Updating partially finished bats

15-Oct-2017 22:24

The fact that it’s of course doesn’t mean that it’s not cause for concern.

Changes in climate can cause all sorts of problems for human populations.

Even identifying with respect to climate change is a challenging task. Let’s start by considering the most basic of questions. On the most basic level, the answer is clearly “yes.” No intelligent person is actually a “climate denier,” because we all understand that it is entirely normal for the earth’s climate to change.

Climate stasis would be the real aberration; climate change is the norm.

I understand of course why progressives are so excited over an anticipated row between the Roman Pontiff and their conservative enemies.

But there’s really no reason why this should happen, because when it comes to climate change, none of the controversial questions are of the sort that the Holy Father could definitively answer anyway.

Even insofar as we can identify a likely connection between human activities (most especially carbon emissions) and climate change, further questions remain. And if so, are the economic costs of any recommended policy changes worth the climatory benefits?

Climate change, in other words, fits nicely with the pseudo-religious sensibilities of progressives.

This is why people who understand nothing about the science will lobby aggressively for measures to reduce carbon emissions: because “science says so,” but also because it feels intuitively right to them that humans are on the verge of destroying themselves through environmental folly.

Most of the time, the figures tarred as “climate deniers” are simply people who insist on parsing the relevant ecological, economic and prudential questions with a carefulness that runs contrary to the zealous, unthinking activism that liberals would prefer to foster.

Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views.

Even insofar as we can identify a likely connection between human activities (most especially carbon emissions) and climate change, further questions remain. And if so, are the economic costs of any recommended policy changes worth the climatory benefits?

Climate change, in other words, fits nicely with the pseudo-religious sensibilities of progressives.

This is why people who understand nothing about the science will lobby aggressively for measures to reduce carbon emissions: because “science says so,” but also because it feels intuitively right to them that humans are on the verge of destroying themselves through environmental folly.

Most of the time, the figures tarred as “climate deniers” are simply people who insist on parsing the relevant ecological, economic and prudential questions with a carefulness that runs contrary to the zealous, unthinking activism that liberals would prefer to foster.

Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views.

Our harbingers of climatory doom are of course not satisfied with this answer.