The incentives of global warming alarmists

Posted by Marc Hodak on June 7, 2009 under Patterns without intention | Read the First Comment

This time...

...it is based entirely...

...on science!

When it comes to “global warming scientists” Freeman Dyson puts lays it out so beautifully:

The whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared.

Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.

If someone is paid to say something, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying–not by a long shot. But it does color what they say, because you know they couldn’t possibly say otherwise, even if that were the truth. I don’t expect an advocate to be balanced. But I never confuse an advocate for a scientist, even if one could be both.

TokyoTom said,

“If someone is paid to say something, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying–not by a long shot. But it does color what they say, because you know they couldn’t possibly say otherwise, even if that were the truth.”

Well said, Marc, but the only climate scientists being paid to speak out are the ones who are funded by industry-backed policy groups. The “alarmists” are the world`s collective academies of national science; sure there are some that are vocal, but simply because they`re extremely concerned. Being vocal generally goes against their grain, but in any case is a distraction from and not an aid to their work or funding.

As I said in my own blog post on Dyson`s article:

“Dyson is rather critical of Hansen, but it`s not at all clear that he understand`s Hansen`s position. But why attack Hansen, when Exxon and its CEO Rex Tillerson are now explicitly pushing carbon taxes? If any firm ought to understand fossil fuels – and the problems with government actions – it`s Exxon. Hansen is a vocal scientist, but he represents no particular special interests.”

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/30/jim-hansen-on-freeman-dyson-on-climate-change.aspx

PS: I am enjoying your insightful posts on executive compensation. My own view is that our federal regulation of public companies should get the lion`s share of the blame for the obvious moral hazard problems that led to the financial crisis:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/06/11/executive-compensation-robert-wenzel-sees-a-quot-united-states-of-obama-quot-i-see-people-too-frazzled-to-give-a-screwdriver-to-a-those-who-only-have-a-hammer.aspx