Well, one of the posts has (surprisingly enough) veered off into questions about intelligence, warfighting, and preemption. And, predictably enough, the conversation, in large part, reflects the fact that people have worn a lot of their comfortable, faded, broken-in arguments to the fight. In general, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’ve been thinking a bit over the last few days about stuff in general and have come to a couple of conclusions, the most important of which is this:
The Iraq War debate is, at its heart, equivalent to the arguments over Global Warming.
Both the doctrine of preemption and the reduction of carbon emissions are predicated on the assessment that in both cases, a false positive is of much, much greater consequence than a false negative, such that the downside potential of a false positive in either scenario is far too high to accept and completely overwhelms the consequences of a false negative.
Granted, this evaluation doesn’t place great emphasis on true positives and true negatives, but that’s beside the point. In both instances, we’re using incredibly imprecise and unreliable forecasting methods, for which we can get little substantive supporting proof. Even worse, it’s not the weaknesses of the methodologies themselves, but rather the looming specter of the “unknown unknowns†that compels close examination of the costs of incorrect outcomes. This is because the expectation value of a risk is the likelyhood of the outcome times the consequence of the outcome, and with high variability in this case, the value of the true positives and true negatives becomes much less significant, given the way that policy debate is conducted in the US.
Now, before we get off on the particular merits of Iraq and Kyoto, let’s take a quick look at the consequences of cognitive (particularly confirmation and disconfirmation) biases. Without getting into the hairy details of the mechanics of the biases, let us just simply note that nobody ever has as strong a grasp of political issues as the strength of their opinions would lead them to believe. The vast majority of people have a strong command of a specific issue area, but their outlook outside of their focus tends to be more heavily informed by the projection of their own narrative framework projected onto a given set of facts. In particular, this is manifested through cognitive bias behaviors.
At this point, many folks are going to note “Hah! The other guys, who are axiomatically wrong about this-that-and-the-other-thing have fallen prey to some sort of cognitive bias!â€Â
Not so fast.
What it tends to mean most often is that the positions drawn by both sides are often only loosely related to the actual issue under contention, but are simply a showcase for a preexisting set of conclusions. In practice, the more detailed circumstances surrounding a contentious topic are almost always more complex and greyer than generally imagined.
In the case of Iraq, what it all, essentially, boils down to is that a number of reasons were given for war with Iraq (what Cynn so delightfully refers to in a similar case as “mixed messages and rhetorical moonwalkingâ€Â, or as Kerry put it “nuanceâ€Â). These reasons were pretty broad and covered as many bases as possible. However, since the debate today centers around WMD and proliferation, I’m going to restrict myself to that family of considerations.
Was Iraq in violation of the letter of the law regarding WMD? Absolutely.
Was he substantially in violation of the spirit of the law regarding WMD? Tough call.
Was there any way to know, short of war, whether or not the technical violation was simply the only a trace of a substantive violation that he managed to conceal? None at all.
If you all go in the wayback machine, the crux of the debate in early 2003 was whether or not the trigger for implementation of UN 1441 was a technical or substantive violation of the resolution. (Of course, I’m not touching the other two-thirds of the argumentation of the Iraq War, despite the fact that those who have argued most loudly about Bush’s Manichean worldview and lack of nuance seem to be remarkably simplistic on causation here.)
Internationally, everyone pretty much agreed that a substantive violation merited a massive military response, while a purely technical violation (particularly one that was not in bad faith) did not require a full military response.
But, here’s the kicker. Arms negotiations and disarmament are essentially based on the principle of “trust, but verify†– the exercise here is for the party that has given up their capability must demonstrate to the inspecting party a good faith effort on their part to remove or neutralize the capability in question. If the disarming party is hiding something, then that is basically a failure to disarm according to the agreement – whether or not they actually have retained the capability. It sounds odd, but it is essentially the only way to tackle the problem of “I swear to Allah, I really did give up my nuclear program, and I really, really, mean it this time. Really!â€Â
This then puts us in a rather odd situation. Hussein, after the 1991 Gulf War was commanded to get rid of all of his WMD capacity. And the west had verified, to its satisfaction that the WMD programs, in particular, the nuclear program had been gotten rid of. However, once a Hussein son-in-law skipped the country and dropped the dime on Hussein, the west discovered that there was a huge capability that had not been turned over and had been concealed.
So folks went around and inspected and verified and did all that kind of stuff, but Iraq couldn’t at any point, ever bring themselves to come completely clean. If we fast forward to 1998, the west was still certain he had something up his sleeve. If we then go all the way to the UN Clusters Working Document, Iraq still hadn’t come completely clean. They were still found in violation of UN resolutions.
So, the only way on earth that Iraq could have been in compliance with requirements is if they went off, scrapped all their kit, lied about it, didn’t tell anyone, and destroyed all the records. This, as it turns out, seems to be pretty close to what happened – although it will be another couple decades before the rest of that story plays out.
But, to turn this around, did it make any sense, whatsoever, in any way shape or form, to go to war over a clerical mistake? Clearly not.
But to turn it a bit further, we had no way of verifying it to be a clerical error, given the behavior of the actors at the time, short of war.
So the question of WMD really boils down to how one chooses to manage the consequences of a false negative versus the downside potential of a false positive.
Kind of like the Global Warming debate.
So, now that we’ve looked at two cases of managing downside risk potential for false positives and false negatives, does anyone have anything productive to suggest about Iran, other than doing nothing and watching from the sidelines as the worst case scenario unfolds?
****
you can see some of Bravo Romeo Delta’s other work at Anticipatory Retaliation.
The problem with the Left’s argument, is without the benefit of hindsight, there is no argument. Even their greatest heros France, the UN and Clinton thought that Iraq had WMD’s.
As for Iran. I like insty’s plan. And it seems like it might be in the process of being carried out. A little triming here and there, and perhaps the means to the outcome will change.
Interesting piece indeed. It skips the squabbling about the specific details and goes straight to a core issue.
Sadly, there won’t be many (on both sides) willing and able to have a mature debate on that core issue.
1) WMD’s were the only reason we went to war in Iraq?
2) Iraq was NOT in breach of the “spirit” of the law?
3) “a purely technical violation (particularly one that was not in bad faith) did not require a full military response” Contast this with the fact that Saddam was a known supporter of terrorist organizations – giving money, safe harbor, and other aid, had links to al Qaeda, and the Bush Doctrine: we will “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”
I like you post, with respect to the comparison of Global Warming to Iraq, in that our biases make us more likely to support a government intervention to solve a problem we are not 100% certain needs fixing, but in making your argument you got some facts a little skewed.
I’m not a huge fan of the Reynolds plan, as I guess it will come to be known in these parts, because it hasn’t worked all that well for the Israelis. Kill one leader, and a new one pops up within hours. It may be unfair of me to compare the Iranians with the Palestinians, but for the sake of this discussion I am.
Yes, that is true. But kill one nuke scientist… I dont imagine there are that many of those.
And? You kill that one. Another one pops up. Kill that one.
Sure, it’ll take a while, but eventually you’ll get the point across.
Trying to get the ‘76 Powerwagon to turn over, because it’s blocking the company car in the garage (which has a flat tire). I need to wear ballmuffs to keep my scrotum from shattering, since it’s another -5 post-groundhog day morning.
Kinda makes it hard to buy into the whole global warming cash cow. Strangely enough, the people trying to sell me on my impending doom due to frozen nuts brought on by global warming, are the same folks telling me that fighting islamonuts over in the Middle East is not necessary because Middle Eastern ay-rab types mean us no harm.
Oh and our Governor Ted Strickland (D) says keep your sweaty Iraqi refugees out of Ohio.
Fabulinus,
I didn’t state that WMD were the only reason:
When speaking to technical versus substantive violations, I am also not speaking to arguments about the other two main categories of rationale given.
As to whether or not the violation was technical or substantive, is a matter of debate, but for the time being, I’m going to pass on digging up the bulk of that debate.
BRD
TW: Although in ‘98 it did appear that Saddam was still in substantive violation.
“The Iraq War debate is, at its heart, equivalent to the arguments over Global Warming.”
Expand that thought to include anything upon which we rely on others to be scientific and disinterested. Ideology ramps the discourse onto a chosen track, then the inevitable derailing
of the discussion into acrimony makes the salient issue clear as mud, except to the extreme wings.
We have a credibility crisis. Who do you trust to provide the accurate picture? If you rely on your own resources, do you have the time and training to filter properly? Most do not.
Everyone seems to have an agenda so strong that
it seems justifiable to distort the record or
simply use scare tactics to draw some attention
to the issue. The resulting confusion upon the population, in general, leaves us where we started. Those we look to for guidance who have credibility get lost in the American Idol entourage and their auditioners. Or they get attacked for not being more, or less militant in their appraisal of whatever crisis their field of study entails. Too much information for anyone to filter is worse than no information at all.
Semanticleo,
This is partially the point I make, however, it does suggest that in the absence of the ability to dig through enormously complex models and forbidding amounts of information, that one starts focusing on the more accessible elements: the consequences of failure. For in few cases is incomplete information a justification for passivity.
BRD
’For in few cases is incomplete information a justification for passivity.’
You don’t mention the flak arising over the
Iranian IED’s and the ominous insertions
in the President’s recent speeches that seem
to provide legal CYA for exercising his war powers.
Is your above quote one that the President
will use to justify using half-baked information to
recoup some temporary respite from past failure?
Perhaps, but this has problems as well. First, Iran is not a free country so we may well be killing people who are doing work against their will. Second, I wonder if the Iranians are stupid enough to protect their nuclear sites but not their nuclear scientists. Lastly, this might have the effect of really pissing off the Iranian people who don’t see the scientists involved as part of the power structure that is keeping them down.
Yes, but you will never kill them all. The Iranians will take steps to stop the killing and even worse the ones who pop up to replace the originals become increasingly more insane then the ones they replaced.
Think of it like this, if it were the United States, eventually Jon Cary, or Hillary! would be tapped to be the replacement.
Eventually, hell – if it were guaranteed they’d become the next targets for removal, some might suggest their names very early in the process of replacing leaders….
cleo, could you give specific instances that you would consider causus belli?
KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY UTERUS!!! AND MY WAR POWERS!!!!
Projection is fun, ain’t it?
BRD,
Sorry, I must have missed that. lol.
I stand by my assertion that Saddam was in absolute violation of the law. He kept his scientists in place, continued to buy dual use equipment, and was known to question his top WMD advisors about how soon the programs could be up in running (this is all in the Dulfer report, and I blogged extensively on the WMD issue). We also know that Coalition forces have found 500+ WMD’s (many not catelogued by the UN, a smoking gun if you will. And I don’t care if they were “old,” the fact remains he supposedly didn’t have any at all. 0. none. We found 500+. And parts for a nuclear centrifuge. And tons of Uranium. And Biological strains. And thousands of gallons of chemicals. And two missile programs in violation of the UN requirements).
Fabuilnus,
I do agree that he was flat-out in violation of the law.
To draw an analogy, it’s as if everyone agrees that a given driver is speeding, but can’t decide if he’s doing 120 mph in a 55 mph zone, or 75 mph in a 55 mph. I’ve been familiar with a very large amount of open-source material, prior to the war, and fully expected to find much more material than was found. When I speak of substantive versus technical violation, I suppose it would be like comparing Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib – one is a Gigantic Enormous Deal, the other is simply A Bad Thing, by way of comparison. Conflating the two is a dangerous, dangerous thing (something the esteemed Sen. Durbin should note more carefully).
BRD
Or they could have come into compliance by shipping their stuff out, too.
In both cases, they’re only in compliance de facto. By law, they had to account for their destruction or other disposal of WMDs to be in compliance.
BRD,
You, and such commenters as fabulinius, leave something out. I gather from your post that you’d rather not go there, and so are trying to finesse it. Finessing doesn’t work if East still has KQ of trumps —
Actually there are two things: bigotry and “locality”, the latter a nice euphemism for egocentric obliviousness. One leads to the other.
George Bush should have grown up—wrong; turned out essentially indistinguishable from John Kerry, a scion of Northeastern wealth, part of what (they see themselves as) the “worthwhile people” of America. Instead he abandoned all that, taking up instead with the redneck cracker “xtianists” they hold in such contempt. Bush is thus what any committed ideologue, especially one who hasn’t considered (and refuses to consider) the position, finds most unsettling: an apostate. This is where we get semanticleo and cynn, and unswerving dedication to absolute support of anyone who opposes Bush on any grounds. Death to the unbeliever! Anything less is “carrying water for the Administration”.
I’ve forgotten the actual terms used, but it’s a well-known phenomenon that people are most conscious and aware of the things they deal with daily, and have only a theoretical appreciation (if that) of anything outside that charmed circle. The vociferous critics of the Iraq war are the ones who’ve never been there, and are almost entirely drawn from the selfsame self-described “elite” mentioned above. Their surroundings are those of wealth and power, and that has always been so. Furthermore, those surroundings are as narrowly insular as quasi-ethnic isolation can make them. The result is not only that “Iraq” is at best an abstraction, that abstraction exists only within the context of their own worldview—it’s “real” only as an issue useful in attempting to wrest power from the despised apostate.
There is no point whatever in attempting to reason with them on the subject of Iraq by bringing up details or any other version of “reality”. The reality is that, to a very close first approximation, “Iraq” exists only as a noun associated with a policy of George W. Bush, which must be opposed at all costs. It might as well be “Oz” (L. Frank Baum version) or “Alpha Centauri”. If Bush proposes it, it is the policy of an apostate infidel, and must be opposed on any ground available.
“Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. I find them by thinking, or at my desk, anywhere but in a meeting hall. That is where I transmit them.”—you may amuse yourself by attributing that quote.
This state is, in their perception, either cost-free or of minimal, easily meetable cost. As mentioned before, they are rich and comfortable, and have always been so. They can conceive of losing political power, because it has occurred in the past; they cannot conceive of losing their wealth and privilege as a group. The United States is strong and wealthy, enough to support them in the style to which they have become accustomed. This has always been so; it will always be so; nothing can disturb or damage that. Therefore there is no need to address any threat to the wealth and strength of the United States, and any such suggestion is “bedwetting”. It is absolutely necessary to respond ruthlessly to any threat to their political power, or to any obstacle to their gaining more.
It is precisely what Gibbon meant by “decadence”. The <i>Senatus Populusque Romanum” was firmly convinced of their own inviolability; Rome was rich and strong, had always been so, and would always be so in the future. It was therefore completely without cost for the citizens to appease the barbarians, the Goths and Vandals, because nothing those contemptible outsiders could do would disturb their comfort; they could indulge themselves in “local politics”, logrolling and backstabbing one another in self-indulgent infighting. The analogy is by no means perfect, but the emotional attitude is exactly the same.
So will the result be, unfortunately. Perhaps some time in the far future another society will invent liberalism. This instance is dead, and arguing about whether the death throes go left or right in the proper case is futility.
Regards,
Ric
thread killer
Ric, aside from what may be an overstatement regarding the death of liberalism (talk to these folks about that one), I think you have some valid points here. But you left out an important one.
In the minds of the left/liberal nitwitterati, the dream state of the late ‘90s – that Pax Clintonista, as it were – was foreordained to continue with the omnipotent and benevolent rule of Al Gore. It was, as they say, a “slam-dunk”.
But Gore screwed the pooch.
Gore failed to convince his own “home state” of Tennessee to elect him Dear Leader – a critical factoid that has been completely erased from the minds of an electorate hypnotized by media focus on hanging chads and the “unfairness” of the Electoral College. Thus it was Gore’s failure changed the course of history.
No one likes a failure, but some react to the phenomenon worse than others – especially those folks of a psychological bent that inclines them to project their failure onto others.
In addition to seeing Bush as an apostate, the nitwitterati have projected Gore’s failure (and by extension, their own) onto Bush, with violent results. Thus we see how the Democratic Party has been transformed into a seething Anti-Bush Party. This also explains how the predominantly left-leaning media has been transformed into a propaganda mill featuring all-Bush-bashing-all-the-time.
Liberalism isn’t dead. Those who hijacked that ideology in order to secure their power and wealth have just kidnapped it. Time for a rescue mission, I think.
nevermind
Ric,
Excellent, excellent points. They aren’t precisely where I intended to go with this post, but are actually and end consequence of where I started going. I hope to get a few minutes to write something in response.
RBD
goy,
I’m afraid you’re a bit too US-centric, and it lets you ignore some things. The phenomenon is world-wide.
It is, in fact, true that the predominant mode of expression of the current pseudoLeft is projection. But it ain’t just Al’s failure they’re projecting.
A Leftist is, more or less by definition, a supporter of labor, groups with progressive agendas, and people who stand up to oppression. The international pseudoLeft, of which the U.S. Democratic Party is a sometimes-reluctant but fully paid up member, is perfectly willing to dump any such folk in the ditch if they are insufficiently vociferous in their anti-Bush sentiments. Iraq is a useful case in point: it had (and has) several labor and self-declared progressive groups, including Communists and Socialists. All of them welcomed the end of Saddam, and at least provisionally accepted that it was US intervention that accomplished that—and none of them can even get invited to the Party Congress any more, let alone teevee time. Instead, the pseudoLeft opines that what is needed is an “efficient dictatorship” to bring such dissidents in line. This effect is actually stronger in Europe than it is here in the US. Al Gore’s failure is a symptom, not a cause.
Regards,
Ric
BRD,
I’ll look forward to it.
But this is, in fact, where Iraq and Global Warming intersect.
Electricity comes from wall sockets; heat comes from gas pipes. It has always been so; it will always continue to be so. Campaigning against coal-fired electric plants (e.g.) is a cost-free activity, because if it succeeds the wall sockets will still be there, no? And if they can gather enough adherents:
“If a movement wins political power, it can do those positive things it wants to do. Only then does it have the power to protect its accomplishments. At the moment a movement or party wins control of the state, its worldview becomes the state and its party becomes the nation.”—ibid
Regards,
Ric
“cleo, could you give specific instances that you would consider causus belli?”
TomB;
First, I would like to have some response to my 09:14.
You won’t apply that same logic used to justify a war to saving the Earth but you’ll use it again to justify another war?
semanticleo,
Okay, it’s a ridiculously loaded question that no one here could possibly have enough knowledge to answer.
How’s that?
“For in few cases is incomplete information a justification for passivity.”
Context is everything, my dear Pablo.
Good dodge, though. Want to try again?
Plus, global warming is a crock.
Why in heaven’s name would you want that?
And that wasn’t my post you were referring to, why the hell should I respond?
Good dodge, though. Want to try again?
Not when it’s irrelevant, as in this case.
and a pony.
that’s what I thought.
Semanticleo sez:
I’m sorry, I’m kind of bopping around a lot today, but was this in reference to the Kyoto Protocol or something?
BRD
or something. very perceptive. nice talkin’ to you.
So cleo, how about an answer to the causus belli?
Who’s this Cassius? Melvin Belli’s brother?
Semanticleo –
Sorry – I just couldn’t resist the dig. More broadly, however, both scenarios raise significant questions about actions in an environment of imperfect information, and risks which are very difficult to forecast. Neither problem is amenable to slam-dunk solutions devoid of consequence, but consequence, in and of itself, is not prima facie evidence that no action should be taken.
In any case, gotta jet.
Cheers,
BRD
BRD;
Thanks for the response. However your prose is
so abstract I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing
with your basic premise. But the devil IS in the
details.
I look forward to engaging you on this subject when
the discussion is a little more concrete.
Still waiting for my answer, cleo…
Ric, the phenomenon is indeed worldwide. And if that worldwide phenomenon subsumes the elements you describe – opposing the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush at all costs; seeing GWB as an “apostate” of the elite; the view of the United States as “strong and wealthy, enough to support them in the style to which they have become accustomed” – then it’s hardly me being “too US-centric,” don’t you think?
I also agree that it ain’t just Al’s failure they’re projecting. In fact this is precisely what I wrote.
As for Gore’s failure: without it, the Bush-bashers don’t get a Bush to bash, so it’s undeniably causal in the context of today’s circumstance. And unless we can find a way to attribute some of the elite’s assessment of Bush to Gore, his failure (i.e., to carry his own home state in 2000) isn’t symptomatic of anything other than his profoundly disingenuous persona finally catching up with him.
In fact, I’d go further to observe that Gore’s rejection by his transplanted ‘home’, followed with rejection by his country are the very reason his ego has forced him (and people like John Kerry) to ‘go global’, as it were. In that sense I think Gore’s current behavior is absolutely symptomatic of the decadent phenomenon you have accurately (IMHO) identified. Per the topic at hand, the cost – to him – in this quest is nonexistent. He no longer sees himself as having any responsibility to the nation and people he’s actively undermining.
Think of it like this, if it were the United States, eventually Jon Cary, or Hillary! would be tapped to be the replacement.
Neither of those could build a bomb. Quality suffers when you scrape the bottom of the barrel. I’m unclear on how Iran having poorer quality scientists working on bombs is somehow a negative.
Perhaps you can expand on the exact mechanism of that phenomenon.
goy, I think your last paragraph is an important insight and will be thinking on it.
As for being US centric, I expressed myself poorly in a (vain, as usual) attempt to be brief. The entire Left has succeeded in gaining a modicum of power, especially in Europe, but has utterly failed to deliver on its promises, particularly the ones made in the Fifties when Left and Right alike were promising untold wonders of efficiency from central control. This limits their further gains, and constrains their actions when they do gain. The United States has succeeded remarkably, and done so by violating every standard the pseudoLeft abides by; this causes enormous resentment and consequent vile behavior. The US as a whole is to the international pseudoLeft as George Bush is to U.S. Democrats.
Regards,
Ric
Apparently, Saddam believed he had WMD himself, so it’s little wonder everybody else in the world thought the same.
This article offers tactics on how to win debates over Iraq in 2-3 sentences. It is great for work or for social gatherings.
Great post, though I would like to point out that even if you accept that global warming is a big enough threat that we should Do Something about it, Something doesn’t need to be Kyoto. We can discuss different possibilities for what’s happening (leaving aside the unknown unknowns) and conclude that, even if we’re not sure which model is closest, Kyoto is almost certain to be a worse idea than, for example, something that leads China and India (as well as the developed world) to reduce their emissions and costs a lot less.
I’ve actually thought about this many times… especially when the AGW guys get on the topic of “consensus”. There may or may not be a “consensus” among experts on anthropogenic climate change (it would depend on what you were claiming the consensus to believe), but there was inarguably a consensus amongst the experts regarding Iraq’s possession of WMDs.
It’s almost enough to make you wonder if the “consensus” argument is sincere!
I think the most important difference between ‘Kyoto’ and the ‘Ceasefire between Kuwait and Iraq’ is that ‘Kyoto’ is a non-binding multilateral agreement for those who didn’t sign it whereas the ‘Ceasefire’ was a binding bilateral agreement between Kuwait and Iraq. All relevant resolutions on Iraq including the notorious 1441 based on the ceasefire resolution 687 – none of which has entitled any third nation to declare the end of the ceasefire, be it in the name of Kuwait or Iraq.
Unlike centuries ago, a ceasefire today is regarded as the restoration of peace. According to modern international law, even the condition between Israel and Syria is: Peace.
Imagine now that Iran would accuse Israel of having broken the ceasefire agreement with Syria – and attack Israel without even asking Syria. You surely would say that such an attack is an illegal war of aggression, right?
But this is exactly, what the U.S.A. have done in the case of Iraq. The U.S.A. have not been entitled to declare end of peace/war with any ‘material breaches’ of any relevant Iraq resolution, that would have been Kuwait’s privilege alone. And this is the reason why Operation Iraqi Freedom was an illegal war of aggression, like it or not.
It is absolutely nonsense to make further comparisons between Kyoto and the Iraq War, but maybe that’s exactly what the rightosphere needs in these times.
2020, the ceasefire was negotiated between an Iraqi delegation and H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Now he might have been representing the Kuwaitis, but it’s more likely he was representing the Coalition forces as CiC of USCENTCOM.
The real difference between the Iraq war and global warming is that while the risks of doing nothing are high in both cases, there was/is hard evidence of Saddam’s treachery, while the “proof” of global warming is anecdotal or otherwise fairly limp. Global warming proponents cannot say, with a straight face, how much of our current warming is manmade or natural, so whatever consequences of global warming would not have happened if not for humanity’s influence they simply can’t speak intelligently on.
In their defense, there’s no control half of the global warming hypothesis. It’s not like we have a spare Earth in a petri dish, unadorned by man, with which we can compare temperatures with our planet. And if we did have a “Pinky & The Brain” Chia Earth, maybe the polar bears die off there, too. We just don’t know.
However, we do have information, thanks to the Duelfer report and others, which can intelligently speak on what would have happened had the war not occurred and had sanctions been lifted.
Dr. Timothy Ball of Canada says: Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
For those who forgot what the UN Resolutions regarding Iraq were, its time to do some homework: Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq
Did you happen to note Kuwait’s position on the matter, 2020? To this day, they’re very supportive members of the Coalition.
Good God man, that was really wordy, but the gist of it is something I’ve been wondering about for a long time.
Terrorists are real, their intentions clear, and their willingness documented in the New York skyline… but Michael Moore says “there is no terrorist threat”.
Global warming, on the other hand, is likely a natural variation, but oh, no we must throttle our industry and expand government power even further just in case it’s real!
And yet, what’s the body count of each?
It’s like the left’s view of history. History is full of millions dying at the hands of out-of-control governments, throughout history and especially in the last century alone. But no, they say, it’s corporations which are the threat to liberty … and their solution to that “threat” is to expand government power!
Funny, that… government power seems to be their answer to everything, real or not.
And then there’s the question of effective response. Deposing Saddam and fostering a democratically elected government and moderate society in Iraq was and is a risky proposition, but one in which we might reasonably conclude we could succeed. Holding back climate change – since climate change is GOING TO HAPPEN whether or not a particular trend line noted today is anthropogenic – we don’t have a prayer. My view has long been that we need to be prepared for the inevitability of climate change, one way or t’other, and worry a lot less about the causes. Particularly when the thing being held up by so many as THE cause is also what makes our quality of life so great.
As to Ric and goy’s very interesting discussion, I wish I could remember where (besides Instapundit) this week I read the comment that global warming is either a threat to humanity or a fashionable but empty “cause,” but can’t be both – so why are so many people who claim to be very, very concerned about it flying all over the place in private jets to talk about it? (Actually I guess this ties in with the false-positive/false-negative discussion too; it appears that these very, very concerned people suspect a false-positive, or else they’d walk the walk a little more convincingly. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.)
Jamie – Google had one of Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t! videos up for a while. They took it down when people started viewing it in numbers recently. A *cough* bandwidth *cough* issue, no doubt.
Anyway, intercut with the hilarity of hundreds of lemmings signing a petition to ban the pervasive chemical compound dihydrogen monoxide was a series of cuts from an interview with Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders (and long-ago-ex-member) of Greenpeace. In that interview he explains why he left the organization, how the environmentalist movement was hijacked by socialist ideologues, and why.
As the warnings get more shrill, the consequences more dire and the scientific details more vague (someone please find the mathematical definition of ”Most” in the IPCC’s recent report – there’s a fiver in it for anyone who can), it’s becoming clear that the global warming movement isn’t so much a fashionable but empty “cause,†as it is a deliberate ruse.
This has been obvious to some folks for a long time – notably those who picked up on the significance of the ‘carbon credits’ aspect of Kyoto, i.e., the inevitable billions of dollars involved, the countries that will be forced to tax their people to afford those billions, the countries that will receive those billions, and the hands through which those billions will pass. It has the potential to make the UN’s Oil-For-Food Scam look like a convenience store robbery.
There’s also something I recently noticed, but which may have been around for a while: purchasing ‘carbon offsets’. I calculated my ‘carbon footprint’ and it turns out I can feel waayyy better about myself for only $80-160! A year! Where that money would go is anyone’s guess, but hey – I’d feel better, right?
Both of these things literally scream – need I say it? – Follow the Money! Uhm… it’s not about the environment, and to get back to the meat of BRD’s point, I must confess my feeling that a discussion comparing AGW with the GWOT undeservedly legitimizes the former while trivializing the latter.
I think BRD has done some nice, even valuable work here. But in the end it’s reductionist (by design, as noted, i.e., the Iraq side of the question is limited to the WMD angle). In point of fact, Congress did not turn our military loose on Saddam simply because of a clerical error. And I think people on all sides agree on that point, even though they may disagree vehemently on the other justifications.
I know it’s tempting to try to use the so-called argument for action on global warming to support action against Saddam, but IMHO, a comparison of this sort is dangerous. Why? Because, as I’ve written here, guarding against a worst-case outcome that’s based on less-than-A-val-intel (i.e., guesswork) is a rationalization, not a logical argument. And of course this is precisely the reason WMDs weren’t the only issue Congress considered when it authorized military action. That is to say: I don’t think one can reasonably reduce the Iraq question to one single element, even for the sake of argument, since one then moves from the realm of legal justification (which was the basis of the Resolution) to that of psychological rationalization (which is the basis of global warming legislation), and at that point you’re no longer talking about the same issue.
I had a lot more to add about Big Al, but this post is already way, way too long (sorry). More here, and it’s good for a laugh, I promise.
There is a very simple way to tell if someone is truly concerned about AGW. If they say they thing AGW is occurring and don’t support Nuclear power plants, they are a fraud.
Nuclear power is the only worthwile solution to AGW.