The noble lie

In this post I'll outline how I approach the global warming controversy. 

1. Appeal is made to "scientific consensus". That's an argument from authority. The argument from authority can be valid or invalid depending on the assumptions. Appeal to scientific consensus in general is fallacious inasmuch as most scientists lack expertise in climatology and atmospheric sciences. 

2. Apropos (1), appeal is made to expert opinion. That, too, is an argument from authority, but a more respectable version. It's often rational to defer to expert opinion. 

Sometimes we defer to expert opinion, not because that's an epistemic virtue, but because it's a practical necessity. There are situations in which deference to expert opinion is a forced option.

3. There are, however, other situations in which we have the luxury of suspending judgment. Just as it's often rational to defer to public opinion, there are other situations in which it's rational to withhold judgment. If I'm unqualified to render an informed judgment on a particular issue, suspending judgment is sometimes the most responsible course of action. Taking drastic actions can be reckless and harmful. 

4. Apropos (3), it isn't a binary choice. It is, for instance, possible to be a global warming skeptic rather than a global warming "denier". And there can be good reasons for skepticism (see below).

5. Proponents of global warming will say the fact that most folks aren't qualified to have an informed opinion on global warming is precisely why they should defer to expert opinion. And, all things being equal, deference to expert opinion is often rational. 

However, the argument from authority crucially depends on trust. It presumes that the experts are acting in good faith. That their stated positions are uncoerced. That their position isn't skewed by an ulterior agenda. 

Unfortunately, there's abundant evidence that "climate science" is heavily politicized. Evidence that scientific dissent is blacklisted. Data is manipulated. Scientific counterevidence is suppressed or destroyed. 

It's no secret that global warming zealotry is the spearhead of an underlying philosophy. Environmentalism is an ideology. A worldview. A secular religion. Environmentalism is hostile to human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. 

This is a moral crusade. Environmental ethics. "Environmental justice".  

Environmentalists are convinced that "sustainability initiatives" are a good idea even if global warming is bogus. For them, global warming alarmism is a noble lie. Even if the threat is widely exaggerated, that's justified by a larger principle. Global warming alarmism is a means to an end. 

That destroys the prima facie deference to expert opinion. Once we realize that the experts aren't offering disinterested information, it becomes rational to suspend judgment. 

The flip side of expert opinion is the ability to do a snow job on the non-specialist. Because the non-specialist is unqualified to evaluate the evidence, experts can abuse their authority to deceive the public with a blizzard of factoids. 

6. Ironically, the global warming establishment is antithetical to scientific inquiry. Carl Sagan made the optimistic claim that science is self-correcting. However, once the party line gets enacted into law, as official policy, climate science ceases to be a self-correcting process (if it ever was). At that point, scientific scrutiny is criminalized. 

7. The reputed threat of looming environmental catastrophe is not the only threat we need to consider or guard against. Another looming threat is the clear and present danger of totalitarianism. Consider how, under the Obama administration, the EPA abused its mandate. Consider how, during the Obama era, attorneys general were poised to prosecute global warming critics. Consider how the climate science establishment is an arm of the UN (IPCC). Consider how Google censors politically incorrect searches, which makes it increasingly impossible for the general public to fact-check global warming and other political orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. 

In our own time, totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far greater threat to the quality of life than global warming. Totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far more verifiable threat to the quality of life than global warming. 

Because I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on global warming, I'm a global warming skeptic. I withhold judgment.

Given a choice between the hypothetical threat of global warming and the existential threat of totalitarianism, I prioritize opposition to totalitarianism. And not coincidentally, global warming zealots are totalitarians.