Excluded Middle by Michael Cochrane

The Constitution of the United States is such a fundamental and influential document that it is completely understandable that it would be the center of attention and controversy with respect to the nature of what we believe to be true and significant as a people. As such, the Constitution is subject to a scrutiny that suggests that its propositions and proscriptions are open to interpretation.

Over the last two centuries, there has arisen a concept of political ideology that appears to dispose itself along a spectrum from extreme to extreme – extreme right (facism) to extreme left (communism). Well meaning people from both “extremes” have attempted to make their case for the truth of their position. The so-called “moderate” individual might “split the difference”, and find a middle position that seems to be reasonable and truthful at the same time.

Thus, a common response to the daily back and forth of views on the left and the right is to think that the “Truth” lies somewhere in the “reasonable” middle; the centrist viewpoint. Such a position is considered unassailable and more than likely where the real answers to problems lie. That mode of thinking may pass the test of political correctness, but it doesn’t pass the test of philosophical scrutiny.

The Truth lies where it is – objectively – regardless of where we are positioned on the spectrum of political or ideological views. I’m reminded of the concept of statistical sampling: The mean of the population is a parameter one can never know exactly, but it is “true”. We take a random sample of that population and derive the statistic, the sample mean, which is an estimate of the “true” population mean. From there we can build a 95% confidence interval for the location of this true value. But this interval may or may not enclose the true population parameter. All this tells us is that if we were to construct 100 intervals from 100 random samples, that 95 of them would enclose the “true” population mean. It’s possible (with a 5% chance) that we’re wrong.

Therefore a search for Truth should not be driven to the center from the “extremes”; it should be undertaken objectively, without regard for what society deems far right or left. The Founders, in their wisdom, created a document that attempted to derive a basic set of laws for the nation based on the objectively true principles of liberty and justice as authored by God. But, since it is a creature of man, the Constitution is not perfect. So it allows for amendment. Even the Declaration suggests that a free people reserve the right to overthrow a government destructive of those basic God given rights and start over.

The notion of a “living” Constitution suggests to me that it is possible to ascribe more or less (or different) power and authority to the words of the document based on the exigencies of a particular societal problem. To return to my statistics analogy, this is like constructing a 100% confidence interval: we fit the “Truth” to a space between the extremes we have settled on. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as a 100% confidence interval (unless, of course, your “sample” is the entire population, in which case you would *know* the truth because you had perfect information).

Truth exists. It may actually lie outside the boundaries with which human beings have constrained it. The truly virtuous person will pursue it wherever it may lead, and will not be constrained by boundaries imposed by a fickle society.

Copyright 2010 by Michael Cochrane.  Used with permission.  All rights reserved

Denial of the Truth by Michael Cochrane

The term “denier” is frequently used as a criticism of those who refuse to believe an apparent self-evident truth or fact. I think it first came into vogue when it was applied to Islamists and ultra-right wing neo-Nazis who claimed that the Jewish holocaust of WWII was a fabrication. The evidence of history is clearly on the side of the truth claim that the genocidal extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime did, in fact, take place. But in recent years, the derisive term “denier” has been applied to anyone who is the least bit skeptical of the degree to which human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, or even if global warming is taking place. It’s disturbing to me that this would be the case, given that the body of evidence purporting to undergird the “truth” of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is still very much open to debate.

In fact, those who accuse AGW skeptics of being “global warming deniers” argue that the “debate is over”; that it is now time for radical action. What’s disturbing about this is that this is not how science is supposed to work. As an illustration, imagine there are 1000 reputable climate scientists in the world. If 600 of them are convinced of AGW and the remaining 400 are not, does that mean AGW is a fact? What if the ratio was 800 to 200? Does a so-called consensus have to be reached in order to arrive at scientific truth? Fortunately, science has never worked this way! If it had, we would still believe the earth was the center of the solar system and that all the matter in the universe had always existed (no big bang)! Very often, the most profound scientific revolutions come about because of the work of lone scientists working in fields sometimes outside of those in which the discovery is made (see the book by Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”).

Most of the time, the advancement of knowledge through the operation of the scientific method does not engender controversy. But the current state of global warming alarmism leads me to believe that science is being co-opted by political and social agendas. I will be blunt: I strongly believe that leftist, eco-socialists have been promoting AGW as a “hook” to advance a radical environmentalist agenda that is fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-free market (it has to be man-made global warming or else their agenda doesn’t work). This agenda seeks to weaken industrialized nations, particularly the United States, and uses the manufactured world cataclysm of the hypothesized effects of global warming (rising sea levels, droughts, etc.) to shake down the “rich” nations and force the transfer of wealth directly to underdeveloped countries. That this is clearly a political and not a scientific issue is borne out by the fact that opinion on the existence and/or the severity of global warming (particularly AGW) is divided along political lines. Liberals in congress tend to support AGW and conservatives do not. It is also evident in the money trail: grants by governments to scientists to produce evidence of AGW.

The academic community is also clearly, and bitterly, divided over this issue. Here is an excerpt from an open letter by Dr. Petr Chylek, a leading climate scientist, to the top 100 climate scientists in the world (including Phil Jones, head of the East Anglian University Climate Research Unit whose emails were leaked to the world recently) in which he argues for a return to academic integrity in climate research:

“For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

… To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails. Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.

The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The

fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds, and ocean circulation?); even though we can all agree that part of the observed post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2

concentration. Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.

The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The

entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.”

It is very distressing to me that world leaders are so convinced of this so-called “truth” of AGW that they are willing to destabilize their own economies trying to “reverse” the effects of something that, to all intents and purposes, is a complete and total scam. Radical policy decisions will be made on the basis of a corrupted scientific process in which researchers of good faith are derided and ostracized for reaching conclusions at variance with the prevailing “correct” ones.

Hopefully, decades from now, we will look back and see that the real truth was that the world climate was never in danger of an apocalyptic rise in temperatures. What will more likely occur, however, will be a revisionist historical view that vindicates the draconian measures currently being taken by the industrialized world to reduce “pollutants” like CO2 as having “done the trick” in saving the world from global warming. If that is the case, science is doomed to be the slave of politics.

© 2009 by Michael Cochrane. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Projection by Michael F. Cochrane

The older I get, the more I am convinced of the truth that we tend to project onto others those faults and foibles we ourselves struggle with. There is a liberal columnist whose syndicated column appears in my local paper a couple of times each week. I disagree with him on virtually every topic, but what really galls me is his self-righteous, finger-wagging attitude. In every one of his columns he climbs on his high horse and acts as if he is the sole possessor of the moral high ground.

Why does this bother me so much? Why should I even care?

I think it’s because, as much as I hate to admit it, he and I are probably very much alike. As a Christian, I understand that both of us share humanity’s fallen nature – we are all sinners. But it’s deeper than that. Why do I sense pride and self-righteous egotism oozing from his writing? Like most liberals, he writes passionately about social justice issues, particularly race. I’m sure many of his readers admire this passion and concern, whether they completely agree with him or not. Perhaps the reason I get so incensed when I read his columns is because where others see passion and concern, I see moral superiority, and there’s no way I’m going to let someone with the “incorrect” positions on the issues get away with acting as if he is morally superior to me!

But , if I’m honest, I’d have to admit that I’m no different than him.

My natural tendency is to bristle at and criticize people who act as though they are superior (in other words people who tend to bristle at and criticize others!). If I were a man of true humility, I would be more concerned with getting the log out of my own eye before trying to point out specks in the eyes of others. But there is a little policeman inside of me that sees it as his duty to “call out” those who don’t follow the rules and who behave as though the rules don’t apply to them. Here’s how idiotic it can get: on my drive home from work, I often take the carpool lane (because I carpool), but I am keenly aware of single drivers who try to “get away with” driving in the carpool lane. So what do I do? If I see a “single ship” driver coming up behind me in the carpool lane I will slow down to match the rest of the traffic. I do this intentionally to frustrate him, but more importantly, to make sure he knows that I know that he is a jerk and a lawbreaker!

Again, I have to ask myself the question, “why is this so important to me?” Why is it important that I be right? Why do I chafe at the notion that there is someone who thinks they are “better” than me?

The answer is that I am a sinner who does not rightly acknowledge the dominion and authority of the Most High God. I have often identified with the psalmist when he says, “I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked… they are not stricken like the rest of mankind… pride is their necklace… their hearts overflow with follies” (Psalm 73). He even goes on to say, “in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence”. Yet the author of Psalm 73 also goes on to say, “when my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart, I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you”. In other words, my indignation is nothing more than envy of those whom God alone can and will judge. God’s Holy Spirit “pricks my heart” and causes me to realize my sin. That God in His mercy would discipline me to be aware of my own pride and sinfulness is truly a blessing!

In one sense I am no different than my antagonist columnist. Yet, by God’s grace, I can become more aware of my own failings, and instead of driving me into bitterness and anger, He will turn my heart to repentance and an acknowledgment of His sovereign goodness. I will still struggle with pride and arrogance, but I know the victory has already been won.

It is only God’s grace that differentiates me from my antagonist; nothing inherent in my own self-righteousness. I pray God may deal as mercifully with him as He has with me!

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved.

Constitutional Government is Small Government by Michael Cochrane

In the past few weeks, I have had numerous discussions with my friends and colleagues regarding the powers of the Federal Government and whether the Obama Administration was stepping beyond the boundaries of the powers given the Central Government in the Constitution.  In fact, a number of people in my office had very little understanding of how American Federalism works.  Just by coincidence my friend Michael Cochrane had recently written a column that explains it pretty clearly and lays out the arguments for smaller government.  It also shows indirectly how far the Obama Administration is stretching the boundaries and destroying the Tenth Amendment.  With the permission of Mr. Cochrane, I now present his article to you for review and comment.

Constitutional Government is Small Government

by

Michael F. Cochrane

I carry around with me a little copy of the Constitution of the United States. It’s easy to do, since it’s very small document. Even with all of the amendments, a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence) is only about sixty pages in length. It is the supreme law of the land, and contains within its various articles the framework and specified powers for the Federal government of this country. The reason this document is so small is because there are actually very few powers specifically given to the national government. For example, Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers of the Congress. They are limited to: taxation, providing for the common defense (raising an Army and Navy) and declaring war, regulating commerce with foreign nations, establishing naturalization laws, coining (and borrowing) money, establishing post offices and post roads, granting patents, and other various duties such as protecting the nation from piracy and calling up the militia. The tenth amendment states in its entirety, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Why then, do we have a Federal government involved in every aspect of our daily life, from education, to health care, to dictating to private corporations? It’s a very long story, but we now live in a country where the unbridled power of the Federal government overshadows every aspect of government. Is this what the founders of our nation envisioned? We have become so used to the influence of Washington in our everyday lives that we take it for granted. But the Constitution does not authorize the kind of power our national government has appropriated for itself.

I’ve frequently asked myself what our country would be like if we actually had a Federal government that existed within the proscriptions of the Constitution. Would we be able to function? Wouldn’t many things just not get done? What is the role of the Federal government, the governments of the various States, local municipalities, and the private sector in providing the necessary services we need to have a functional and thriving society? I’ll try to walk through a few examples of areas where both government and the private sector are involved and do a thought experiment about what “small government” might look like.

Transportation. We have a system of Federal highways that culminated with the Interstate highway system that was essentially completed in the 1960s. Would we have been able to build such a system without Federal tax money or incentives? I suspect that such a system could have been suggested and planned at the Federal level, but the administration of its construction could clearly have been carried out with the States raising the revenue and overseeing the construction. The only real role for the Federal government (according to the Constitution) would be to regulate the commerce those roads carried between the States.

Education. We have a long history and tradition of local schools in this country; public schools financed by local taxes. The role of the Federal government in education of our nation’s youth is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the selective granting of Federal money to States and localities to support education has encouraged them to depend on the Federal government and look to it for revenue. It also makes it much easier for the Federal government to dictate to the States in areas of regulation of schools.

Social Welfare. It began with the passage of the Social Security act in the 1930s, but has grown to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Aid to Families With Dependent Children, commonly known as “welfare”. What was viewed initially as a step toward providing a minimum level of financial security to those unable to work either through old age or disability has become a huge system of Federal taxes that find their way into the general revenue fund and have not kept pace with the changing demographics of the nation. It can be argued that welfare programs have actually encouraged the breakup of families, when women are compensated by the Federal government for raising children out of wedlock. The current push to “reform” health care by setting up a so-called “public” insurance option and then mandating that all Americans purchase it or be guilty of breaking the law will only exacerbate the problem, raising Federal taxes and further limiting the ability of the States and the private sector to provide a vital marketplace for medical treatment and catastrophic medical insurance coverage.

The only constitutionally authorized Federal agency still providing services is the U.S. Postal Service. But do we even need a Federal Post Office? Why can’t FedEx, UPS, or any number of other private delivery companies bid on regional postal contracts for the delivery of mail? Could we eliminate the Department of Education? What would be the effect on our schools? I suspect it would not be negative. One might argue that there are Federal agencies, the elimination of which could be detrimental to the welfare and safety of the nation. The Federal Aviation Administration comes to mind. But I think it is a worthwhile exercise to systematically work one’s way through the Federal bureaucracy and analyze the degree to which an agency’s function is either 1) necessary, 2) could be performed by a State or municipal government, or 3) could be addressed through free market competition in the private sector. At the very least, such an analysis must be performed before rushing to the conclusion that every perceived problem must be solved through Federal legislation and the subsequent establishment of another Federal agency.

The size of our Federal government is largely our own fault. Part of the problem is that we continue to elect representatives to Congress whom we reward with reelection when they bring Federal dollars to their home districts. This is classic “pork barrel politics”, and it does nothing except make the problem worse. Until we begin to disassociate Federal representation with Federal largesse, government will continue to grow. A Constitutional amendment limiting terms of Federal representatives and Senators would go a long way toward relocating governmental power in the United States to where it primarily belongs: to the States and the People.

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.

National Security and Energy Independence by Michael Cochrane

The term, “national security” has come to be synonymous with national defense. But given the geography of the United States, it’s unlikely we would ever need to use our defense forces to secure the homeland from an invading army. National security really has more to do with the protection of those critical infrastructures the loss or degradation of which would place the country in a position of economic and military vulnerability. These infrastructures include:

o Banking and Finance: The nation’s banking system and securities exchanges as well as the public confidence in this system

o Transportation: Road, rail and waterway networks, airports and seaports

o Power: Electrical power generation, transformation and distribution, pipelines for natural gas and oil

o Public Works: Reservoirs, aqueducts, wastewater treatment plants and drainage systems

o Communication: Radio and television networks, satellite networks, computer networks, the internet

Of these critical infrastructures, I would argue that power, or energy production and distribution, is the most sensitive to disruption; not just from physical attack, but because the very sources of energy we rely upon are largely imported from politically and socially unstable regions of the world. For this reason, I believe the United States’ national security is increasingly tied to its energy security.

In the pre-industrial age – before the rise of steam power, gasoline engines and electricity, communities and entire societies were based on an agricultural foundation. Fuel was primarily associated with wood for cooking and heating fires and to generate heat for basic ore smelting and metalworking. This fact of history was brought home to me when we lived in England during the 1980s. The rolling green countryside of central England had once been covered in dense, deciduous forest. By the 20th century, after thousands of years of human habitation, most of these vast forests had disappeared; the trees having been cleared for farming and grazing land, and subsequently used for fuel and building material.

Today, in a post-industrial world, all the technologies we rely upon for everything from food to shelter to transportation, depend on energy. Securing stable sources of energy has now become a key objective of our national security strategy. Despite all the technological advances in the last century, our primary sources of energy in this country remain fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), as a result of a combination of declining oil production and increasing demand, net US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.16 million barrels per day in 1970 to 12.04 million barrels per day in 2007. The largest net suppliers of oil and petroleum products to the US are Canada and Mexico, which supply about 30% of the US daily oil demand. Another 28% of this demand is supplied by other countries, including OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. This means that the US domestic production supplies only about 42% of our own oil demand.

According to the EIA, about 86% of the coal mined in the US is used for the production of electricity. Coal plants account for 52% of the electricity generated in the United States. Unlike oil, the US is actually a net exporter of coal, so the situation is not nearly as dire. Coal reserves are estimated to be sufficient to last for hundreds of years at current rates of consumption.

The only other existing source of energy for the production of electricity (other than hydroelectric power) is nuclear energy, which provides 19% of the electric power in the US. Nuclear power, while a relatively untapped source of clean energy (nuclear energy comprises only 14% of the world’s electricity production), spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and extremely hazardous. Transport and long term storage of nuclear waste is fraught with controversy.

But the point of this article is that US energy supplies are a critical strategic vulnerability for the future security of the country. We know that fossil fuels will become increasingly more expensive to extract, and will eventually be depleted altogether. No new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States for decades, and the existing refineries are operating at near peak capacity. Nuclear energy is unpopular, highly regulated and as a result, new reactors are slow to come on line.

The solution is energy independence. To the degree we can become free of dependence on external sources of fuel we also free ourselves from the threat of being held captive by petroleum supplying nations or cartels who clearly could care less about the economic well being of the United States. Those who are old enough to remember the days of the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s realize the potential devastation that might be wreaked on this nation in the event of a major disruption in oil supplies. And that embargo occurred at the point of America’s peak domestic oil production! We have since become embarrassingly dependent on oil imports to fuel our economy.

This need for secure, stable and environmentally friendly sources of energy is so vital to our national security that this country should invest in a national research and development program on the scale of the Apollo project of the 1960s. Such a program’s goal would be nothing less than the invention and development of next generation energy technology, whether that be nuclear fusion, electrical storage technology (batteries) or significant advances in solar, or other sources of renewable energy supply. In the meantime, all efforts should be made to exploit the reserves of oil, coal and natural gas that exist within our borders, whether they are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or off our nation’s coasts.

The technology for extracting fossil fuels with a minimum of environmental disruption exists today. Contrary to the assertions of environmental lobbies, this is not an “either/or” situation. It is possible to shift the production of energy back to a domestic basis while at the same time driving toward the next generation solution. As a nation, we should accept that the goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels will involve a period in which we simultaneously cushion ourselves from disruptions in external sources of supply while we wean ourselves from oil. This cushion is necessary. Neither should we hamstring ourselves with the needless burden of cap and trade regulations, the outgrowth of a completely fabricated global climate “emergency”.

Those critics of President Bush, who accused him of waging a “war for oil” may not have been that far off the mark. The middle east would likely not be such a strategically significant part of the world for America were it not for the fact that is currently in our national interest to ensure middle east oil supplies continue to remain on the open market. That’s a reality we must live with. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have to.

© 2009 by Michael Cochrane. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Climate Change by Michael F. Cochrane

Now, that I'm trying to have something new posted everyday, which by the way is not easy, I will have more guest writers. The writer today is my godmother's cousin. I have known him for more than 30 years. He is a graduate of West Point and currently lives on the east coast. He has recently started his own blog entitled "Scribere est cogitare". You can find it at: http://scribereestcogitare.blogspot.com/ My plan is still to have a new column written by me tomorrow.

Climate Change

There are so many perspectives and angles of approach one can take when trying to think clearly about the issue of global warming, or as it is currently being referred to: “climate change”. There’s the scientific perspective (what is the evidence for climate change and how rigorous is the science?) and the public policy perspective (what regulations should be in place to deal with climate change?). There is also a social science perspective (why is climate change controversial and seemingly divided along ideological lines?) and even a religious perspective (did God give man stewardship over the earth, or is the earth to be venerated by man?)

My thinking on this subject tends to be drawn to the structure of the relationship between the claim that the effects of climate change demand a response by governments on a massive scale, and the nature of that response. The French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, once proposed an approach to decision making that has come to be known as “Pascal’s wager”. The question for Pascal was the relationship between the existence of God and the state of his own belief in God. Should he believe in God or not? He suggested that there were two possible “states of nature” with respect to the existence of God: Either God existed, or he did not. There were also two possible responses Pascal could take with respect to these states of nature: Believe in God, or don’t believe in God. So Pascal created four possible outcomes based on these states of nature and his responses to them:

1. God exists/I believe in God – therefore a positive outcome
2. God exists/I don’t believe in God – most likely a very negative outcome!
3. God does not exist/I believe in God – a less negative outcome than (2)
4. God does not exist/I don’t believe in God – a rather neutral outcome

As in the case of climate change, there are also two basic “states of nature”: either the planet is warming or it is not. But unlike Pascal’s simple decision aid, our problem is more complicated (it is actually a decision tree, and if this were not a blog post, I’d probably try and show an illustration of that at this point). But I think you can get an idea of the complexity of the decision problem by examining the table below:

The potential states of nature range from no global warming to significant increases in world temperatures in a relatively short period of time. The potential responses can be grouped into three categories: 1) do nothing, 2) take defensive measures (that is, assume that global temperature increases are incapable of being reversed, so we must protect civilization from the inevitable effects – rising sea levels, increasing areas of arid land, etc.), 3) take pro-active measures (reverse the effects of global warming).

The problem is that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual “state of nature” of planetary warming. All of the scenarios describing the projected effects of planetary warming are based on computer modeling. The ability to forecast the local weather (also based on computer models) over the next week is not a certain science, yet predictions of specific global temperature increases over a period of 50 to 100 years are viewed as certain. So we really don’t know how dire the situation is.

If global warming is a reality and is unstoppable (that is, will not yield to efforts by humans to reverse it) then the best recourse for public policy makers would be to take defensive measures; e.g., divert resources to protecting civilization from its effects. Sea walls and dikes should be constructed around vulnerable coastal communities like New York and New Orleans to protect these cities from the inevitable rising sea levels caused by melting polar ice.

On the other hand, if we know what causes global warming, and can reverse its effects, we should do so. But here is the problem: scientists are not certain what causes global warming. There is no “scientific consensus” about climate change. A number of distinguished researchers in this area have studied the evidence and have found that if we are in a planetary warming period, it may simply be cyclical (due to activity by the sun or other causes). In addition, they have noted that, while increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been associated with temperature increases, such a correlation may not infer causation; that is carbon dioxide may not actually be causing atmospheric warming, but may actually be a “lagging” indicator of it.

From a public policy standpoint, then, we really do not have enough information about the extent to which human beings actually cause global warming (if, in fact, it is taking place) to commit our nation to policies and treaties that would have immediate and dire economic effects such as placing caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

To return to our decision matrix, it appears our government and society in general has decided on the solution before the problem is really defined. Continued repetition in the media of a particular theme is not a substitute for scientific rigor and evidence. Global warming may be real, but much more work needs to be done to clarify the true state of nature before committing public resources to politically acceptable “solutions”.

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane, Ph.D. All rights reserved.