract; that is, it is physically possible for anybody to go out into space and see heliocentrism in action for themselves and/or to see clear photographic evidence demonstrating it. By contrast, nobody except maybe the Roman Centurion is likely to live long enough to see for themselves if evolution is occurring. Germ theory has a clear and apparent impact on one's day to day life; it is not clear that evolution does. Global warming is somewhere in between, which is also what makes it somewhat problematic; proponents of it point to present circumstances that *do* affect our day-to-day lives as being a direct result, and while we can certainly live long enough to see it get worse, the message in the last few months seems to have become that none of us will live long enough to see it get better, even if emissions were to cease 100% right now. I submit that these two issues do have to be thought of more in the abstract makes them somewhat more malleable in the minds of many and makes the threshold of reasonable vs. unreasonable doubt something of a grey area. Richard

"I submit that these two issues do have to be thought of more in the abstract makes them somewhat more malleable in the minds of many and makes the threshold of reasonable vs. unreasonable doubt something of a grey area." Agreed. That's why I believe that considering all the evidence is vital.

"Is there evidence that is in fact being disregarded? Or is a conclusion being reached about that evidence that somebody doesn't like? There's a fundamental difference between the two." Agreed again. What I was getting at is that evidence is often dismissed out of hand (by both sides) based on its source, rather than being examined on its own merits. That mentality should be avoided as much as possible.

Global warming was not an issue I was much interested in --until people on the political left started using ridicule and force (as in one governor threatening to fire a sceptic college prof from a state U.)and on their own started demanding sceptical research of any sort be virtuallly outlawed.
To my mind there was an environmental left-wing fascism aborning. They would not even respect the view that there are two issues here, not one: Global warming and whether it is man-made (and if not man-made could anything really be done to change things or must we just adapt).
Ironically, just as the environmental left was getting to a hysterical peak--more and more reputable REAL scientists (instead of activist hacks on various payrolls) began to put their two cents worth of sceptical questions in--like --so how come the Mars ice caps are also shrinking--that would indicate the sun--not man-- is heating up the whole solar system. Another scientist, looking at a broad range of issues objected to the doom and gloom inevitable disaster scenarios being marketed- he gave some examples of how global warming MIGHT turn out to be beneficial.
Maybe some of us don't like to feel we are being steamrollered and bulldozed by Hollywood and political hacks. It makes us say --slow down. Let's get more evidence, more thought, more RATIONAL debate instead of joining the flock of Chicken Littles.

Richard, I agree with much of what you have posted here. But in your moring post, you said, among other things, "science doesn't profess to know "the truth" once and for all..." But GW scientists are sure ACTING as if they do! Just look at the "consensus" group, including Al Gore who dismisses skeptics as wackos or extremists.
It's the same debate with Anything v. Strict Darwinian Evolution. Anyone not on the latter side is stupid, insane, uneducated, etc. Whatever you say, professor.

I do have one thought... sort of a variation of Pascal's wager. If we all adjust our personal and institutional behaviors as though GW is a reality, and we're wrong, then the worst that has happened is that we've been inconvenienced a bit and reduced our impact on the environment. If we all act as though it's not a reality, and it turns out that we're wrong, then we're in deep trouble. Just a thought.

"I submit that these two issues do have to be thought of more in the abstract makes them somewhat more malleable in the minds of many and makes the threshold of reasonable vs. unreasonable doubt something of a grey area." Agreed. That's why I believe that considering all the evidence is vital. But how does one who is unqualified evaliuate the evidence. Over on Wallis' blog, a reader commented that GW is a farce, afterall if the oceans are rising, why does Florida have sinkholes? Given the reader's apparent lack of understanding of hydrology and geology, how can he critically evaluate GW research and come to an informed conclusion? I NEVER see environmentalists attack their rich elitist supporters who fly around in environment raping private jets--but they enthusiastically ridicule and snarl at us peasants who dare to have one SUV or Van to transport our families from home to ballfield or band lessons. I NEVER see folks like Deacon John actually understanding their perceived opposition, which allows them to make incorrect statements above.