Some little time ago, a report came out that unquestionably proved Global Warming was a real thing, and that no reasonable person could remain a skeptic. Of course, a news reports claims that report is itself badly flawed, and that data reveal something quite different.

The Czar is not taking one side over the other on this, and most of you already know the Gormogon viewpoint: something is going on with the climate, but we are far from having enough data to understand what that something is—and that with the useless mocking from one side and cherry-picking from the other, we aren’t going to figure anything out.

No, rather, the Czar would like to comment a bit on the reaction to the original report. Anti-climate change folks reacted with total indifference, more than reasonably expecting something would be revealed about the integrity of the report. And they were right about that last point.

But the pro-climate change folks reacted with a strange form of indifference of their own—mocking, typically, but generally agreeing that the report doesn’t matter much because “the Deniers” were never going to accept reality anyway, with their Young-Earth Creationism and stupidity.

This is the wrong approach. The AGW crowd (or whatever they prefer to call themselves; it’s difficult even keeping up with that) refuse to listen to the group they patently dismiss as “Deniers.” This not makes them more close-minded than the Deniers, but it infuriates the Deniers more.

Because the Deniers have a powerful point.

This stubborn refusal to listen is typically dismissed along the lines of “If they have anything worthwhile to say, they can publish their own scientific papers, which we don’t see them doing.”

The Deniers say their argument isn’t based on the science, to which the pro-AGW folks high-five each other and say “You bet it ain’t.”

The Deniers primary argument is based on the politics. In response, the pro-AGW crowd throws up their collective hands and decries the politicization of what should be settled science.

“But this isn’t settled,” say the Deniers, and pro-AGW crowd challenges them to publish a refutation; the entire loop repeats.

The issue here is that the pro-AGW crowd thinks the more charts, bar graphs, polar bear photos, and spreadsheets it throws to the media, the stronger their argument gets. But they are missing the core objection Deniers have: you need to address the politics you created, because that is not based on science.

If you are a pro-AGW person, read up carefully. You might find that more so-called Deniers agree with you than not. Surprise.

The objection is not toward the premise, it is toward the lunacy of the conclusion. If the climate is changing, and if mankind is reponsible—both testable hypotheses, by the way—then what is all this about environmental regulation, capping and trading, and wealth transfers?

The pro-AGW crowd has no idea what the heck that’s about; that’s the whole politicization thing they want to avoid. Unfortunately, some members of the pro-AGW crowd—who inarguably stand a massive financial benefit from the politics—are the only ones offering up a suggestion as to what should be done. And that is what turns the Deniers off.

Who came up with the term Deniers? Al Gore: the same guy who stands to make immense fortunes from the adoption of the political view. And by labelling skeptics as Deniers, he effectively removes your need to debate the skeptics on matter of politics. After all, they will just Deny, Deny, Deny. And that gives you an intellectual cop-out to listening to the objections.

A thought. Provide a reasonable, low-cost solution to AGW that is:

1. Direct, specifically reducing or contributing to the reduction of temperature increases
2. Measurable, so that its progress can be measured without finger-pointing and claims of falsification
3. Time-Specific, so we can agree to a goal by a certain year or decade
4. Controlled, so that we can prevent temperature change running rampant the other way
5. Economically viable, so that it doesn’t cause millions to starve in hopes that it will save thousands from relocating due to ocean level rise
6. Non Market-Driven, so that a particular class of investors does not rake in profits caused by the creation of an arbitrary shares market

Okay, that just about wipes everything out. And that, you see, is a problem—because all of these elements are tests for a realistic solution.

Eliminate fossil fuels? A common reflex good for protest signs, but is neither time-specific no economically viable. Cap and trade CO₂ emissions? That’s indirect, non-time specific, and is very much market driven. Green technologies? That’s immeasurable, and uncontrollable.

The solution is not to throw more data at the skeptics: the solution is to provide a solution. So far, all of the existing assumptions fail this basic test. In other words, you can win the argument that temperatures are increasing, and you can win the argument whether or not mankind is responsible—but it all comes to nothing if you cannot answer “What is to be done?” in a realistic and specific way.

Like the Occupy protests, you have failed to provide a solution: and as such, solutions were provided by Others. And it is the intentions of the Others that paralyze the discussion.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.