And Mark's reply

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.