Jeffery Tucker
I have no interest in taking on the science of climatology but every
time I’ve looked into this in depth, I’ve found that the consensus is
far more loose than people like Krugman would suggest. Real scientists
do not have the intensity of certainty that the politicians and pundits
demand they have.
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.
What can we say about those who want to empower a global coterie of
elites to make the decision about what technologies we can use and how
much under the guise of controlling something so gigantically amorphous
and difficult to measure, detect, and precisely manage as earth’s
surface temperature?
This is a level of chutzpah that surpasses the wildest fantasies of any socialist planner.
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 can’t allow a debate, because they will certainly and absolutely and rightly lose.
When that is certain, the only way forward is to rage.
Which is precisely what I expect to happen in the wake of what I’ve just written."
No comments:
Post a Comment