I just read a powerhouse book review by Freeman Dyson discussing global warming.

The entire article deserves to be read in full. For the moment, I’ll just comment on his conclusion:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

This is the most succinct assessment of the state of the debate that I’ve read. Before any adherents to this secular religion start commenting, let me point out that Dyson doesn’t think this secular religion is necessarily a bad thing at all:

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future.

Be that as it may, successful policy requires more than good intentions and wishes. On this front, Dyson points out the issues created by the distorted discourse:

Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

I would add that there are also plenty of moral people who are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from more serious and immediate threats to the well-being of humanity, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Ultimately, we need to see clearly if we are to have the best chances of crafting successful policy. Hopefully, with the efforts of thinkers like Dyson, we are improving the precision of our collective sight.