Climate Change and The Right

It is long past due for rational proponents of limited government to start pointing out the silliness of so many arguments, arising from conservative distaste for government intervention, that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is in some way "pseudoscience" or is not supported by facts. It is fairly obvious that the reason conservatives and free-market types reject the idea of climate change caused by man is because of a preconceived notion that admitting the existence of such would mean consenting to intrusive government regulations. This is not only totally unreasonable, it can be very counterproductive and result in free marketers seeming anti-science and out of touch with the truth.

The most popular recent "criticism" of anthropogenic climate change is that its reality is based only on "consensus" among scientists, and not on factual accuracy. It is alleged that, despite being dedicated to rationalism and the scientific method in every other pursuit, scientists eschew reason and subscribe to the theory of ACC out of "political correctness" or some similar political pressure. It is never explained why a vast majority of all specialists in the relevant scientific disciplines would go against their ethics and risk their reputations merely to "fit in".

Once the widespread support by experts of ACC is cast aside as merely an irrational popular movement, it is then reasonable to paint critics of the theory as brave proponents of truth fighting the corrupt establishment. This is an idea that has proved all too popular among those already skeptical of the established truth on many issues of the day.

On the right-wing Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid blog, this common sentiment is expressed in contrasting economics and ACC, saying that while "99 percent" of modern economists support free markets, this "consensus" is disregarded by many of those who tout the consensus on ACC. The key to this argument is presented when the writer says (speaking of economics): "Consensus and policy are both consequences of compelling evidence and experience. Policy is not derived from consensus."

The idea here is that, while support for free markets has empirical backing and is thus supported by a legitimate consensus, the consensus in support of ACC lacks such empirical evidence and is therefore illegitimate. This principle is sound enough in theory, except the problem arises when one considers that those claiming a lack of empirical evidence supporting ACC are almost invariably not experts in the field, and are often those who tout their lack of professional expertise as an asset, allowing them to "think outside the box" and question the "dogma" of "establishment science".

While an outside perspective can be valuable in certain situations, it is most certainly not appropriate to the study of extremely complex and scientifically precise ideas like climate change. Not only do these critics lack "indoctrination", they lack all relevant knowledge of the field that would allow them to make reasonable, logical inferences from the data at hand. People do not spend years and years studying climate change simply because they feel like wasting time; it is absolutely necessary to commit this time in order to understand the fundamentals that underlie the theory. Just as a plumber cannot read Einstein's theory of relativity once and, without any real knowledge of physics, prove it to be totally illegitimate, neither can these critics undermine real scientific evidence by throwing around misinterpreted data and pretending to be experts in a field of which they are totally ignorant.

The lesson of all this is that self-described critics lacking all relevant expertise in a field cannot (at least the vast majority of the time) legitimately jump into the discussion and make coherent arguments while lacking the training and knowledge necessary to understand the concepts at hand. Furthermore, proponents of free markets should not so easily let their preconceived notions -- that ACC equates with big government -- lead them to reject good science in favor of bad science. Even if the truth appears to be politically inconvenient, there is much more to gain by confronting it and seeking political alternatives than there is in denying it.

UPDATE: It should also be noted that the idea of consensus is not at all antithetical to science -- scientific theories gain prominence and legitimacy through the independent analysis and experimentation of many people. The verification of a theory by many scientists, which leads to an empirically-based consensus, is central to the scientific method. As noted above, the central criticism of ACC is that this consensus is not empirically-based, however the basis for this criticism is very questionable, since those who interpret the data to arrive at contradictory interpretations are rarely experts in the field. The consensus of the scientific community (of qualified scientists) should hold weight, since it indicates that the theory has survived much critical consideration. While consensus among experts does not guarantee the truth of any theory, it is the best method we have of determining truth -- much better than the alternate theorizing of those with a shallow, incomplete understanding of the theories in question.