“Models, models. Experts, experts. At every step of each Malthusian episode, the latest science is cited as proof of the alarmist position. The Club of Rome studies in the 1970s to Peak Oil studies of recent decades. And the latest climate-model averaging today.”

Why engage with an anonymous (and possibly fraudulent) climate alarmist (see the exchange yesterday)?

First, ‘mafarmerga” presented serious arguments in the public domain–and identified himself as a professor with peer-review responsibilities in climate science.

Second, I really like my arguments relative to the opposition. Isn’t it nice that intellectual trends, not only political ones, are going against this latest Malthusian scare? Good for mankind–good for the worldview of economic and political liberty.

Third, going toe-to-toe forces me to better consider opposing arguments and to revisit mine. A scholar must know the different sides of the argument in his/her area of specialty. I want to be an intellectual for the long run–and not a public-policy hack for the short-run who can only offer lawyer-type briefs for a position.

Here are a “Baker’s Dozen” conclusions I reached from the aforementioned exchange:

1. The opposition is very fixated on the natural state of things and fears change.  Stasis. If nature is optimal, then the human influence cannot be good per se. This gets to Deep Ecology.
2. Human flourishing is secondary to the opposition. Alarmists dress their argument in terms of human impacts–that is their equivalent of  ‘greenwashing’–to try to get the attention of the citizenry.
3. The well-known global greening argument of CO2 defenders is argued away by a trick: assume all-bad-things from climate change to negate the CO2 fertilization effect. (Note how my cited NYT article of the here-and-now benefits of CO2 fertilization was downplayed–it is the hypothesized bad future that is juxtaposed.)
4. The Malthusian inheritance. I emphasize the context of climate alarm in the sequence of ‘consensus’ alarms about population, resources, global cooling (yes), and now global warming. The Malthusian does not want to acknowledge this damning intellectual inheritance; they are the same folks with the same certainty with the same ‘consensus’ that is at the half-century mark.
5. Models, models. Experts, experts. At every step of each Malthusian episode, the latest science is cited as proof of the alarmist position. The Club of Rome studies in the 1970s to Peak Oil studies of recent decades. And the latest climate-model averaging today (see exchange #4 above).
6. The “argument from authority.” Several times above, mafarmerga  appeals to his superior expertise versus mine. Early on he resorted to calling me a ‘denier’ . But thanks to the Internet and bottom-line climate scientists such as Judith Curry, the ‘amateurs’ such as myself can do pretty well. I also benefit from several years of tutalege from well-known climate scientist Gerald North, who would tell me things that he would not say in his professional public. (His insinuations were not good as far as honest establishment science was concerned–sort of what Climate Gate taught the world.)
7. Climate models!!  My opponent is on the record saying that we know the microphysics of climate processes, the quantitude of SO2 forcing, and approximate if not precise weighting of natural-versus-anthropomorphic forces, so the models are reliable.  (As I said in my rejoinder, I rest my case!)
8. He never answered my argument that model-predicted warming is way above real-world warming.  (I thought he would bring up ocean delay, to which I would have responded that that is in quite a debate too.)
9. He never challenged my key fact that climate sensitivity estimates are coming down–very good news indeed.
10. Sea level: he did not response to my argument that sea level rise in recent decades is similar to prior decades, suggesting that natural factors are at work.
11. He never challenged my reference/reliance on Judith Curry’s analysis at Climate, Etc.
12. He did not want to delve much into the Public Choice and Political Economy side of things, much less energy policy. The fact that even a man-made climate problem could result in a CO2 friendly public policies is a whole other area of debate that he did not want to engage in.
13. I readily, happily identify myself. He does not. Why? I do not believe he was a fake because his arguments were serious. But even if he is misrepresenting himself, his arguments deserve careful evaluation. I believe I have done this.

Back to Josiah Neeley and R-Street. He/they should study and debate climate science, not assume climate alarmism. The positive externalities of increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide should be acknowleged. The virus of government failure in the attempt to address market failure must be considered.

The libertarian case for CO2 regulation by 195 governments is intellectually unjustified and a fool’s errand in the real world.

R-Street needs to step up its ‘free market,’ ‘libertarian’ game–and reject both climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. Like Peak Oil, climatism is a Malthusian exaggeration whose time is running out.