[Gary Wassner]

Hey Greg, existentialists don't apologize! There's no reason to.

[Scott Bakker]

And the scientists who make these claims have no vested interests? They aren't the ones who get to serve on the international panels, get quoted on TV, or find funding for grant studies to be much easier to procure. Such individuals are not 'disinterested third parties'.

There's a big difference between interests at stake. Are you suggesting that the interests motivating the conclusions behind the original researchers who argued the link between cigarettes and cancer are of a piece with the interests motivating the conclusions of the cigarette corporations? Certainly there's going to be tendentious argumentation on both sides, but since our prevailing immediate interest is to keep the party going, to not worry about our cars dumping their bulk in the sky on a yearly basis, this simply inclines me to be sympathetic to arguments that cut against that grain. I think this is pretty uncontroversial, especially given that science itself can be seen as a procedural mechanism that insulates our conclusions from our desires. We humans have a powerful hardwired tendency to believe what is convenient.

What was being defended in the article was a theory, not science. The two are quite different and in my mind, it is strange that a science journal would not to know the difference, or if they do, to willfully disregard it.

There's also a difference between using hyperbole as provocation in a title and 'hysteria.' Wouldn't you agree that, all things being equal, it's better to be charitable when it comes to interpretative issues in argumentation? It just means your critique is more likely to stick. My point was that your argument turned on a questionable interpretive assumption. So why make it?

Otherwise, I'm definitely not advocating deindustrialization. I don't think that's possible. And I share your healthy respect for the law of unintended consequences. You seem to be forgetting, though, that my original argument does not, in any way, turn on a 'proven link' between global warming and CO2 emissions (the most I ever said was that's where I'd put my chips if I were a gambling man). My argument was simply that, given the systematic nature of our biosphere, drastically increasing atmospheric CO2 is bound to have some kind of effect. It could be that it does lead to 'greenhouse earth' as the corporate lobbyists continue to argue, but 'Murphy's Law' is on the side of catastrophe. Since we're adapted to the way things are, that drastically restricts the number of possible happy outcomes. I see no way out of this one.

I think the immediate answer has to have something to do with carbon traps - though I have no clue how this might work. You put ten pounds in your gas tank, you take ten pounds out? But I doubt it could be so simple.

I'd be happy if they placed digital voices on all gas pumps, informing consumers of how many pounds of the CO2 they're going to be pissing into the pool today!

[Radone]

Are you suggesting that the interests motivating the conclusions behind the original researchers who argued the link between cigarettes and cancer are of a piece with the interests motivating the conclusions of the cigarette corporations?

Not at all. I just wanted to point out that scientists have agendas as do environmental groups. When scientists and environmental groups make claims of infallacy regarding global warming as recently as the mid-90's based on incomplete data, shout down dissenting opinions, and attempt to impose an orthodoxy of thought, then those motivations need to be questioned, and I don't think they have.

There's also a difference between using hyperbole as provocation in a title and 'hysteria.' Wouldn't you agree that, all things being equal, it's better to be charitable when it comes to interpretative issues in argumentation?

I would have been more charitable had I not read the original article or the editor's response to Lomberg's response. The explanation of why they used that subheadline was that the review article was defending science and not just meant to grab the reader's attention.

You seem to be forgetting, though, that my original argument does not, in any way, turn on a 'proven link' between global warming and CO2 emissions (the most I ever said was that's where I'd put my chips if I were a gambling man). My argument was simply that, given the systematic nature of our biosphere, drastically increasing atmospheric CO2 is bound to have some kind of effect.

I can agree with much of what you wrote. Where I diverge is that I seem to have a stronger faith (despite my skepticism for science in globabl warming, I am at heart a strong believer in science) that science will find us a solution to this without deindustrialization. I'm also not convinced that the world needs to make the drastic changes that some would advocate based on what I think is not very convincing data. This may seem comforting to me because then I don't have to make any changes (which is not something I advocate), but I have a very healthy respect for unintended consequences, reinforced I guess because in my field, when we do something we think is right, there is always a chance we might kill someone from medication side effects.
Overall, we may not be as far apart on this as our lengthy posts might indicate.

[Radone]

I would also like to read your thoughts regarding belief formation (if it has any relevance to this topic) and global warming. As I wrote earlier, when I mention that I have grave doubts about this topic, I am met with disbelief that I could be such a kook. Some react as though I've committed sacrilege.
Can environmentalism be its own religion? Should this be a new thread?

[Scott Bakker]

I don't have time for a full response. I just wanted to say that I fully agree with you on the whole 'new orthodoxy' thing. I think it's quite clear that many environmental groups are involved in an out-and-out propaganda effort, which they feel is justified for much the same reason Michael Moore feels justified in his skewing of the facts: the old 'tit-for-tat' argument and the 'but it's in the service of the greater truth' argument.

The irony of the fact that their opponents can make precisely the same claims is lost on them. In the end, I think it simply undermines their credibility.

[KatG]

I was wrong. The Earth is dying. We're doomed. But there's always Mars!

[cheese]

I was wrong. The Earth is dying. We're doomed. But there's always Mars!
We will just screw up that planet too :D

[Boll Weevil]

It's statistically improbable that the world is doomed right now. But it adds drama to one's life to think it might be so, that one lives within touching distance of the end times.

But I believe the exponential advance in our technology will continue. This is the fundamental truth of the internet. If each human represents a brain cell, every day both the number and more importantly the connections of those brain cells increase massively. An idea bounces around the planet much more quickly than it used to.

Scientists/philosophers/historians and so on can easily debate ideas almost instantly. Japanese, Indians and American scientists can collaborate actively on the same problem.

I am in New York, readers of this could easily be spread across the world. You might agree, disagree, have never heard this idea before of heard something similar. But for some it will stimulate a new thought, a new idea, a new way of looking at things. You might be in Europe or Asia, but the ripples from my pebble in the pond touch you in a way they didn't twenty years ago.

Human knowledge and capability grows constantly, in that there is always hope.