Its funny how quickly science can change.
Here I am in the midst of a disagreement on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and a Facebook friend (H/T Redmond) tags me on the very same issue with a story that might shut the AGW alarmists down.
This story is just hot off the press, literally, and appears in Nature today, and I can't say that I fully understand its implications just yet. But what I do understand is that cosmic radiation has an effect on climate change through cloud formation....I think. As someone cleverly retorted on Facebook, he can just hear Al Gore saying "bullshit."
But the most interesting part of the story is that CERN scientists have been told earlier to stay mum on the results, likely because it goes against the current AGW orthodoxy.
Of course that is not preventing other AGW skeptics from weighing in here, and here.
This kind of story could have huge political implications, not the least being in the Ontario election campaign now underway. Imagine all the effort spent on reducing CO2 and then discovering that it has a minor role at best on global warming. Embarrassing? You bet.
Are those two symbols related? Its hard to believe but they are. Combined they can be thought of as forming the basis for the organization whose green flag is on the right: the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSGP). I should quickly add that the LNSGP, an American organization, has no affiliation with either the US (or any) Libertarian or Green Party. The LNSGP has 3 precepts namely: personal freedom, environmental improvement, and collective action, a bit too contradictory for me.
I mention this because of my previous posting which featured Al Gore venting his frustration at the opposition to AGW. A comment to that posting contained the phrase "Dishonesty is the primary tool of the AGW deniers." The writer meant that my post was dishonest because I suggested Gore "lost his cool." No, my issue with Gore is very similar to my issues with fascism, NAZIsm, or any top-down organizational "-ism" that forces their opinions (and worse) on humanity.
Gore complains that there is no longer a "shared reality on climate," an admission that public opinion is increasingly skeptical of the climate alarmists. Then he goes on to proclaim "the very existence of our civilization is threatened." That's what he said in his rant, go have a listen. That kind of rhetoric will give anyone with libertarian leanings a reason to step back and examine the speaker and the meaning of his words with a jaundiced eye.
The truth is, I am not opposed to preserving and protecting the environment, far from it. I just have a completely different approach to how that might be achieved (see video below). Let me add, this does not mean that I agree that something needs to be done on global warming, I don't.
Al Gore and others who espouse the idea of collective action on AGW remind me too much of the Green Wing of the NAZI Party. The smear terms "eco-nazi" and "eco-fascist" have a legitimate historical derivation. Environmental concerns were deeply embedded within European fascist philosophy, and Hitler himself was profoundly concerned about the welfare of animals (PETA would love to hear that). Not that Gore and his associates are NAZI's, but their calls for global government action, reduced freedoms, and huge additional costs to fend off a supposed imminent catastrophe, have a totalitarian twinge about them.
So are AGW deniers liars? No more than AGW alarmists are. Al Gore can get just as hyperbolic as anyone, and lately his rants are back page news.
Hear how a libertarian view of the environment can be so much more reasonable:
Today in the National Post, Rex Murphy suggests that the global warming debate is "running out of gas." That is not surprising considering the financial crisis that we have had and are still facing. I have mentioned the likelihood that this will happen several times in previous posts. Unfortunately various governments have already committed their populations to a variety of programs designed to reduce carbon emissions at tremendous cost to taxpayers and the local economy. Ontario, of course, is the one most concerning to me and my family with such laws as the Green Energy Act. In this Act the government forces taxpayers to subsidize uncompetitive "renewable energy" production, while endangering Ontario's future energy requirements in a vain attempt at preventing climate change.
As a measure of the frustration felt by global warming alarmists with the increasing public scepticism and criticism, Rex Murphy describes Al Gore's recent meltdown in Aspen Colorado. Here is how it sounded:
"Should libertarians become involved in politics?" Not a tough question for me, having run in two elections, and about to start yet another campaign. But that was the question posed in a debate at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono Ontario.
The debaters were Leon Drolet a former Michigan State legislator, arguing for the affirmative, and Anton Howes (negative) on the board of European Students for Liberty in the UK.
Despite my bias, I found it a fascinating debate and discussion, and a learning experience. Both debaters were excellent, though I, and a majority of the audience thought that Mr. Drolet carried the day. Of course I didn't need convincing, but I was exposed to a new (for me) concept in Mr. Drolet's rebuttal.
Mr. Drolet was careful to acknowledge that his opponent's position was as important as his own, namely the apolitical philosophical advocates (like the Institute for Liberal Studies and other think tanks and thinkers) were as important as the political ones. Both are required to eventually sway public opinion and make policy change in government.
In the rebuttal Mr. Drolet referred to the Overton Window, a model of policy change that describes the range of acceptable options that politicians can support and still win re-election. In any politically related discussion there are always a range of alternatives as is indicated in the diagram above. New ideas may be so "out there on the fringe" that they are considered by most people as being unthinkable. Others are either already policy, or possible policy. Mr. Drolet suggested that it is up to the philosopher thinker or the think tank to present an idea. It is the politician's job is to sell it, so that it eventually becomes more acceptable and mainstream. In any political enterprise such as an election campaign, the “window” (named the Overton Window) includes the range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion. Any politician may recommend anything within the Overton Window without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton's idea was arranged in a spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” with regard to government intervention. The window moves or expands as ideas become more or less politically acceptable.
So within the context of the American campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination, Ron Paul's ideas, by and large, are considered unthinkable or too radical to make him a viable candidate. That is how the mainstream media are portraying him. But events may change the public perception of Ron Paul, and some or all of his ideas may become more acceptable or sensible to the general public. That's why he is running.
That is true about Canadian libertarians as well. The election campaign in Ontario, now underway, will give us an opportunity to advocate unthinkable or radical ideas to the electorate. The goal is to move the Overton Window toward acceptability and eventually get someone elected. Can this happen? Of course it can.
Unthinkable ideas 50 years ago, are now completely accepted. There is a black President in the US. Marriage between homosexuals is legal in Canada and many American jurisdictions. Marijuana today, seems "less dangerous" and is likely to be decriminalized somewhere in North America in the not-too-distant future. Today there is no law in Canada dealing with abortion. All of those ideas were once unthinkable, but with patience, and persistence, they are within the realm of policy and practice. There is hope.
