I’m not going to pretend that I can make much of the Fraser Institute’s analysis. I’m not a scientist, so on matters such as these, the best I can do is put faith in those who seem qualified and have reasonable motivations. On this later count, I have my concerns about this report. This line gives me immediate pause, “Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.”

My instinct is that with such sprawling data that any group, with any political bent, could draw conclusions that suit their needs. Simply put, I don’t think I can trust these guys. Seems like they’re starting with a conclusion and going from there.

I’m guessing that your response would be that others who view these data with a greater sense of alarm are motivated by the meme you speak of.

It’s hard to know where to begin to discuss the supposition that there’s an “Aesthetic Meme” at all. Your argument relies on a ton of supposition and extreme examples. To simplify my response as much as I possible can: couldn’t someone argue in response that most are really motivated by some sort “Conspicuous Consumption” meme. Examples, by lord, wouldn’t be hard to come by. I’m not making this argument. I’m really saying that it depends on point of view – of what one thinks a proper balance ought to be.

Here’s my real issue with your writing on this matter: your need to define those with a different viewpoint – who feel that the level of balance lies in a place other than the one you believe in – are falling prey to something “insidious.”

Many, I think, are concerned about what we see and read. I found Elizabeth Colbert’s series on climate change in New Yorker last year as particularly scary. This enlightens both my personal behaviors and my political advocacy. To reduce this motivation to a meme is, to me, the same as reducing my charitable interests or my family’s advocacy work to some sort of Compassion Meme. It’s offensive.

The point here is that I, and I think many others, are doing the best we can with the information available to us. I have every interest in making personal choices and advocating policies that are most effective. And this, frankly, is very hard. The information I get is often contradictory, or, as I sometimes find, is just plain wrong.

The difference between my point of view (and that of many others, I believe) and yours is that I don’t advocate the same level of caution you do, and I have no faith that the market forces or the policies you believe to address our current situation. I believe in more proactive policies, even ones where the outcomes are not 100 percent assured, are warranted. I’m willing to sacrifice some damage so some markets even if the benefits are not entirely known.

To be clear, I believe wholly in rigor. I believe in study and in doing things that make sense, and it drives me absolutely bonkers to see politicians and environmentalists take positions that are devoid of logic or sense. I could give a dozen examples right here, as I’m sure could you.

I guess the thing that really troubles me in your writing is not your position. I think that you and I could agree on much and be respectful of our differences. (Or maybe not, maybe you don’t feel this approach isn’t worth of respect.)

What gets me is your hostility. What’s the point? How is it effective in convincing me that any specific policy you advocate is worthwhile?

For an alternative summary based on the same scientific findings that I mostly endorse, see:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

I do have a couple of major problems with the science: the paleoclimate reconstructions give us a bad picture of recent history and the global circulation models don’t have much (if any) forecasting skill.

Both of these are well called out in the above link.

Do you accept the findings of the 2007 IPCC report on global climate change?