T-Rex Murphy’s Con Game

It’s called “sophistry,” “unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning” and it fits Rex Murphy to a T. Anyone who has heard or read this devout contrarian go on about the “theory” of global warming will know that no amount of scientific study will ever inform his tightly locked mind on this subject.

Murphy routinely ridicules the scientific community, the IPCC, environmentalists and anyone else calling for action to arrest man-made greenhouse gas emissions and, curiously, as the science builds his skepticism never truly recedes. For Rex Murphy there is no reality tipping point. He is the hi-brow Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter of anthropogenic global warming.

Here are excerpts from Murphy’s latest adventure into denial and deceit from the Globe & Mail:

“I am under no illusion about the force of the global warming consensus.
It is the grand orthodoxy of our day. Among right-thinking people, the idea of expressing any doubts on some of its more cataclysmic projections, to speak in tones other than those of veneration about its high-priests, such as Mr. Suzuki or Al Gore, is to stir a response uncomfortably close to what in previous and less rational times was reserved for blasphemers, heretics and atheists.”

(ah, nice try, Rex. Set yourself up as the latter day Galileo. There was a difference, Rex. Galileo sought to advance science, you seek to ridicule it, not with any reference to contrary science, but with the power of empty rhetoric. Just like your mentors, Ann and Rush.)

“But wherever we are on global warming, and on the models and theories supporting it, it is not yet The Truth, nor is it yet Science (with a capital S) as such. And to put a stay on our full consent to its more clamorous and particular alarms is not, pace Dr. Suzuki, either “ignoring science” or complicity in criminal endeavour. Nor is reasoned dissent or dispute, on some or all of the policy recommendations that global warming advocates insist flow, as night follows day, from their science.”

(nice, Rex. Yes, anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory. Gravity and evolution are also theories. Since gravity is a theory, Rex, maybe you would like to see how well your 767 flies when the wings fall off at 35,000 feet. Theories sometimes kill, Rex, and, until you come up with some meaningful science of your own, it’s best to bear that in mind.

Here Murphy sets himself up as a voice of “reasoned dissent” while providing no reason, no justification, no explanation. A misleading and superficial argument typical of this clown.)

“It’s worth pausing on this point. What global warming is, what portion of it is man-made, is one set of questions properly within the circle of rational inquiry we call science. What to do about it – shut down the oil sands, impose a carbon tax, sign on to Kyoto, mandate efficient light bulbs or hybrid cars – are choices within a range of public policy that have to be made outside any laboratory whatsoever. Global warming’s more fulminating spokespeople are apt to finesse that great chasm between the science and the politics. They are further apt to imply a continuum between the unassailable authority of real and neutral science and their own particular policy prescriptions. (I notice that late in the week that something called Environmental Defence has hailed the Alberta oil sands as “the most destructive project on Earth.” It goes on to say that “your desire to tackle global warming is being held hostage by the Tar Sands.”

If global warming is primarily a “man-made” phenomenon, then what to do about it is a political discussion before it is anything else at all.”

(Fair enough but, again, misleading and superficial. This is a scientific issue and, while remedial actions fall within the political realm, the “discussion” needs to be informed by science. Rex, quite craftily, avoids drawing the essential link. Going to war is, likewise, a political decision but it’s always best if the politicians are first properly informed by their military chiefs. Look what happened in Iraq when Bush refused to listen to his top general, Eric Shinseki. Same idea, Rex.

Since when is the issue whether “global warming is primarily a man-made phenomenon”? Man is certainly a critical source of GHG emissions but which is the “primary” source is irrelevant. See how cheesy T-Rex can get when he slips irrelevant and misleading considerations into his arguments?)

“If Environmental Defence or Dr. Suzuki thinks shutting down the oil sands is not a political choice, I advise both the group and the man to visit Alberta and acquaint themselves, while they are at it, with the history of the national energy program – and what its consequences were for the West and Confederation.

Shutting down the oil sands would make the storm over the NEP feel like a soft rain on a sultry day by comparison. It would break the Confederation.”

(“Break confederation?” Why, because you say so Rex? Nothing to see here, move along, eh? So, what’s the alternative, Rex, give up? Just ignore it? Oh, that’s right, Rex doesn’t come up with alternatives or factual responses. He doesn’t have to. He’s T-Rex.)

 

What Harper and Rex Murphy Can’t Grasp

I watched the clip of Rex Murphy endorsing Stephen Harper’s policy on cutting carbon emissions. The policy, as I’ve heard Harper explain it, is that all nations must commit to binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

On its face it has the same appeal as the flat tax proposals that get bandied about. From our perspective in the advantaged, industrialized world, Harper’s carbon policy makes plain sense.

What we don’t want to consider is how this policy is seen by the emerging economies and the Third World and we certainly don’t want to consider how it makes them see us. Only once we look at it from their perspective does the manifest inequity of the Harper proposal become apparent. From their perspective the policy looks patently racist.

The Harper policy embraced so warmly by Rex Murphy is a policy considered in a void. Completely left out are some unfortunate realities these people would rather not have mentioned. For example, North Americans create so much greenhouse gas because we use a disproportionate amount of fossil fuels.

It’s easiest to look at the American example. Our numbers are pretty close so we can fall under the US example. Americans represent about 5% of the world’s population. Americans consume more than 25% of the world’s fossil fuels. That means Americans use five times the world average in fossil fuels and produce five times the world average in greenhouse gases.

Now, let’s take India. Indians use considerably less than the world average in fossil fuels and produce commensurately less greenhouse gas emissions. Ballpark it at about one-tenth of the American numbers.

The big difference is that there are 1,130,000,000 Indians, give or take a few million. The same source (the CIA) estimates America’s population as of July, 2007 at 301,000,000. So, India is nearly four times as populous as the United States. China comes in at 1,322,000,000.

India and China are considered emerging economies and that means industrialization and that means fossil fuels and that means greenhouse gas emissions. Still, on a per capita basis, their fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are a small fraction of our own.

Now, let’s say we decide that everyone should agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Let’s say an Indian, on a per capita basis, produces about 10% of the per capita American emissions figure. So, by cutting 50% across the board, we’re in effect preserving our ratio discrepancies in perpetuity. We’re locking in our right to continue consuming the lion’s share of the world’s energy and to continue pumping out the lion’s share of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, we expect them to agree to that. If you were the little guy on the receiving end of that ultimatum, would you agree to it? You’re lying if you said you would.

There has to be accommodation on this problem. We emit vastly more so we should have to cut at least somewhat more. Measures do need to be taken by India and China but we in the advantaged, industrialized world have to do more than we expect of them, a lot more.

Overall, what we need to do is determine, on the best scientific evidence available, a global emissions target. That’ll be the pie. And then we have to work out how much of that pie each nation should be allocated based on a variety of factors including population. It’s a form of global carbon rationing but there’s no other way to make this work through international co-operation.

This is not some “off the wall” concept. It’s actually the very basis of the Bali Communique of 150-major British and European corporations.

Harper can’t hide behind his simplistic reasoning any longer, and there’s no excuse for Rex Murphy following suit either.