ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Peter Foster: Don’t trust the global warming doomsters and their moral outrage
Fossil fuel development has – contrary to conventional wisdom – gone along with a cleaner environment
Al Gore once suggested that since climate change is a “moral issue,” it is “beyond politics.” You must not question “settled” science or policy “consensus.” You must check your brain at the door, and obey the dictates of, er, politicians.
Moral issues are ultimately about how we treat each other. Those such as Mr. Gore who espouse grim Biblical projections of droughts, floods and plagues of insects, all caused by the malign hand of industrial capitalist man, claim that they are only “speaking up for” poor people both now and in the future. They stand against “intergenerational tyranny.”
But even if one discounts the possibility that these sentiments are reflections of H.L. Mencken’s trenchant observation that the desire to save the world is almost invariably a false front for the urge to rule it, then that still leaves the question of whether catastrophic projections are likely to be true, and the policies proposed likely to be effective.
If anybody doubts that such questions lead to moral opprobrium, check out the online comments on my most recent column. That piece noted that the claim that 2014 was the “hottest year on record” was highly uncertain (as now confirmed by the British Met Office) or, if true, not particularly surprising. I also refuted the notion that for 13 of the past 15 years to be “the hottest years on record” was no more astronomically implausible after a period of warming (man-made or otherwise) than that a person would be taller as an adult than a child.
My reward for these observations was a tsunami of moral outrage. I am apparently not just scientifically ignorant but plain stupid. I am in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, or at least trying to drum up more advertising for the Post from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. One commentator even suggested that I was probably also opposed to gay rights.
The fundamental “moral” assumption behind all this sturm und drang is that fossil fuels – which are above all a proxy for capitalism — are “unsustainable” and thus morally “bad.” This assumption is well challenged in a recent book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein.
Mr. Epstein does an excellent job of outlining the astonishing benefits that the development of coal, oil and natural gas have delivered to mankind: improving health, lengthening lives and facilitating a vast expansion in both material welfare and leisure possibilities. He also notes, with copious data, that fossil fuel development has – contrary to conventional wisdom – gone along with a cleaner environment (China will get there eventually, once it embraces democracy). He explains clearly and logically why wind, solar and biofuels are technological dead ends. He lays out convincingly why attempting to force these technologies on developing countries amounts to a death sentence.
It is sometimes said that Canada has a “moral obligation” to support global initiatives. Stephen Harper has pointed out that he will not support any treaty that pointlessly damages the Canadian economy or fails to include the leading emitters, particularly China. But how, in any case, could there be any moral obligation to sign onto a global agreement that is not merely bad for future generations, who need fossil fuels to flourish, but that destroys wealth and damages freedom right now? It is particularly morally reprehensible to recommend more and bigger versions of policies that have already caused hardship and suffering. Obvious examples are the impact of biofuel policy on food prices, and how the subsidization of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power has driven the very poorest members of Western societies into “fuel poverty.”
Nevertheless, “authority,” itself a moral concept, has been successfully captured, and the ethical high ground has been seized by those who prefer to pour rhetorical boiling oil on those who question them rather than engage in debate.
Mr. Epstein does a fine job of exposing how professional doomsters such as Mr. Gore, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen and Bill McKibben have been as mendacious as they have been wrong. But the really fascinating issue is the moral mindset that makes these thundering Jeremiahs – and their acolytes — seemingly impervious to rational arguments and objective evidence. Thus the one area where Mr. Epstein’s book may fall short is in making the case promised in the title. Making a practical, rational case is not synonymous with making a moral case, or at least one that will convert diehard opponents.
Morality is based on feelings, which means that it doesn’t make people think very clearly or logically. In fact, it often stops them from thinking at all. That makes moral psychology one of the most fascinating – and contentious — of the social sciences.
Mr. Epstein’s book is well worth reading on its own terms, but it raises issues that demand much further and deeper analysis of our “moral sentiments.” The Catch 22 lies in the fact that, due to the nature of morality, such analysis is likely to be ignored, or angrily refuted.
And now I stand ready for my next dose of boiling oil.
http://business.financialpost.com/2...-you-cant-trust-the-global-warming-doomsters/
The comments perfectly sum up his point.
Fossil fuel development has – contrary to conventional wisdom – gone along with a cleaner environment
Al Gore once suggested that since climate change is a “moral issue,” it is “beyond politics.” You must not question “settled” science or policy “consensus.” You must check your brain at the door, and obey the dictates of, er, politicians.
Moral issues are ultimately about how we treat each other. Those such as Mr. Gore who espouse grim Biblical projections of droughts, floods and plagues of insects, all caused by the malign hand of industrial capitalist man, claim that they are only “speaking up for” poor people both now and in the future. They stand against “intergenerational tyranny.”
But even if one discounts the possibility that these sentiments are reflections of H.L. Mencken’s trenchant observation that the desire to save the world is almost invariably a false front for the urge to rule it, then that still leaves the question of whether catastrophic projections are likely to be true, and the policies proposed likely to be effective.
If anybody doubts that such questions lead to moral opprobrium, check out the online comments on my most recent column. That piece noted that the claim that 2014 was the “hottest year on record” was highly uncertain (as now confirmed by the British Met Office) or, if true, not particularly surprising. I also refuted the notion that for 13 of the past 15 years to be “the hottest years on record” was no more astronomically implausible after a period of warming (man-made or otherwise) than that a person would be taller as an adult than a child.
My reward for these observations was a tsunami of moral outrage. I am apparently not just scientifically ignorant but plain stupid. I am in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, or at least trying to drum up more advertising for the Post from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. One commentator even suggested that I was probably also opposed to gay rights.
The fundamental “moral” assumption behind all this sturm und drang is that fossil fuels – which are above all a proxy for capitalism — are “unsustainable” and thus morally “bad.” This assumption is well challenged in a recent book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein.
Mr. Epstein does an excellent job of outlining the astonishing benefits that the development of coal, oil and natural gas have delivered to mankind: improving health, lengthening lives and facilitating a vast expansion in both material welfare and leisure possibilities. He also notes, with copious data, that fossil fuel development has – contrary to conventional wisdom – gone along with a cleaner environment (China will get there eventually, once it embraces democracy). He explains clearly and logically why wind, solar and biofuels are technological dead ends. He lays out convincingly why attempting to force these technologies on developing countries amounts to a death sentence.
It is sometimes said that Canada has a “moral obligation” to support global initiatives. Stephen Harper has pointed out that he will not support any treaty that pointlessly damages the Canadian economy or fails to include the leading emitters, particularly China. But how, in any case, could there be any moral obligation to sign onto a global agreement that is not merely bad for future generations, who need fossil fuels to flourish, but that destroys wealth and damages freedom right now? It is particularly morally reprehensible to recommend more and bigger versions of policies that have already caused hardship and suffering. Obvious examples are the impact of biofuel policy on food prices, and how the subsidization of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power has driven the very poorest members of Western societies into “fuel poverty.”
Nevertheless, “authority,” itself a moral concept, has been successfully captured, and the ethical high ground has been seized by those who prefer to pour rhetorical boiling oil on those who question them rather than engage in debate.
Mr. Epstein does a fine job of exposing how professional doomsters such as Mr. Gore, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen and Bill McKibben have been as mendacious as they have been wrong. But the really fascinating issue is the moral mindset that makes these thundering Jeremiahs – and their acolytes — seemingly impervious to rational arguments and objective evidence. Thus the one area where Mr. Epstein’s book may fall short is in making the case promised in the title. Making a practical, rational case is not synonymous with making a moral case, or at least one that will convert diehard opponents.
Morality is based on feelings, which means that it doesn’t make people think very clearly or logically. In fact, it often stops them from thinking at all. That makes moral psychology one of the most fascinating – and contentious — of the social sciences.
Mr. Epstein’s book is well worth reading on its own terms, but it raises issues that demand much further and deeper analysis of our “moral sentiments.” The Catch 22 lies in the fact that, due to the nature of morality, such analysis is likely to be ignored, or angrily refuted.
And now I stand ready for my next dose of boiling oil.
http://business.financialpost.com/2...-you-cant-trust-the-global-warming-doomsters/
The comments perfectly sum up his point.
