The Reaction So Far to Jim Manzi
After Jim Manzi skewered Liberty and Tyranny’s section on climate change, calling it “an almost perfect example of epistemic closure,” I wondered how other writers at The Corner would react, and how Mr. Levin and his fans would respond. You’ve probably seen the offering from Kathryn Jean Lopez, who is upset that Mr. Manzi would write such a post “at a time when Liberty is actually endangered,” and Andy McCarthy, whose pained call for civility is surely a wry attempt at humor.
But what about Mark Levin fans outside the venue where this conversation started? Does the way they react to Mr. Manzi’s critique suggest that they exist in a closed information loop, or that they’re in fact epistemically open?
On the Mark Levin Facebook “wall,” fan Lisa Donnelly writes:
I’m sure Manzi is just taking his marching orders from the West Wing as debate over cap and trade legislation heats up…my guess is you Mark will welcome the debate!
She adds:
Or conclude like Al Gore he has a small fortune invested in “Green Technology.”
On the same “wall,” Jim Crue writes:
For someone who graduated from MIT, one would think Jim Manzi might be smart enough to put Liberty & Tyranny into its proper context. I guess not – What an Idiot! Its no wonder the only praise he gets comes from David Brooks.
John Hawkins writes (emphasis added):
Over at National Review, global warming true believer Jim Manzi lands on Mark Levin with both feet because the Great One treats the theory of manmade global warming with the scorn it deserves.
On Red State, a user named Hogan posted this:
Yesterday, our good friend Mark Levin was attacked on The Corner over at National Review Online by one of his fellow contributors there, Jim Manzi. I am not going to link to his hit piece. I found it to be beneath what I thought I knew of him and beneath The Corner.
In the same post:
I have neither the desire and time nor the expertise to analyze in detail Manzi’s specific criticisms of Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny – most of which centered on the chapter on what Mark calls Enviro-Statism. What is striking about his burn-the-forest-down-to-find-the-tree approach is that it dismisses Mark’s book in entirety because he disagrees with some of the sourced (Mark’s book is well documented with numerous footnotes) material Mark provides in this one section in particular. And Manzi does so rather violently… accusing Mark of “epistemic closure.”
Now, I had to look that term up. Cuz I ain’t as smart as those guys who sit around in circles over at the New Republic, the New York Times, and increasingly, sadly on occasion, the National Review, and blather on endlessly about topics that would make even wonky professors’ eyes roll, much less a regular-old American like me who enjoys watching the DIY network and American Idol after getting back from the driving range and playing with my son.
Look – reasonable people can disagree about dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. And I would, prior to yesterday, have said I was glad a guy like Manzi was out there trying to sift through some of the nonsense out there on global warming to put it all in context, even if I thought him a little squishy for my taste. But, I am sorry there Jim, no matter how much research you’ve done or no matter the extent to which I might even agree with you at times, while you are sitting in your little circle with a bunch of other self-indulgent asses that no one else in the world gives a rip about putting out posts like yesterday’s nonsense, Mark is out on the front lines inspiring a generation of Americans to fight back against statism.
And finally:
I frankly don’t know if every statistic in Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative was correct or not. Nor do I know if every statistic or number in Reagan’s A Time For Choosing speech in 1964 was correct. I DON’T CARE. I know the facts were in the ballpark, and more importantly, the principles were timeless and correct. I have read Mark’s book, and I know a little about the topics in question – and it’s a good book, with good citations and a lot of good facts.
These are all the defenses of Mr. Levin that I’ve found via Google’s blog search, and searches of Mr. Levin’s Facebook page and fan site. Obviously I may have missed some responses elsewhere, but suffice it to say that thus far — and it is yet early, so we may see better responses today — the reaction to Mr. Manzi’s post suggest that Julian Sanchez was right, and ought to persuade Jonah Goldberg that there is indeed an epistemic closure problem on the right, regardless of whether or not the same things exist on the left.
In the aftermath of a serious, substantive post that offers specific criticisms of Mr. Levin’s writing on climate change, Mr. Manzi has been called impolite, a tool of the Obama Administration, a financial opportunist, a “True Believer,” a blathering intellectual, and a self-indulgent ass. It is glaringly evident that no one has even attempted to refute his arguments — and since the folks at National Review know Jim Manzi, his honorableness, and where he stands on climate change, it cannot escape their attention that his critics occupy a closed information loop that has misled them about the truth.
UPDATE: I see that Andy McCarthy has responded again to Mr. Manzi. It seems like only yesterday that Mr. McCarthy frowned upon “awful,” “Trilateral Commission,” and “wingnuttery” as “gratuitously nasty” words, especially when arguing with a fellow conservative. I take it as vindication of my “wry humor” hypothethis that today Mr. McCarthy calls Mr. Manzi’s post “appalling” and “pompous,” and implies that it is characterized by “illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty.” It would take several paragraphs to list all the ways that Mr. McCarthy mischaracterizes the substance of Mr. Manzi’s post. This minute I don’t have the time for it.
UPDATE II: Mark Levin responds on The Corner. It’s a strange post. Its opening basically argues that, having criticized Liberty and Tyranny’s passages on climate change, Jim Manzi is hypocritical (or something) for failing to denounce Andrew Sullivan’s writing on Trig Palin. I can’t say this is an unexpected response, but on reflection, it’s a pretty weird reaction, right? Having criticized me on issue X, will you now call out a person with no connection to this conversation on issue Y? It is worth adding that Mr. Sullivan, whose doubts about Trig Palin’s parentage are unfounded, has repeatedly aired dissenting viewpoints and counter-arguments on his blog, including forcefully argued pieces by Patrick Appel, his “underblogger” and assistant on editorial matters — see here, for example. It’s just one of countless demonstrations that The Daily Dish isn’t engaged in epistemic closure, regardless of what Mr. Sullivan gets wrong or right on a given subject.
Elsewhere in the post, Mr. Levin says that Mr. Manzi is “classless” and “very very angry,” attacks that have got to earn some sort of prize for lack of self-awareness. Do check out the more substantive parts of Mr. Levin’s rebuttal, which I won’t remark upon on the presumption that Mr. Manzi will soon engage in his usual back-and forth with critics.
UPDATE III: On Facebook, Mr. Levin writes, “I had to Smack Down a Global Warming Zealot on Earth Day.” So let me direct a question to Andy McCarthy, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and any other Levin defender: you all know full well that it’s absurd to call Jim Manzi a global warming zealot, as does anyone else with half a brain who has paid any attention to the debate on the subject. Will you acknowledge as much?
The comments on that Facebook post include:
— Listening to Mark smack down Libs always makes my day.
— Nobody can take down the libs like Mark Levin!
— Mark Levin RULES!! I love how he slaps Liberals in the face with common sense when they call in flapping their trap.
— Mark’s treatment of leftists always puts a smile on my face.
More evidence, as if it were needed.
Conor, are you really taking quotes from a Facebook page? I mean, I’m far and away on Manzi’s side, but, seriously really? Really?
— jlr · Apr 22, 04:16 PM · #
Conor,
Do you really believe that any evidence whatsoever can “persuade” Jonah Goldberg? Do you honestly think that the National Review “cannot escape” from noticing counter-arguments that challenge their editorial positions? Really?
If this is sarcasm, it’s a little subtle for my tastes.
— Folderol & Ephemera · Apr 22, 04:19 PM · #
what’s the problem with quotes from a facebook page? I thought the idea here was to test for closure. Surely the place to begin is with Levin’s fans — do they recognize the salient points of Jim’s simple, easy-to-read critique, or do they go into conniptions?
— max socol · Apr 22, 04:23 PM · #
Second the comment about Facebook quotes, although if – big if – they are indicative of conservative voters, then we’re all in a world of hurt.
I’m not always on Conor’s bandwagon, but this time he nails it. I’ve been a fan of Goldberg for a long time, and I really wish he and Ponnuru would come around on this one.
— Matt Stokes · Apr 22, 04:25 PM · #
max socol,
The point is that you can prove almost anything from quotes on a blog or a Facebook page. If, hypothetically, matoko and Conor agreed on something, I doubt Conor would want himself associated with Matoko’s comments to his posts by an unsympathetic party. It’s just common courtesy not to assert that comments reflect the view of your antagonist.
— jlr · Apr 22, 04:27 PM · #
McCarthy’s second post is even worse than his first. Not only doesn’t he refute anything Manzi actually says, he even manages to take a seemingly racist jab at Mexican scientists, who in his opinion clearly know less about global warming than lawyers like Mark Levin and McCarthy himself. Also, his evidence that Manzi is wrong is the work of one scientist, and surprise surprise, it is the guy Levin cited! How is that supposed to be a serious counter-argument? Finally, his crack about PhDs is absurd. Anyone with a PhD in anything knows more about that specific subject than 99% of people who didn’t spend 5-8 years studying that subject. I think Andy McCarthy is a hack as a political commentator, but I am pretty sure he is a better lawyer than I am, if only for the fact that he went to law school. McCarthy’s reactionary nationalism has always made my skin crawl, but now he is just coming off like a buffoon.
— Dan · Apr 22, 04:42 PM · #
That analogy doesn’t work for me, jlr. Anyway, of course it’s true that cherry-picking quotes from an informal environment like facebook can allow you to prove anything. But my understanding was that Conor is not cherry-picking, here: he has reproduced all of the comments on Levin’s fan page that reference this little dust-up. It’s far from scientific, but as long as Conor is willing to post comments that both support and upend his thesis, I don’t really see why it should be off limits. Where will we find a better sampling of Levin’s fans?
— max socol · Apr 22, 04:46 PM · #
Insane! If this doesn’t prove that the right is totally closed, totally unwilling to hear anything from outside their circle, completely dead-ended, I don’t know what does.
That Jim Manzi! who has written countless times on the subject of climate change, always arguing from a very scientific and evidence-based perspective against the prevailing views on the left, could be dismissed in such a manner…
— Andrew · Apr 22, 05:00 PM · #
“If this doesn’t prove that the right is totally closed, totally unwilling to hear anything from outside their circle, completely dead-ended, I don’t know what does.”
On April 22, 2010, these words were uttered in response to a right-on-right critique, apparently without any irony.
— ROI · Apr 22, 05:05 PM · #
Yeah, the lack of spirited defenses of Levin’s (self-evidently bad) book is definitely a sign of epistemic closure. Why, only people who read the Corner at NRO are familiar with how bad the book is. I mean, other than people familiar with the publishing industry too.
From what I’ve seen, I like Levin. I mean, I like him like I like Ann Coulter. He seems smart and entertaining. But he didn’t write a policy book. It’s entertainment, as Manzi seems to recognize, if only grudgingly.
— Thomas · Apr 22, 05:30 PM · #
Is Manzi in their circle? Is he a power broker of the current Right? Is he being listened to or taken seriously?
Obviously there exists much “right-on-right” critique, but those critics are almost always kicked to the curb or outright ignored. That’s the problem—the one Manzi (and Douthat) was writing to point out in the first place—not that criticism doesn’t exist, but that it is instantly dismissed.
How far away is Manzi from following the path of Frum?
— Andrew · Apr 22, 05:31 PM · #
he didn’t write a policy book. It’s entertainment, as Manzi seems to recognize, if only grudgingly.
How am I to know when a book is to be taken seriously? And if I assume a book is a work of entertainment without being told explicitly, aren’t I guilty of that elitist leftist attitude people hate so much?
— Freddie · Apr 22, 05:45 PM · #
Why is so much conservative thought presented and defended as entertainment? Isn’t this a problem? Why are so many of us inclined to defend weak, thoughtless arguments? Why do we automatically attack the reader when we should instead be demanding better arguments, better thought from ourselves and the people who agree with us?
— David M. · Apr 22, 06:16 PM · #
Freddie, go visit a bookstore sometime. When you see stacks of books about politics, you can be reasonably confident that that book is entertainment.
— Thomas · Apr 22, 06:18 PM · #
“Why is so much conservative thought presented and defended as entertainment?”
Because it allows both the producer and consumer of such entertainment to slough off criticisms of the thoughts expressed.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 06:26 PM · #
Levin replies to Manzi here:
http://bit.ly/bmaxA5
— David · Apr 22, 06:29 PM · #
I eagerly await McCarthy’s and Lopez’s anguished denunciations of his nasty tone!
— John Schwenkler · Apr 22, 06:32 PM · #
Conservatism is at war with Jim Manzi. Conservatism has always been at war with Jim Manzi.
— Willcall · Apr 22, 06:38 PM · #
Levin’s response was painful, reminds me why I ignore him. Why can’t NR ignore him? Oh well, at least their attempts to praise his response will be comical.
— Keljeck · Apr 22, 06:46 PM · #
Here’s a reaction from someone at the Democracy In America blog:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/intellectual_conservatism_0
With hilarious graphic to boot!
— David · Apr 22, 07:00 PM · #
It’s entertainment, as Manzi seems to recognize, if only grudgingly.
ummm…No Thomas.
….the climate change chapter is just a pack of LIES.
where is your stewardship of your low information base?
— matoko_chan · Apr 22, 07:11 PM · #
The point in this debate isn’t whether global warming is real or not. The point is whether or not global warming is being used as a statist power and/or money grab. I could care less about global warming, but I do care about statist attempts to limit my freedom and my ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor. That’s what Levin’s book is about and if you can’t see that you may have a problem with epistemic closure yourself.
— wb7369 · Apr 22, 09:01 PM · #
This seems grossly unfair. I completely agree with Manzi and think both Levin and McCarthy are fools, but really FB page quotes? I thought the concern was that conservative intellectual culture was too closed off. So Manzi was able to post his thoughts on National Review, isn’t that a positive thing? National Review is a bastion of conservative intellectual culture, Mark Levin’s Facebook page is not.
But more importantly, I thought epistemic closure was about failing to hear other arguments by not listening, reading, etc. outside of a small field. Epistemic closure is not about disagreeing! Again, I’m on Manzi’s side here, but that people disagree with him is not evidence that they are ‘closed’ to him. National Review firing Manzi would be evidence of epistemic closure. Writers there disagreeing with him definitely is not.
Not unless we’re moving the goal posts and making our ‘epistemic closure’ hypothesis unfalsifiable.
— Sara · Apr 22, 09:18 PM · #
wb7369:
If Levin didn’t devote himself to proving that global warming is not real, your comment would make sense.
— mr. margolis · Apr 22, 09:25 PM · #
mr. margolis
My comment makes plenty of sense. To often when global warming is mentioned the discussion devolves into a Monty Python arguement sketch, and that totally misses the point. Levin didn’t devote himself to disproving global warming. He devoted one chapter of a book. Sure, the sources he used are those that disprove global warming as settled science. But, as I stated, the larger objective was to show how the subject of global warming is being used to further undermine the historical liberties that we as Americans have always enjoyed.
— wb7369 · Apr 23, 12:30 AM · #
We’ve always been taxed and regulated (see: Shay’s Rebellion). Why is a carbon tax different than an alcohol tax? How does it “undermine the historical liberties that we as Americans have always enjoyed”?
And economically, the government is the proper entity to price externalities. Levin is not defending Liberty from Tyranny, he is just trying to delegitimize anything supported by Democrats but opposed by Republicans. Tyranny is torturing your enemies, imprisoning people without due process, or suppressing voting through violence and disenfranchisement. When one side loses a fair election and the winners make some minor adjustments to the tax code, it is not Tyranny.
— agorabum · Apr 23, 12:58 AM · #
Sara,
The Facebook posts are evidence of epistemic closure because Mr. Levin’s fans are so tightly sealed in their own little world that they believe Jim Manzi is a “global warming zealot” and a liberal, two things that just aren’t so, and when those things are prominently or repeatedly asserted, there is no one there to correct them. Mr. Levin’s fans just go on believing their truth, sealed off in their own alternate reality where they revel in their superiority to the statist Jim Manzi.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 23, 03:33 AM · #
Thomas, do you really think all those Mark Levin fans are getting their yucks from Levin because he’s ha-ha funny like Jay Leno? Because it’s entertainment dontcha know. The relevant emotions are anger and outrage.
— Derek Scruggs · Apr 23, 03:41 AM · #
In todays right-wing cocoon Levin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity etc. are considered as infallible as the Pope. This unquestioned devotion to the radio/TV jockeys will keep conservatism in a downward spiral for some time to come.
— James T · Apr 23, 04:22 AM · #
Really, Facebook comments? Why would random internet comments represent anything other than the individual opinions of the commentators? Levin (or anyone) might have the most enlightened, open minded fanbase in the world and that wouldn’t preclude it from including many, many closed minded cooks, and those are the sort of people who seem eager to, say, post a comment on Facebook.
Anyway, isn’t the larger debate over whether “conservatives”, in general, are closed minded? Maybe K-Lo, Andy McCarthy and John Hawkins are, but that’s hardly enough evidence to convict a sprawling movement. You’d need a much larger sample for that.
— Phil · Apr 23, 05:05 AM · #
agorabum – Tyranny is also forcing people to buy a product as a condition of citizenship and sending in the IRS if they don’t (see Health Care Reform). Tyranny is also telling people what they can or cannot eat (see the recent salt debate). And the carbon tax isn’t different from any other tax. It’s just much, much bigger, and businesses won’t pay it anyway. You and I will.
— wb7369 · Apr 23, 01:15 PM · #
The one thing we can all agree on about this topic is that conservatives (and their fans) are held by all sides to higher standards than President Obama and his fanbase. That is as it should be. Who would want it otherwise? And Levin and his fans are dangerously near failure to live up to those expectations. So it’s right for Conor to call them to account.
— The Reticulator · Apr 23, 01:32 PM · #
I don’t get it. People like to read books that tell them that what they already believe is correct. Typically, the lefty defense of a Michael Moore or Al Gore book is that while you might quibble with some of the particulars, the book raises some important points or even that it’s entirely right and the product of sound history/science.
There’s a similar tendency on the right, and I agree that it’s a mistake in both cases – if you want to call that “epistemic closure”, I guess you can.
— J Mann · Apr 23, 02:08 PM · #
“Tyranny is also forcing people to buy a product as a condition of citizenship and sending in the IRS if they don’t (see Health Care Reform). Tyranny is also telling people what they can or cannot eat (see the recent salt debate).”
By that standard, forcing people to serve in the military at the possible cost of the their lives is tyranny. You’ve just defined every government that ever existed as tyrannical, which might possibly indicate your standard is silly.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 02:40 PM · #
“I could care less about global warming, but I do care about statist attempts to limit my freedom and my ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor.”
This is pretty funny. If (and sure, it’s an if) GW is the threat most scientists think it is, your comment is akin to “I don’t really care about the global-killer asteroid headed our way, but I do care about statist attempts to limit my freedom and my ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor” because somebody wanted to raise taxes to pay for NASA to go up and push the asteroid off course. Wacky. If you think the asteroid is gonna miss and the NASA operation is therefore a waste, fine. In which case, your position isn’t “I don’t care about GW” it’s “I don’t believe in GW” or “I don’t think GW is a problem for us.”
Personally, I’m glad people like Jim Manzi are doing cost-benefit analyses of things like cap ‘n trade and carbon taxes. It’s important that we plan our response to GW carefully. I think the Left does quite a few people who respond to this issue emotionally/irrationally, which is unlikely to result in sound policy. Though I’ll say this wrt said cost-benefit analysis: I hope Jim is making sure that the cost of “do nothing” is factored properly. Just an example of what I mean: say sea levels are projected to rise X feet due to warming. How much money does it cost to build dikes/levees/sea walls or to move things inland, vs. how much does it cost to cut emissions enough to prevent the sea level change (if such is even possible, given the industrialization of various developing countries – China, et al). I haven’t read all of Manzi’s work on this topic, so maybe he does account for such costs. I hope so.
— Rob in CT · Apr 23, 02:45 PM · #
“The Facebook posts are evidence of epistemic closure because Mr. Levin’s fans are so tightly sealed in their own little world that they believe Jim Manzi is a “global warming zealot””
But whether Levin’s fans will circle the wagons around Levin in a fit of epistemic closure seems a much narrower question that whether there is epistemic closure on “the Right.”
I just don’t think this analysis can get past the fact that Manzi’s crunching of Levin appeared on NATIONAL REVIEW’S WEBSITE. They published it. Know who reads that website? Conservatives.
Seems to me that the goalpost keeps moving. It started out as a question of whether “conservatism” was becoming sealed off from outside views and information. So conservatism’s largest, most popular website publishes a piece kicking the crap out of one of conservatisms most popular figures. And this is used as evidence that conservatism will not tolerate dissent.
To proof that this proof is actually proof, we now go to a Facebook page to see if fans of that extremely popular conservative guy like it when the conservative guy they like gets stomped. Turns out they don’t! Epistemic closure!
So it seems that your definition of epistemic openness is that not only must the largest and most popular conservative website publish screeds aimed at its most popular figure. but fans of those figures have to AGREE with the screed and talk about how funny or awesome or right it is?
WHo else is held to this standard? If Matthew Yglesias used CAP’s blog to talk about what an idiot some global warming believer was, do you suspect that progressives would cheer? Or would they hammer Yglesias for stepping out of line? I suspect the latter. Do you?
— Sam M · Apr 23, 02:50 PM · #
This is pretty funny. If (and sure, it’s an if) GW is the threat most scientists think it is, your comment is akin to “I don’t really care about the global-killer asteroid headed our way, but I do care about statist attempts to limit my freedom and my ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor”
I agree. Most people would take their chances with an asteroid rather than let statists have control. If the statists were relatively mild, easy-going statists like Joe Stalin, it might be different, but from the sounds of the ones who comment on this forum and elsewhere on the internet, the asteroid sounds like a better bet.
— The Reticulator · Apr 23, 03:35 PM · #
“This is pretty funny. If (and sure, it’s an if) GW is the threat most scientists think it is, your comment is akin to “I don’t really care about the global-killer asteroid headed our way, but I do care about statist attempts to limit my freedom and my ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor”
There’s a big difference between an asteroid and global warming. An asteroid can be seen, and it’s course can be plotted and proven. You can’t say the same thing about global warming. And “most” scientists haven’t agreed on anything yet. So based on a yet to be proven theory, government wants to place a massive financial burden on every segment of the population. Does that mean we shouldn’t be good stewards of the planet? Of course not, but it shouldn’t be imposed by a government in the name of commerce, or anything else.
— wb7369 · Apr 23, 04:05 PM · #
“Does that mean we shouldn’t be good stewards of the planet? Of course not, but it shouldn’t be imposed by a government in the name of commerce, or anything else.”
So, you would have opposed both the Clean Water and Clean Air acts? Gotcha.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 04:20 PM · #
It strikes me that a “liberal” defense of an Al Gore or Michael Moore work as substantively and factually correct is only evidence of “epistemic closure” if a case that these works are not correct has been successfully made. In the case of both Al Gore and Michael Moore, that case has never, in my experience, been made.
Liberals thinking that the liberal position on an issue is substantively correct is not “epistemic closure”. Nobody goes around thinking they’re wrong on the issues.
— Chet · Apr 23, 04:47 PM · #
That’s simply not the case. There is a substantial and nearly universal consensus among relevant experts that the Earth is experiencing ahistoric climate warming and the attendant effects on our weather and ecology, and that this climate warming is primarily the result of human combustion of fossil fuels. Similarly, there exists an all-but-universal consensus among life scientists and chemists that the modern theory of evolution best explains the history and diversity of life on Earth. The vast majority of other scientists defer to these experts on these matters, though some feel ideologically compelled to comment on fields they have no direct experience in.
Not coincidentally, both of these consensuses are denied by conservatives. (Epistemic closure.)
— Chet · Apr 23, 04:52 PM · #
“So, you would have opposed both the Clean Water and Clean Air acts? Gotcha.”
Got me how. Are you assuming I support the Clean Water & Clean Air acts? Besides, how do the clean air and water acts disprove anything I’ve said about tyranny?
— wb7369 · Apr 23, 05:11 PM · #
Are you assuming I support the Clean Water & Clean Air acts?
He might have confused support for clean water and clean air with support for the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. It’s not an uncommon mistake.
— The Reticulator · Apr 24, 04:42 AM · #
There is a substantial and nearly universal consensus among relevant experts that the Earth is experiencing ahistoric climate warming and the attendant effects on our weather and ecology, and that this climate warming is primarily the result of human combustion of fossil fuels. Similarly, there exists an all-but-universal consensus among life scientists and chemists that the modern theory of evolution best explains the history and diversity of life on Earth
Similarly? I think you’re right that there is a substantial consensus. But one difference between climate warming and evolutionary theory is that so far no evolutionary theorists that I know of have found it necessary to fudge the data or use dishonest, unscientific processes to obtain their consensus.
I’m glad you didn’t say that the people who believe climate warning is caused as you say also feel it is of urgent importance to take action to halt, slow, or mitigate this warming. Because the number of people who think it’s that important is indistinguishable from zero.
— The Reticulator · Apr 24, 05:16 AM · #
Neither have the climatologists. Surely you’re not referring to the climategate researchers who were cleared by two independent investigations?
That’s an interesting claim. From what basis would you say that 262 million Americans is “indistinguishable from zero”?
— Chet · Apr 25, 03:37 AM · #
Surely you’re not referring to the climategate researchers who were cleared by two independent investigations?
I certainly do refer to the climategate researchers. If you think they were cleared, it shows you don’t know very much about science.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 04:20 AM · #
That’s an interesting claim. From what basis would you say that 262 million Americans is “indistinguishable from zero”?
You really need to read the rest of the paragraph that preceded the sentence in which I said “indistinguishable from zero.”
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 04:23 AM · #
I don’t think you know anything about science, Reticulator. “Fudging data” and “dishonest, unscientific processes” is exactly what the “climategate” guys didn’t do, as determined by two independent investigations, anybody who knows anything about actually doing science, and, you know, basically everybody else without a denialist axe to grind.
I did. Did you read the link? 260 million is the estimated number of Americans who think it’s important to take action to “halt, slow, or mitigate” global warming. But, as we’ve established, you don’t know how to read.
— Chet · Apr 25, 06:53 AM · #
Chet, you had better check your math.
And you’ll note that your poll was conducted by one of the most rabidly partisan players in the game. So it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
But my “indistinguishable from zero” referred to AGW alarmists (which is not the same as the group that believes in AGW, though there is some overlap). Not one of them has said this is so important that we need to do something about it even if it doesn’t increase taxes or grow the government.
Your pollsters didn’t even offer the choice of a netzero carbon tax. If you took a poll of AGW alarmists and offered them this choice: “Would you favor a netzero carbon tax that resulted in lower carbon emissions but kept the overall tax burden and size of government the same, or even decreased it slightly”? I’m guessing you’d have not a single taker. Not a one of them has said AGW is such an important issue that they would want to do something about it even if it doesn’t grow the government.
And it’s telling that the partisan Washington Post/ABC news people didn’t present such an option, even though it has been talked about for some time.
When we DO have AGW alarmists supporting plans to decrease greenhouse gases even at the expense of not growing the government, then we’ll know they are really alarmed and are not just faking it. Then it might be time for the rest of us to consider taking action.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 08:35 AM · #
“Fudging data” and “dishonest, unscientific processes” is exactly what the “climategate” guys didn’t do, as determined by two independent investigations, anybody who knows anything about actually doing science, and, you know, basically everybody else without a denialist axe to grind.
We don’t know if these commissions were independent or not. All we know is that newspapers said it was independent. Your article doesn’t even make a pretense of explaining where the independence comes from, though it does make an appeal to authority by referring to one of the parties being “prestigious.” You don’t do science by appealing to how prestigious one of the parties is.
Also, nothing in the article indicates that the substance of the criticisms was even addressed, or that there was a point-by-point examination and explanation of the issues. That doesn’t provide useful information to anyone.
Anyone who accepts such a superficial whitewash as is described by your newspaper links without knowing how it dealt with specific allegations of wrongdoing doesn’t show much of a scientific curiosity.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 08:53 AM · #
Strange. “Some overlap”? You’re asserting that there are a substantial number of climate change “alarmists” who don’t, in fact, believe in climate change? I think you’d better check your math.
Gosh, and even more amazingly, not a single one of them has said that this is so important that we need to do something about it even if it doesn’t put a manned lander on Mars, or cure cystic fibrosis, or accomplish any one of an infinite number of deeds that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
The fallacy, here, should be apparent to anybody capable of considering an issue on a basis besides “does this make government bigger or smaller.” (Therefore I predict that the fallacy I’m referring to will be completely invisible to you.)
Funny, but isn’t that something I heard from Al Gore, once? That we should have a carbon tax that replaces other taxes instead of adding to them? Why, yes, it is. Of course, I know how this game is played, Reticulator – anybody who I can demonstrate as being for your net-zero carbon tax, you’ll simply define as not an “alarmist.”
“Even at the expense of not growing the government.” Quoted to highlight what a truly ridiculous stance you’ve carved out for yourself on this issue. Just amazing.
— Chet · Apr 25, 08:56 AM · #
Funny, but isn’t that something I heard from Al Gore, once? That we should have a carbon tax that replaces other taxes instead of adding to them? Why, yes, it is.
Ha. I didn’t know Al Gore ever proposed such a thing. Good for him. It looks like he had a moment of sanity. That was four years ago. I wonder what happened to it.
Would you support a tax along the lines that he proposed? (I would. In fact, I’d go a step farther and say it wouldn’t need to be a complete replacement, so long as the revenue effect was neutral.)
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 09:09 PM · #
I would support nearly any attempt to link carbon-based fuels to the negative external costs of their use. Growth or decline of government is irrelevant to climate change.
— Chet · Apr 26, 12:52 AM · #