Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Science vs. Politics, Part 2

There is nothing in the science of climatology that tells us the proper response to a change in climate (small, large or catastrophic) is government intervention.

Where are the scientists who are alarmed by climate changes and who advocate free market solutions? Why do they instead promote increased government action and power which disrupts (or completely replaces) free market processes and limits individual choice and liberty?

This fact in and of itself should make their "scientific" conclusions suspect.

.

3 comments:

Doug Reich said...

Beth,

Per your request, here is Dr. Reisman's post in which he addresses this issue

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/02/word-to-environmentalists.html#links

Brilliant as usual.

Doug

Burgess Laughlin said...

> "This fact in and of itself should make their 'scientific' conclusions suspect."

Indeed, and the problem is not only pseudo-science, but pseudo-philosophy.

Beth, thank you. Your brief post presents a radical challenge. If pro-reason advocates pick it up and use it, the environmentalists must answer--or reveal themselves as evaders.

The challenge is to show how to complete this syllogism:

1. The climate is changing.
2.
3. Therefore an increase in statism is needed.

Doug Reich said...

Burgess,

I loved the syllogism - perfect!

Beth,

I did a post linking to this and quoting some of Reisman's post.

Again, nice work bringing this argument to the fore.