My reply to Kevin Carson’s post Libertarians for Junk Science:
Whatever the sins of libertarians re junk science the statists are 100x worse. And in my view the libertarians (and fellow travelers) have been very good on junk science–Bruce Ames (of Alar fame), Peter Huber (Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto, Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science In The Courtroom and others), Elizabeth Whelan (Toxic Terror), Petr Beckmann.
And various libertarians have been good on critiquing the pseudo-scientific enviros, e.g. Lew Rockwell and Bob Bidinotto (as much as we might disagree w/ Bidinotto on other issues like war, Ron Paul, statism v. minarchy, IP, etc.)
As for AGW — it’s a mystery to me why anyone would believe this has been established. First, there is little doubt we are between ice ages–we are in an interglacial period. The earth will start cooling again–even if for some reason it does warm up a bit more before it finally starts to cool.
Second, it’s a mystery why people think change per se is bad, or why change in the warmer direction is bad.
Third, as to the idea humans are causing it — well I refer you to various material, et.. by Jerry Pournelle and physicist Freeman Dyson, and see also this by physicist Howard Hayden and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen.
Fourth, even if we are causing it, it’s not clear that we can stop it, or that we should stop it–better to live in a world of energy and AGW problems, than to live in a world without energy (to put it starkly).
As I wrote here:
I’m against the state. I’m against junk science. I’m against science used by liberal arts and women’s studies majors from Brown who now infest the state to advance their anti-capitalist interests.
I believe we are in an interglacial period. I believe the evidence trotted out so far by global warming advocates is spotty and selective, and almost always insincere and agenda-driven, or driven by pure ignorance. I believe that global warming would probably be good, but is not going to happen. I suspect that even if it were happening and even if it were bad, the cost of stopping it would far exceed its damages–that is, that it’s not worth it to stop it; that human survival is more important, ultimately, than environmentalist concerns; moreover, I would never trust the state to make this assessment or to impose the “right” regulations to ameliorate the “problem.”
I think that the global warming advocates are not interested in real science or real debate–they want to just take their temporary popularity in the polls and among the arts & croissant crowd, among the DC jetset bored housewives and ditzy Hollywood stars and parlay that as quickly as possible into legislation sponsored by corrupt pols like Nancy Pelosi. I.e.., they just want to win, right away, as quickly as possible before the public starts to catch on or yet another pseudo-science fad catches its eye.
The primary enemy is the state. Any scheme that involves them as a part of the “solution” to a posited problem is obviously flawed. I have no wish to cooperate with or endorse that criminal gang’s legitimacy. Period.