Strassel: The Rise of the Climate Right

This is a case in which the truth does seem to lie between the extremes of our two main factions. Unlike, e.g., the debate over gender ideology, the climate debate isn't merely about a left gone mad--as Strassel notes (and as we all know) the right spent years denying that there was any reason for concern. And, of course, in this case the scientific arguments are too complicated for laypeople to evaluate them without technical training.

   I'm not at all sure what the hell is going on, but this is a fair summary of my own current, tentative view:

Here are a few noncontroversial findings from the report—based on peer-reviewed literature from recent years—that might surprise Times readers. Global warming has risks, but also benefits, including greater agricultural productivity. We still don’t know the extent to which human activity plays a role in warming, given natural variability, data limitations, uncertain models and fluctuations in solar activity. Models predicting what is to come remain all over the map. U.S. historical data doesn’t support claims of increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather. Climate change is likely to have little effect on economic growth. U.S. climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effect on global temperatures.

This is the honest, modest assessment of the state of climate science today. Which explains the climate activists’ fury, since it is at odds with the controlled story of “mass extinction” and “end of glaciers” and “deathly heat waves” that the “consensus” gatekeepers obsessively enforce. Complete control over that scientific narrative has been essential to their ability to manipulate debate and, under Joe Biden’s presidency, gear the entire government to “fighting” the “threat.”

I used to just accept climate apocalypticism on the basis of an appeal to expert consensus. But if you look into that issue, you rather quickly discover that the various tales we're told--e.g. that "97% of climate scientists agree..." aren't true. Or at least aren't well-supported by the commonly-cited studies (e.g. the Cook study).

   One more point: it's important to break out of this dopey cycle in which people flip-flop back and forth between:

The science is settled!

and

Science is never settled!

...depending on whether we like the conclusion at issue or not.

   The real story seems to be: science is never settled in principle...but it has hit on the truth in many cases, and those cases are, in that sense, settled. But in complex cases, it's settled less often than we had hoped--and less often than we sometimes think.

   Unfortunately, I think we have to conclude that science, in actual practice, isn't nearly as objective and rational as people like me--non-scientist science-groupies--have long insisted. The blatant politicization and "colonization" of science by the left is one gut-wrenching development of the past decade plus. This alone has to make us less optimistic about science in actual practice (as opposed to idealized science or science-in-theory). The other unpleasant development has been the replication crisis...

   Anyway, it certainly sounds like the publication of this report is a very positive development. Let's hope it moves the public debate in a positive direction.

   This is something about which we absolutely have to know the truth--and the only way to get there is via sober assessment of the available and emerging evidence.