climate agnosticism

I'd like to quote Roderick Long's recent comment on climate agnosticism in its entirety, but first I'd like to confess that my agnosticism about global warming is like my agnosticism about a supernatural overperson, which is to say that it's largely perfunctory.

I can't prove that there is no God, and so I try not to insist on His non-existence, but I still tend to believe He's not there.

Similarly, I know that I know too little to have an informed opinion on supposed climate disaster, but I sure do trust the people who say it's a sham more than those who insist the looming disaster is real.

And now, the good professor:

I suspect I'm one of the few political bloggers who has no opinion about global warming. My problem is that I know too many intelligent and sincere people, with way more scientific expertise than mine, on both sides of the issue. Many on the left seem to assume that anyone who's skeptical about the cause and/or extent of global warming must be in the pay of the corporations; and many on the right seem to assume that anyone who thinks global warming is serious and manmade is just a shill for big government. I know from personal experience that both of those assumptions are just plain false.

But I suspect the stereotypes -- both stereotypes -- are largely true of all too many of the politicians and lobbyists involved in the debate. As I've written elsewhere:

We might compare the alliance between government and big business to the alliance between church and state in the Middle Ages. Of course it's in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance -- but all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner, so it?s no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a history of conflict and antipathy, as each side struggles to get the upper hand. But this struggle must be read against a common background framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.

Now the main difference, insofar as there is one, between the Establishment Left and the Establishment Right in this country is that while both are the running-dog lackeys of the neofascist government-business alliance, the Establishment Left somewhat favours a shift in power toward government, while the Establishment Right somewhat favours a shift in power toward business. Playing up the threat of global warming thus serves the interests of the statocratic faction, while playing down that threat serves the interests of the plutocratic faction ? and so you'd expect to see the two sides taking the sides they're taking, regardless of what the truth actually is. But it?s just a squabble within the ruling class.

In fact, of course, if global warming does turn out to be serious and manmade, that shouldn't lead us to grant more power to the state; the more serious the problem, the more disastrous any centralised, bureaucratic solution is likely to be. And if on the other hand global warming turns out to have been overhyped, that shouldn't lead us into complacency about the plutocracy either. Both halves of the ruling-class machine need to be dismantled, whatever the weather may bring.

And there's more:

I didn't quite complete my thoughts on global warming yesterday.

I talked about people who take the sides they do primarily on the basis of scientific evidence, and about people who take the sides they do primarily on the basis of political calculation. But I don't think either of those groups is the majority. Most people with positions on global warming don't have sufficient scientific expertise to belong to the first group, and aren't dishonest enough to belong to the second group.

I suspect most people take whatever position they take on global warming because people are generally more likely to read, and/or to believe, whichever scientific case best fits in with their worldview. If you're conventionally left-wing, then you're probably accustomed to thinking of business interests as selfish and irresponsible forces that need to be reined in by public-spirited civil servants, and so you?re going to view claims that seem to support the business community with heightened suspicion. If, on the other hand, you're conventionally right-wing, then you're probably accustomed to thinking of business interests as decent hard-working folks who are constantly being demonized and micromanaged by rapacious regulators, and so you're going to view claims that seem to support government regulation with heightened suspicion.

Even if these respective value-judgments were correct, one should be cautious about allowing them to influence one's view of the evidence. But I don't think they're even correct; one should avoid putting too much faith in either the bosses or the bureaucrats.

Here's the only other post I've made so far on global warming:

"political science"