How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

Fair enough, but the security and welfare of citizens is the primary interest of big government (o.k. secondary, but aligned with the primary interest of getting re-elected), whereas big oil has no interest other than making loot. With respect to climate change, big oil loot comes at the expense of our planet (and our security, and lives our troops in the middle east, and our health, and our economy).

Isn't it possible that the Cato Insitute's beliefs preempted the money and not the other way around?

I donate money to the NRA because they support gun rights. The NRA doesn't support gun rights because I personally give them money.

There is a very clear link between GDP per capita and life expectancy, literacy, health, and a host of other social benefits. Holding back the industrialization of the world for potential far-off benefits has very real human costs now, in the present. If we wait 5 years to sign a Global Warming treaty, nobody will die. If we take trillions from the global economy to mitigate gas emissions that turn out to be harmless, many will.

The conservative thing to do is to gather data before making trillion-dollar changes to the global economy, while spending money on moderate cost green energy research (but not billion-dollar ethanol mandates).

Climate change has already killed people. Suggesting that waiting five years will kill nobody is begging the question. Now has it killed significantly more people than it has saved, and will waiting 5 years make a significant long term difference is debatable, but you can't just assume your answer and move on.

Also, a 20-40% reduction in greenhouse gasses would (if done efficiently) cost less than 1 trillion over the next 20. years. (Multiply the cost Delta between electricity produced with coal to that produced non C02 producing options over their lifetime.)

PS: I often see people use the term "begging the question incorrectly" so I felt the need to point it out.

Edit: Wow, lots of hate. Do the math 1,000,000 * 1 million $ is a LOT of money, and coal plants have a finite lifetime.

This isn't a particularly powerful or insightful article. The entire subject is blown out of proportion and distorted until hardly any of the actual facts remain.

1. Scientists ruin their careers by repeatedly attempting to discredit theories they cannot find the evidence to discredit (or proving claims they cannot find proof to claim). If a truly compelling set of studies discrediting global warming trends came out, you can be sure that many publications would be eager to publish it. This is how science works, and how it has worked historically. It's a surprisingly stable environment of meritocracy. Politics intrude, as in any human endeavor, but we'll get to that in:

2. Differences in opinion in the peer review process are as old as science. That is why there are multiple publications and multiple standards for entering into those publications. The whole notion of "scientific consensus" is built around assumptions like schisms such as this. If everyone agreed about the exact criterion for publication we'd only have a few (perhaps regional) scientific publications (and then we'd truly be in trouble).

3. Science is about consensus, but that implicitly accepts dissent. People argue for awhile, a consensus is formed, and then things blow over. Seldom are careers ruined. For an example, see Einstein's extremely controversial claims that eventually became the next major stepping stone for physics. People violently opposed his propositions at first, and now we look at him is one of the greatest minds in human history.

The difference here is that there are active sources of misinformation trying, for whatever non-scientific reasons, to drum up controversy around the global warming issue of anthropogenicity. This issue is still under active debate and research, but unlike many other subjects in a similar status (e.g., quantum physics) there are "deniers" who will not accept any positive evidence against their claim and will resort to any means, social or otherwise, to make their point of view supreme.

Some might argue this is warranted because climate science is making predictions that require us to radically restructure our industry and energy infrastructures to the tune of massive sums of money. To be honest, I think this complaint is shortsighted. Scientific predictions, even those in the limbo state between "well-accepted" and "just a theory" that we are calling "consensus", have always dictated the allocation of resources. Consider the exorbitant cost of the LHC, which is one of the single greatest achievements of human engineering and physics.