Yes, it is true. I find the NY Times to be a better source of accurate information than most other news sources. But the issue isn’t a question of bias. Every perspective is a bias. We used to think in my field [psychotherapy] that it was best to be neutral, that is, to not have a bias. Turns out that isn’t possible. Better to know one’s bias and to be careful to keep it out of the way of the work our clients are doing.
I like the links to Berkeley Earth. But the numbers don’t tell me as much as the fact that people who can interpret them are paying attention to them. This is important.
So, what do I believe? Well, for one thing, I think a better way of saying “wealth redistribution” is “paying taxes.” They both mean the same thing but we know that paying taxes is older than the Bible whereas wealth redistribution is a plot by the liberals to steal my money. And yes, I am for a system of progressive taxation so that we work to narrow the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest. Large inequalities are socially destabilizing.
Do I believe in government regulation? Yes, I think speed limits are a good thing and I even like telling people they have to wear helmets and seatbelts. I get it that if someone doesn’t wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle they probably don’t have brains to protect, but I don’t want to have to pay for their care when they are reduced to vegetable status. But I especially believe that the role of government includes inhibiting the behavior of others when that behavior would harm me. But then I see government as the result of agreements I help to construct, not a force for evil that plots to restrict my rights.
I don’t know about environmental controls. How does one control the environment? I am certainly convinced that we are pumping a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” and that its presence seems to be closely correlated with the temperature of Earth. There are other greenhouse gases that we might be able to influence. I understand that the methane in cow farts is a big problem we could reduce if we ate less meat. But that is only one reason to reduce our consumption of beef.
So, in general, what is called for is that we live healthier. Eat more plant based foods. Walk and bicycle more. Live in such a way that we are less isolated from our neighbors and we look out for them more… even having to encounter them in public transportation. This means shifting how we live and how we envision the future. We don’t like change especially if it makes us uncomfortable even if it makes us healthier.
If the Earth is warming, and if such warming has catastrophic consequences, and if we want to avoid those consequences, and if the cause is human activity, and if that activity can be changed, and if we have the will to change, and if those changes can actually avert or at least minimize the catastrophic effects; then we will actually live healthier lives. Seems like that is a better choice. I need all the help I can get to be healthy.
But maybe there is something to be gained by not acknowledging that Earth is warming. Then I can ignore the warning of looming catastrophe. After all, I don’t even know any polar bears. Or if Earth is warming, maybe it is not about anything we humans are doing. And if it isn’t, then there isn’t anything we can do about. So then I can keep driving alone in a vehicle that gets 15 mpg.
It just seems to me that, on balance, believing that the majority of the world’s climate scientists are telling the truth leads to healthier choices than believing those who are denying.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Bruce's Response
Mark -
I'm not really sure what it is that you want to believe or not to believe. Are you asking whether or not to believe that the New York Times is an unbiased and reliable source of science news? Or, are you asking whether to believe that Earth's surface temperature has risen over the last few years? You might be asking whether changes in certain measures of climate might justify sweeping changes in taxation, environmental controls and wealth re-distribution.
If you want to believe that this article is definitive, you may want to re-read it. It does make a broad statement completely devoid of any details and follows that up with anecdotal evidence. Just how much did the Earth warm up and why did they not mention that? Which of the three Earth surveys were they citing? What was the statistical significance of the change? Was there any peer review of the work? The debate remains lively, hardly settled at all.
Should you want more information, you might read this NY Times article: 2013 NY Times Op Ed. There is a much finer source of information available at Berkeley Earth. More Berkeley Earth Information
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
The Latest on Global Climate Change - A Triumph of Politics over Science?
Most likely you are excited to see the latest draft of AR5 from the IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is an agency of the United Nations. This is the fifth in a series of such reports. The most fascinating part it is how it panders to certain politicians in its summary while it raises great doubt with the underlying scientific data. The recent draft states that science is now 95% certain that growing carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing, and will continue to cause, unprecedented global warming and alarming sea level rise. Meanwhile, the data within the report confirms that global temperatures have failed to rise for the last fifteen years or so. It also maintains, as the media has reported, that global carbon dioxide levels are now the highest since the Paleolithic Period. Once again, we have a remarkable inconsistency. We know that the Paleolithic was characterized by incredible global cooling, we even call this period the ice age.
The draft struggles to explain the nearly complete halt in global warming given the soaring CO2 levels. All the predictions we have seen insist that the rate of global warming will increase. We do remember the now famous "hockey stick" graph. That graph is still in use by climate change believers despite its failure to materialize. To those who say, "The debate is over," we respond by asking for peer-reviewed studies concluding that human activity is causing global warming. To date, there have been none, ZERO. To those who say "Climate scientists agree," I point out that the number who do agree has now fallen to 39%.
Now the draft goes back to the individual countries for approval. This is not exactly what "peer-reviewed" means. The 119 scientists who drafted the study now step back to allow the politicians back home to further edit and finally approve the study. The science is over, now the politics begin. It will be very interesting to see how the report changes as this year passes. Our politicians continue to argue that this process is all science. If it is about science, why are the politicians spending a year editing it?
The point, therefore, is that science has always needed funding to operate and that forces scientists to court politicians in order to work and even become politically involved. I maintain that this is neither good nor bad, it just is. Knowing this does require that we respect our own abilities and do enough of our own research to arrive at our own decisions.
The draft struggles to explain the nearly complete halt in global warming given the soaring CO2 levels. All the predictions we have seen insist that the rate of global warming will increase. We do remember the now famous "hockey stick" graph. That graph is still in use by climate change believers despite its failure to materialize. To those who say, "The debate is over," we respond by asking for peer-reviewed studies concluding that human activity is causing global warming. To date, there have been none, ZERO. To those who say "Climate scientists agree," I point out that the number who do agree has now fallen to 39%.
Now the draft goes back to the individual countries for approval. This is not exactly what "peer-reviewed" means. The 119 scientists who drafted the study now step back to allow the politicians back home to further edit and finally approve the study. The science is over, now the politics begin. It will be very interesting to see how the report changes as this year passes. Our politicians continue to argue that this process is all science. If it is about science, why are the politicians spending a year editing it?
The point, therefore, is that science has always needed funding to operate and that forces scientists to court politicians in order to work and even become politically involved. I maintain that this is neither good nor bad, it just is. Knowing this does require that we respect our own abilities and do enough of our own research to arrive at our own decisions.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Entitlement
Entitlement is a term used to describe a circumstance in which one has earned a right because of a way in which one has fulfilled a responsibility. For example, I am entitled to drive a car because I have earned a license, purchased a car, maintained it, and have shown a record of driving it safely. If I stop doing those things I will no longer be able to drive a car.
But the term entitlement has also come to mean a circumstance in which someone demands a right even though they have not fulfilled the necessary responsibilities. This phenomenon is common in teenagers but is, from my perspective, more and more common in the general populace.
One place we see this is in those persons who are happy to complain about the quality of government services but aren’t willing to pay the taxes to support those services. Some people are quick to complain about high taxes on gasoline and to complain about the poor quality of the roads on which they drive and fail to see the connection between those two. We have mostly agreed that there are certain services the government will provide as for the common defense of the nation. We all benefit from those services so we are all required to pay for them through our taxes.
Another agreement we have (as created by law) is that all are entitled to healthcare. If my youngest son and I are riding in the car together and suffer a major accident an observer will not be able to tell that I have health insurance and he does not based on the quality of care we each receive. We have collectively chosen to be sure that we do not live in a society in which those needing care are denied it because they are unable to pay.
The provision of universal healthcare is simplified in those nations with a single payer system. But problems like those in New Zealand have so alarmed Americans that healthcare debate in the last 20 years has almost excluded the single payer option. Instead we are keeping insurance companies in the system but tweaking the system so that everyone has to pay for the services they receive.
But the sense of entitlement in the nation is so strong that we are facing the high likelihood at this point that the Supreme Court will rule that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional. The legislature cannot require that persons pay for services that it has mandated will be available to them unless it levies the cost as a tax, not as a fee paid to an insurance company.
If we are willing to deny health care to those who refuse to pay for it then we can keep the system from going bankrupt. But we collectively show signs that we will continue to care for the flightless birds in our midst. We will only have justice by maintaining a balance between rights and responsibilities. If we want a world in which everyone gets care we will have to figure out a way to pay for it.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)