Doubting Marcus

“…But Clean Energy is Expensive”

I have a problem. Whenever I try to explain why humans should take serious steps to combat climate change if I’m not immediately facing long refuted myths I’m shortly hit with very bad arguments. When this happens, I have to contain the disbelief I want to show on my face and gently explain conclusions which I’d hope were obvious to everyone.

However disheartening it is to hear the 2012 Republican and Democratic platforms both downplay climate change relative to their platforms in 2008, I think I’m personally more frustrated by speaking with individuals who by and large accept climate change is happening, and is a serious challenge, yet still regularly produce a string of terrible arguments for why we shouldn’t do anything to combat climate change. Perhaps at the top of that is list if the often repeated focus on the current price of renewable or clean energy. This frequently falls off lips as something like “We shouldn’t do anything until the price of clean energy is competitive with gas and oil.” This, I think, is not just a bad idea because I have different values than those who utter these words, it’s a terrible argument for inaction on any issue even if you don’t think switching to clean energy will solve our the problem.

Having a high threshold for the potential long term costs of an action so long as the short term costs are low is value judgement. It’s not one I would endorse on this climate change but it is a possible reasonable position. However, categorically ignoring the possible long term costs, no matter what they are, because of the short term costs of a decision is irrational.

This would be obvious if instead of climate we were talking about a non-politicized issue like car maintenance. The family who says “We aren’t going to get our brakes fixed right now even though there are long term risks of not doing so.” is making a value judgment which may or may not be a good decision. Conversely, the family who says “It’s cheaper to not get our brakes fixed today so we shouldn’t no matter what the long term costs are.” has obviously failed to account for all the consequences of their actions. Believe it or not actions we take don’t just have immediate effects for the here and now but also have consequences for the future. In what is perhaps one of the least shocking conclusions I’ve been reduced to explaining to people, tomorrow is coming whether or not you plan for it.

Paul Ryan on Science and Secular Issues

The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s vice president has already been diced a thousand ways in less than 24 hours but there’s been little about his stance on science and, naturally, less about his stance regarding issues of separation of church and state both of which I’m very interested in. So here’s my first glance look at him on these topics now that he’s on national stage.

Hemant Mehta has already pointed out that the Secular Coalition for America gave Ryan an F for his 2011 congressional voting record as he voted for measures which create religious interference in U.S. policies at home and abroad. However what’s more concerning to me is not his values, but his abuse of a media controversy in 2009 to argue against the legitimacy of climate change. While Romney has been short of the facts on climate change, he acknowledges it’s happening and that humans are playing some role (at least he did) but he refuses to say what role, Ryan was among those who was cavalierly parading those (now) long refuted quotes from hacked emails as reason to cast doubt on climate science saying:

These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.

The CRU e-mail scandal reveals a perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion. The e-mail scandal has not only forced the resignation of a number of discredited scientists, but it also marks a major step back on the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific community. While interests on both sides of the issue will debate the relevance of the manipulated or otherwise omitted data, these revelations undermine confidence in the scientific data driving the climate change debates.

As Michael Cote at Climate Adaptation notes this was in the immediate wake of the story breaking and Ryan has not again spoke up about climate change, presumably he wouldn’t double down on his error today. However, it’s just stunningly wrong about almost everything, and contra Cote, saying scientists were intentionally misleading the public is conspiratorial (though certainly not James Inhofe level). Moreover the fact that it was a genuine controversy in the media doesn’t much comfort me about Ryan’s understanding of how science works or its place in political policy.

Lastly, I’ve been somewhat disappointed with Google for being unable to come up with even a single statement from Ryan on his stance on the teaching evolution versus intelligent design. However barring a tragic passing of Mitt Romney it won’t matter much in policy (it’s unlikely the Senate will consider an anti-evolution bill so his potentially tie-breaking vote as VP won’t matter). Romney is actually very strong in his support of evolution, beating back efforts to teach intelligent design while he was governor. Overall though, given the broad anti-science climate in current American politics, while I’d like much better it definitely could be worse.

What a Climate Change Conspiracy Would Mean

I get into a lot of arguments discussions about conspiracies but the one that most bothers me of late is climate change. Over time in these discussions I realized that the alleged conspiracy would have to be the largest ever by a wide margin and, because no one else had, I built up a list of what would have to be true for climate science, as a whole, to be a conspiracy. After the jump is the quite long but still not complete version of this story:

Read More

Pick’em Practicality

There are several tricks to accomplishing your goals, becoming more rational and communicating skepticism more effectively, here are a few that have caught my attention of late.

*Richard Alley’s new series How to Talk to an Ostrich is an almost perfect example of communicating climate change to those who don’t accept it (the name is the only issue).

*Julia Galef over at Rationally Speaking has a great look at the use of thought experiments in probing your reactions and motivations.

*Beeminder and Stickk offer services that let you bet against yourself, including that money potentially going to charities you despise, in order to accomplish your goals.

*Similarly Prediction Book allows you to wager on your predictive ability with the goal of making you more realistic about your predictive ability in different fields

I have the intention of using several of these tools in the near future. Hopefully I’ll be able to share some success stories soon as well.

The Mash Up 3-12-12

A collection of items not particularly worthy of an individual post

• I’m attending the Reason Rally… and I’m going in road trip fashion. This should be interesting to say the least with the long trip from Chicago to D.C. and because no one really knows how many people are going to show. Naturally I’ll cover my trip.
• I’ve fleshed out my page with a long overdue simple links page on my favorite skeptical resources and like the NCSE I’ve also expanded into climate science (except, of course, I provide none of the expertise). Forever ago I’ve also created a simple page on what I am, have, and will be reading but I just added the beginnings of a list of books I recommend. Check these out… or don’t. No pressure.
• If you aren’t watching the Vlog Brothers’ SciShow and Crash Course you are both missing out and, judging by the number of views their videos get, you may be the only person on the interwebs not to do so.
• Did I mention you can follow me on Twitter?
• This kind of post will become a regular occurrence

That is all