Categories
folly ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

Skepticism in Order

It is not a question of “belief,” says Anastasios Tsonis. 

In “The overblown and misleading issue of global warming,” this emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-​Milwaukee explains that in a “scientific problem ‘believing’ has no place,” going on to clarify: 

“In science, we either prove or disprove.”

And regarding climate there is no “settled science.” Lacking unquestionable experimental context — “we have only one realization of climate evolution” — no matter how strong our opinions, skepticism is always in order.

But let us admit the obvious, the “global warming”/“climate change” debate has been frustrating for just about everybody. And much of this is the result of dogmatism.

“The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality,” Tsonis insists. “We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.”

He argues that our lack of knowledge means that we should be circumspect about whether humans have caused the bulk of recent climate change. “Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability” — which, he says, “we clearly don’t.” 

Tsonis concludes talking about problems more urgent than climate change. We can (and should) quibble with his list, but we should be open about our reasoning.

One reason for concentrating on these other issues is that we might be more likely to gain clarity on them.

And thus might be able to do something not foolish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

denier, climate change, globlal warming, skepticism, science

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
folly free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Wide-​Eyed Wackiness

Where to begin? How about the very first sentence of the New York Times article hailing passage of the Dodd-​Frank financial bill? According to the illustrious fishwrap, “sweeping expansion of federal financial regulation” reflects “a renewed mistrust of financial markets after decades in which Washington stood back from Wall Street with wide-​eyed admiration.”

We’ve seen some liberalization of financial dealings over the years. It was once illegal to own gold. Travelers can be glad of the rise of interstate banking after governments began to permit it in the 1980s.

But have politicians really offered nothing but “wide-​eyed admiration” for “Wall Street” for “decades”? Has the federal government really been hands-​off till now?

Take Senators Dodd and Frank. They were out front pushing home ownership on people who could not afford homes, with multiple programs and legislative packages. This bubble-​making process was further inflated (quite literally) by the Federal Reserve’s cheap credit policies. Many lenders, encouraged by government-​provided (but perverse) incentives, jumped onto the Irresponsibility Bandwagon in the run-​up to collapse. 

So how can the “solution” be additional bailout authority … which will further encourage bankers and others to invest unwisely? 

And the new regulations — these, too, are supposed to help? We don’t even know what they are yet, because bureaucrats have yet to write them, as specified (vaguely) by Congress. In addition to their burden, they will allow pols to shake down Wall Street for years to come. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.