Forget about it that virtually all warmalarmists are tainted, but have you noticed that almost no one with any intelligence subscribes to the global warming "theory?"
That, of course, doesn't mean intelligent people summarily reject it, since that wouldn't be intelligent. It means that in the absence of evidence, they've got better things to do.
So today, Holman Jenkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains not the science, but the sociology behind the global warming movement…
How (the Nobel Prize) has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias"… "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.
Mr. Gore clearly understands the game… "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."
Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe.
Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist working with Kleiner Perkins, a firm Mr. Gore joined last month: "One does not need to believe in climate change to support climate change legislation. . . . Many executives would prefer to deal with known legislation even if unwarranted."
Don't doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president… How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.
Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile–liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded.
This wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions… and… Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.