Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

This is the fourth in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

If you missed it, please read Yoram Bauman's reply to Jerry Taylor, at this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a/2008/05/09/jerry_taylor_responds_libertarians_and_g#c19663

Here is Taylor's response:

Fine – it’s Dr. Bauman. I meant no offense.

While I don’t think libertarians (or economists) have anything to contribute to the scientific debate as libertarians (or economists) – and while I don’t think accepting standard narratives from the IPCC conflicts with libertarian principles – I do think that environmental scientists have erred frequently within their own field. See the link I provided earlier regarding professional biases for a good case-study of those errors when it comes to soil erosion. The same story could be told by veterans of the cancer wars which once raged around industrial chemical use; by veterans of the hysteria that once raged over “the population bomb”; or by veterans of the debate surrounding the resource limitations to growth. Scientific alarmists didn’t err by treading into fields (like economics) that they knew nothing about. They erred in their assessment of the threat and those errors were made in their own fields of expertise.

Whenever politics is freighted with science, these errors seem to pop up (read this essay by climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr. for a good explanation for why that is). For a non-environmental example, see the link I provided earlier to the bit about information cascades. For decades, nutritionists have been wedded to the idea that dietary fats are the great heath Satan when, in fact, the dietary evil appears to lie elsewhere. Deferring to experts in fields you have no training in is, of course, a necessary evil, but history suggests that consensus – particularly when we’re dealing with issues that have political or cultural implications – is less “argument settling” than some might otherwise think.

Moreover, skepticism is always a healthy thing in whatever field we find ourselves in. Whenever I see people getting red-faced and angry at the very existence of skeptics, I have to wonder whether we’re leaving a world of science for a world of religion. The scientific method is all about the skeptical treatment of hypotheses and science couldn’t exist without skepticism – nobody would critically examine anything! Religious cults, on the other hand, can’t survive within a culture of skepticism.

Note – I am not accusing you, Dr. Bauman, or anyone else in particular of cult membership. I simply hope to rebut the idea that healthy skepticism about scientific pronouncements in political arenas is a hanging offense for non-scientists.

What to do when the science is uncertain? There is no obvious or objectively correct answer here because it depends on what your risk tolerance might be, your willingness to pay to reduce risk, and your discount rates. All three matters, however, are subjective preferences where no “right” or “wrong” answer exists.

Regardless, uncertainty does not necessarily imply the need for ambitious public policy insurance. If it did, we would all be enthusiastically endorsing the Bush foreign policy, which is predicated on the very same precautionary principle that many embrace as an important guiding principle for climate change policy.

Would foreign aid and other cross-border wealth transfers assist in the global adaptation to climate change? You clearly think so, but what evidence do we have to suggest that past efforts to promote “good policies” or “good projects” abroad have had any positive impact? Goklany remains on agnostic on this issue, but I am a bit more … skeptical.

These qualifiers aside, let me reiterate: I agree with your argument that libertarians who blindly refuse to even consider the possibility that climate change is happening, that industrial emissions are an important cause, and that public policy might be required to address it, are demonstrating their own cult-like instincts that don’t reflect well on libertarianism. I also agree with you that such libertarians (and conservatives, for that matter) exist. But informed and thoughtful skepticism is a different matter entirely.