Intelligence Failure

On May 27 Edward Birge published a letter in our local newspaper:

There seems to be a tendency toward a mistrust or misunderstanding of science by many conservatives. Even though a scientific consensus may have been achieved with respect to climate change or other hot-button issues, they focus on the dissenters rather than the overwhelming majority of scientists.

A similar situation occurred in the late 1980s after HIV was identified as the causative agent of AIDS. Peter Duesberg, a member of the University of California-Berkeley faculty and the National Academy of Sciences, argued very strongly that no such association had been proven. Unfortunately, the Republic of South Africa’s president believed Duesberg and rejected antiretroviral therapy for AIDS patients, and recommended treating the disease with diet and herbal remedies.

The upshot was that, within about 10 years, South Africa had the world’s highest rate of AIDS infection. In some areas 30 percent or more of pregnant women had contracted the disease. In 2012, UNAIDS reported that roughly 70 percent of all 
AIDS cases worldwide still occurred in 
 sub-Saharan Africa.

Let us hope, for all our sake, that we do not suffer a similar fate due to politicians rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Today John Harris published a response:

A letter in this newspaper on May 28 said conservatives misunderstand the scientific “consensus” on climate change.

The writer advocated giving more money and power to the politicians.

Conservatives know there hasn’t been any global warming for 18 years and six months. None of the alarmists’ computer models — their sole means of prediction — predicted the pause. Hero Al Gore, who never debates, said in 2007 there would be no polar ice by 2013. NASA’s James Hanson said, “From 2000 to 2010 the temperature will rise 2 to 4 degrees.” Doomsday warnings have an expiration date.

What about the statements of environmentalist leader, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, official Ottmar Edenhofer. In 2010 he said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The article the interview appeared in summarized his views: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

In short, as economist Walter E. Williams said, “Climate-change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda.”

I can't be bothered to make a detailed reply right now.  Suffice it to say that our fate suffers from a combination of brains evolved to respond best to immediate threats and ideologically-driven confirmation bias.