Well, you know my answer about practicing what you preach, and, oh, yeah, hard evidence rather than computer models. At Eugene Volokh’s spot, Jonathan Adler asks what it will take to convince Republicans and Libertarians (btw, you’ll need hit the story to see all the embedded links. Doing this on Droid)
(Washington Post) When it comes to climate change, there is an amazing confluence of policy preferences and scientific assessments. Those who generally favor aggressive regulatory interventions to address environmental concerns are convinced global warming is a serious (if not catastrophic) environmental concern, while those who generally oppose governmental interventions in the marketplace are skeptical of mainstream climate science. Each side of the policy debate has adopted a view of the science that confirms — or at least conforms with — its policy preferences.
Of course, Adler is coming down on the side of the Cult of Climastrology, and has since 2008
As I’ve written elsewhere, it’s long past time that self-professed libertarians and others on the political right consider climate change to be a serious problem. (See also here.) The Niskanen Center’s Jerry Taylor makes a similar point here. Alas, many libertarians and conservatives reject evidence of humanity’ effect on the global climate system for fear such evidence will be used to justify climate policies libertarians and conservatives rightly dislike.
Well, yeah. Most of us understand that the preferred policies of Warmists are based on junk science, would not solve the issue if it was real, and simply institute bigger and bigger government control with more taxation, higher cost of living, and redistribution.
What Adler is looking at is an article at Reason which asked the same question, which I covered 10 days ago. He ends his missive thusly, with an excerpt from the article
To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?
It is a question worth answering.
As to the excerpt from Reason in italic, I already did. To reiterate, none of those occurrences are outside the bounds of natural Holocene variability, and do not prove anthropogenic causation. As for Adler, he kinda forgets to actually answer it, nor does he provide a rational as to why we should implement the hard left policies recommended to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.
