Who Can We Trust on Climate Change?

Al Gore? I don’t think so!

How likely is it that even the mildly horrific “global warming” scenarios of Earth in the Balance or An Inconvenient Truth might come true? You might think you need a degree in climatology or at least statistics to figure that out. But you don’t. I can tell you with 100% confidence that there is a 0% chance of those things happening. New York is not going to go under water. The polar bears will be just fine. Droughts and hurricanes won’t ravage the land. Ain’t gonna happen.

How do I know this? Two reasons. First, screaming mimi doom-mongers are never right in their predictions. Ever. If they were we would have a long list of doom-mongers that we revere as wise men. The fact that there is no such list tells you all you need to know. Second, despite our puffed-up opinion of ourselves, delicate ol’ Mother Earth scoffs at mankind’s efforts to change her. The Earth is a well-balanced system that adjusts pretty gracefully to changes in specific inputs, most of which dwarf anything we puny creatures can do. It is “speciesism” of the highest order – or perhaps more likely lack of understanding about the scope of our ignorance - to assume that we can permanently alter the state of the global environment just by going about our daily business.

The only thing worse than doomsaying yahoos making dastardly predictions is the ridiculous nature of their suggested solutions. Much to my horror, I am starting to see even conservatives get seduced by this bilge.

What is the preferred “solution” set to this grievous “problem”? It is to do the same, only more slowly. It is to go backwards just far enough to ensure that we will perpetually be in the same place. It is to promote governmental and global coercion in order to make everyone toes the party line. This approach has never solved a serious problem, ever. It’s going to do for global warming what the Kansas-Nebraska Act did for slavery.

The Kyoto treaty is the single best example of this way of thinking. The purpose of Kyoto is ostensibly to reduce (or at least limit the growth of) carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are a byproduct of a specific stage of human social development. The natural curve of human development will be to move past carbon-base energy platforms. If we are concerned by the state of current carbon emissions, would we be best served by trying to move more quickly beyond this developmental stage, or by trying to “freeze” the current state of affairs in an effort to incrementally throttle back the status quo? Is progress made by moving forward or by tentatively stepping backwards?

Many on the eco-left try to sound like they are smart and forward looking. They are “Progressives,” after all. But if one examines the sorts of advanced solutions they favor, they tend to be things like using the sun’s power to heat houses. I think the Neanderthals mastered that one. Or building windmills to harness the wind’s energy. I think the Dutch had that more or less figured out by the 17th Century. Or building cars that run on electric power. Which requires coal-powered power plants which spew tons of CO2 emissions into the air. Because nuclear power is icky. This is what passes for progress in Al Gore’s universe.

The great majority of Americans have no clue what the term “free market” actually signifies. They think it just means the ability to charge whatever price you want for things you make. But this whole free market thing is exactly what we should be paying attention to in regard to climate change.

The entire eco-left position on this is the precise opposite of the free market approach. They believe that it is simply too important to leave it up to the people to solve. Solutions must be forced on society by the enlightened (a.k.a. “people like themselves”). Conveniently, this requires handing over vast amounts of power and money to the enlightened.

The free market position on this would flow as follows: People are very smart when acting out of self-interest. Millions of people making billions of decisions are smarter than a few really bright people. Self-interest includes larger altruistic concerns as well as narrow day to day concerns. If climate change is real and a threat, it will be represented as a market demand for solutions. Those solutions will serve to move us out of the older and troublesome modes fare more efficiently than all the Al Gore movies imaginable. If the people aren’t asking for things that correct for climate change, it probably isn’t a crisis. If they do ask for it, it will change. It is a self-correcting but imperfect system. Just likes the Earth’s climate.

For now it is obvious that people are not demanding solutions. The few business moves in the “green” direction are the result of government coercion and Hollywood fashion. So for now remain extremely skeptical of screaming mimi doom-mongers. Keep an eye on the market. And for God’s sake don’t panic.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: