Hoe een vriendschap kapot ging door ruzie over klimaatverandering
Pseudoreligieuze twisten over klimaatverandering.
Waarom spreken zo weinig professionele klimatologen zich publiekelijk uit tegen de AGWhypothese (AGW = 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'), hoewel velen in privé gesprekken vertrouwelijk wel willen bekennen dat zij daarover twijfels en meer hebben? Een belangrijke reden is dat zij dan de financiering voor hun onderzoek verliezen en door hun collega's tot persona non grata worden verklaard en daarmee hun professionele en vaak ook hun privé netwerk verliezen. Soms ook hun baan. Vandaar dat de krachtigste kritiek ook veelal door (relatieve) buitenstaanders wordt geleverd, die gewoonlijk niet op die wijze worden gestraft. Hoewel ... ik ken ook uitzonderingen.
Maar ook onder vrienden, die zich niet professioneel met klimaat bezig houden, kan discussie over klimaatverandering als een splijtzwam werken.
En misschien gaat het nog wel verder. Een bekend Nederlands spreekwoord luidt: 'Als twee geloven slapen op één kussen, slaapt daar de duivel tussen.' Zou dat ook voor verschillen van opvatting gelden ten aanzien van AGW? Het zou wellicht aardig zijn daar eens een onderzoekje aan te wijden, te beginnen met reacties van mijn trouwe lezers.
Onder de titel, 'The Rage of the Climate Central Planners', schreef Jeffrey Tucker:
The conversation with a good friend brilliant man but a head full of confidence in the planning state was going well. Weve agreed on so much, such as war, civil liberties, the dangers of religious intolerance and so on. Weve always argued about points concerning economics and property rights but it has always been polite.
Then the other day that changed. For the first time ever, the topic of climate change and policy response came up. I casually dismissed the idea that mandatory steps away from industrialization plus global regulatory controls could accomplish anything. Plus, how can we really know the relation between cause and effect, cost and benefit, problem and solution?
These are not radical points. The same crew tax-funded experts and functionaries that claims to be able to fix global temperature and save humanity from melting ice caps decades from now also said 25 years ago that they would bring peace, happiness, and understanding to Iraq. They spent $2.4 trillion and smashed a civilization.
This is what bureaucrats do. They always pretend to know what they cannot really know, and are more than happy to squander other peoples money and liberty in order to realize their dreams. When they screw up, no one pays the price. This is why government almost always, make that always, gets it wrong.
Whatever the problem, government is not the answer. Hardly any proposition concerning life on earth strikes me as more obvious.
So, my tossed-off, slightly dismissive comments on the global warming crusade didnt seem so outlandish to me. ...
In my conversation with my friend I just hinted vaguely at the [objections]. It was enough. He began to shake. He turned white and began to pace. He called me a denialist. He was horrified to discover that his good friend turns out to be some kind of extremist weirdo who disparages science. He began to accuse me of believing in things I never said, of failing to read the science (though later admitting that he hadnt read the science).
I stood there stunned that I could have so quickly and inadvertently changed the whole dynamic of our conversation and even friendship all for having suggested that something seemed a bit out of whack with mainstream opinion on this topic.
This is not the first time this has happened. In fact, I should have come to expect it by now. Every time this subject comes up with anyone who favors government action on climate change, the result has been the same. We seem to be unable to have a rational conversation. Its like an article of faith for them, and Im suddenly the dangerous heretic who believes the world is flat.
Discerning cause and effect, cost and benefit, problem and solution, in a field that touches on the whole of the social and natural science come on. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is just one way to look at this.
If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down. ...
Even without knowing anything of the literature, without having read any of the best science on the topic, anyone with knowledge of the politics of science and the politics of public policy can know this much: this is not going to end well.
And perhaps this explains the incredible intolerance, belligerance, and stunning dogmatism of those who are demanding we shut down the free market in order to accommodate their wishes.
They really cant allow a debate, because they will certainly and absolutely and rightly lose. ...
Lees verder hier.
In vele landen is er nauwelijks enige discussie over klimaatverandering en beleid, mede vanwege het feit dat deze door een kongsi van overheden, wetenschappers, de milieubeweging, industriële en financiële belangengroeperingen en de reguliere media angstvallig wordt vermeden, zo niet actief wordt onderdrukt. En als er al discussie plaatsvindt wordt deze door passie en niet door rationaliteit gedomineerd.
Maar het is verheugend te constateren dat het tij in ons land aan het keren is. Wereldwijd gezien is dat een uniek fenomeen.
Rudyard Kipling schreef:
Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
Wat de meeste mensen niet weten is dat het gedicht als volgt verder ging:
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
Reden voor enig optimisme?
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen zie hier.
