97% consensus

I’d like to write about ‘climate change’ more, but it’s one of those things where I’m not sure my outrage or skepticism is articulated better than anyone else who writes well on the subject.  Tough territory!

Do note this, an article about an administration climate change report and a quote therein.


“In the long term, the combined stresses associated with climate change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity,” the report says.

Part of the effort by the warmists is to shame, cast doubt, or delegitimize anyone who’s not a credentialed scientist from expressing their skepticism of ‘climate change’.

This is extraordinarily fallacious in general.  But for any given premise in particular, like decreased agricultural productivity, I’d add…. You don’t need to be a credentialed scientist to have proper skepticism for some of these assertions.  Being a historian of some astuteness is enough.

And I have enough astuteness…

I’d feel comfortable betting every dollar I ever earn that agricultural productivity doesn’t decrease. Not because of ‘climate change’, not ever.   Not in the 21st century.   Not in the 22nd century.  Not in the 23rd century.

I’m not a scientist, but I’d venture the chances of agricultural productivity decreasing are so mathematically remote that they are rightfully viewed as practically impossible.  That’s history talking.


9 thoughts on “97% consensus

  1. pm1956

    I would not take that bet (ie., I agree that it is unlikely that agricultural productivity will decrease)

    That does not mean that I do not think that there will be significant cost issues associated with global warming–plenty of people will relocate, air conditioning costs will increase, severe weather costs will escalate, etc.

    1. Erik Petersen Post author

      Yes but….. mitigation seems to cost far more than the amount of the damage, and will not work if key countries don’t participate.

      Anyway, that’s a different line of detail.

      This yield / productivity decline is a poor quality prediction. Why is it in this document?

      What’s an ag decline prediction based on since it’s never actually gone down meaningfully in the last couple thousand years?

      Did ag yield / production go down during the medieval warming?

      Can a lay person critique ‘climate theory’ with a rock solid historical observation that says yield relationship is first to anthropology and technology, and then climate maybe a couple places down the list? Or is this off limits because scientists are smarter, impartial, and the ‘science is settled’ and consensus’.

      It it reasonable for lay persons to have an expectation that scientists should answer detailed critiques? Or should they just be happy with the response “the science is settled” and “consensus”.

      Is it reasonable for lay persons to have an expectation that warmist / liberal lay persons answer detailed critiques and converse fluently about this topic? Or should they just be happy with the response “the science is settled” and “consensus”.

      What I’m saying is the speech code that liberals invoke for climate change is supremely obnoxious.

  2. pm1956

    I do think that the science is generally settled–global warming is happening (completely settled), and human activity is one of the significant causes of global warming (certainly not the only cause, but this is also pretty settled).

    The more interesting issue to me is what to do about it. I would not be opposed to some form of a carbon tax (which I would use to replace other taxes–this would promote energy efficiency, which I think is a good thing generally–and I think that it would be a good form of a consumption tax for general revenue purposes).

    But I would prefer to avoid the most heavy handed regulatory schemes (pollution regulations are fine, but taxes and markets for pollution rights seem better to me).

    I think that we are unlikely to prevent global warming, and attempts to do so are going to be expensive and unsuccessful. I think that we should shift our focus to learning to live with it, instead.

    1. Erik Petersen Post author

      A left lib like you would be shooed away from articulating that just as much as a guy like me would, and again, my concern is the speech code that is used to smother that perspective.

      1. pm1956

        but I’m not shooed away from saying that. And it is pretty easy to find people who do say that sort of thing–Bjorn Longborn, for instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg)

        The Economist Magazine has also been pretty vocal about supporting exactly these types of policies.

        (which perhaps goes to point out that your obsession with labeling people/points of view and trying to fit them into your pre-conceived political typologies and theories is silly). There is no speech code smothering me, and I am not a victim, thank you very much.

  3. Erik Petersen Post author

    Well, uniformly the Democrats preferred solution is an elaborate taxation regime. Your perspective undercuts that. I don’t perceive that your party gives voice to your perspective.

    If you are from the right and have that perspective, you are derided.

  4. pm1956

    Generally, what tends to get derided are those (and most of them are on the right) who deny the science of climate change–who point to a blizzard and say that this disproves global warming.

    Personally, I don’t think that the science is wrong. The point is what to do about it, and that is not a question that science either addresses or can answer. That is a political question.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s