Give Me Liberty

This is not a book review, because I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending. Michael Crichton is, after all, a master story teller (The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, etc.), and this one is just as exciting. But it’s the factual background research worked into the story that makes this one an absolute “must read” for anyone who has ever heard the term “global warming”. Without detracting from the excitement of the story, Mr. Crichton conveys more factual information on the subject than you’ll ever see in the main stream media, and puts it into a much more realistic perspective.

He also makes some useful observations about the state of the debate, a couple of which I’ll repeat here:

* We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

* I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

You can find other interesting insights from Mr. Crichton on his website. In particular, check out his comments on complexity theory, which inspired State of Fear.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
-1st line of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

“Religious beliefs and practices must be respected, but only so far as they abide by state and federal laws.”
-The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

If you can reconcile these two statements, you’re cleverer than I. The Washington Post made this statement at the end of an editorial (here) defending the seizure of 468 children by Texas law enforcement officials in April. The state purportedly acted on a single tip from a 16 year old girl, a tip that ultimately proved to be bogus. Thankfully, it didn’t turn out like Waco this time, but 468 children? The Post is certainly correct in stating that had they not acted, the officials would have faced harsh criticism. But overreaction also deserves harsh criticism.

Only in a fascist state could mass kidnapping be equated with “protecting the children”. I am no fan of religious cults, but judging from the muted response by the main stream media, including editorials like this one, who are we? When I went to law school, the Constitution trumped state and federal laws. According to The Washington Post, that is no longer the case.

In an excellent column on global warming, Charles Krauthammer puts the “cap and trade” debate into much better perspective than we usually get from the mainstream media. Environmental activists would have us accept that “the debate is over”, but as Krauthammer points out, Newton’s Laws of Motion stood up for over 200 years, until they were proven wrong by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. And climate is far more complex and less understood than Newton’s Laws. So before we destroy our own economy, and trap billions of third world citizens in continuing poverty, let’s make sure there will be a corresponding benefit. Cap and trade has been a complete failure in Europe, and the environmentalists’s own studies show only a minimal reduction in global temperatures even if carbon emissions were reduced to ZERO! And remember that scientists were still warning us of the coming Ice Age in 1977, 8 years after temperatures bottomed (in 1969) and reversed their 35 year cooling trend. We’re now 10 years past the warming peak in 1998, so it’s about time we reconize the hoax for what it is.

Following Earth Day last month, we were reminded of some of the outrageous predictions of the environmental crowd back in the late 1960s. I wrote about some of them here. Walter Williams’ article in The Charlotte Observer Saturday, False Prophets of Doom, points out a few more. For example, Paul Ehrlich, hero and mentor of none other than Al Gore, apparently said that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ouch!

Professor Williams provides some much needed perspective on the global warming issue, with a few simple facts. It’s too bad that our main stream media can’t use these facts to apply a little critical thinking to the more ridiculous claims of the alarmists.

1. “Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere.”

So at most, CO2 emissions make up less than 5% of greenhouse gases (and in fact, a lot less).

2. “Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

We were told in the 1970s that an 11 degree temperature reduction would bring on another Ice Age. Mankind could survive another Ice Age, but at zero degrees, Earth would be just another lifeless planet orbiting the sun.

3. “Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output.”

And how exactly do we propose to control the Earth’s orbit or the sun’s output?

4. “And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.”

Not to mention a good volcanic eruption, which probably dwarfs all human sources within its first few minutes.

In summary, we humans have developed a highly inflated opinion of our own importance on this planet. We live in big cities, so we assume the whole earth is crowded. Yes, we can damage our environment, but on balance, we do more good than harm. The “pristine environment” of our dreams never actually existed, Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. So the next time you hear predictions of impending doom, ask yourself this. Are these predictions any different than those of Paul Ehrlich in 1968, or Thomas Malthus in 1799? And are politicians today so much smarter that we should actually listen to them? The answer should be obvious.

We have now celebrated our 39th Earth Day, and we’re still waiting for the environmental disaster. What happened? Most of us were supposed to have starved to death by now, died from air pollution, or frozen in the Ice Age. As predicted, the population has increased, and industrial output has increased. But instead of starvaton, we’re worried about obesity. Air pollution is still a problem in the Third World, but only due to rapid economic growth and rising standards of living. And instead of an Ice Age, we now obsess about global warming.

Most people alive today weren’t even born for the first Earth Day. For those of us who were, hopefully we’ve matured enough to take claims of impending disaster with a grain of salt. After all, we’ve survived two nuclear disasters, at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which together killed fewer people (about 50) than die in traffic accidents every day in America. (Michael Crichton has some interesting observations here.)

For those who are younger and smarter than we are, perhaps a history lesson would be helpful. The Washington Policy Center has compiled an interesting list of predictions made around the first Earth Day. With only minor wording changes, many of them could be mistaken for predictions being made today about the supposed impact of global warming. Reflecting on those, hopefully we’ll all think twice before blindly demanding that governments around the world “do something”. Especially if those actions will likely have minimal impact on the climate, but do major damage to the economy.

Here is a sample of some of the items compiled.

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

Okay, how about 40 years?

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

But by 2008, the polar bear population will have increased five-fold.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

Obviously obesity should never be a problem.

So next time you read a terrifying headline, remain calm. Such terrifying predictions have been around for hundreds of years, and hundreds of years from now, our gullible offspring will still be around to worry needlessly about them.

The global warming hysteria is truly amazing to anyone who steps back and views the issue objectively. We all learned in childhood that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, but when did it become mandatory that the government “do something” about every issue that comes along? I’m sure most of us have heard the chain of causation whereby a single butterfly flapping its wings over the Rocky Mountains might trigger a hurricane over the Atlantic. It’s an interesting mental exercise, but I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest government regulation of wing flapping by every butterfly in the world. Far fewer resources would be much better spent preparing for the inevitable hurricanes which would strike even if butterflies were eradicated. But this is America. We let our federal government provide subsidized flood insurance in places where no private insurance company would write coverage, encouraging people to build in harm’s way and maximizing damage when the inevitable occurs.

Getting back to global warming, many people are convinced that the government must “do something” about that too. The big villain is supposedly carbon dioxide, and we are supposed to “cut emissions” regardless of the economic cost. One recent study concluded that if we reduced emissions to ZERO, it would reduce global warming by a fraction of one degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The people calling for such drastic reductions have no idea what they are asking for. We are already paying dramatically higher prices for food and energy, but that is nothing compared to what they are asking for. Zero emissions would essentially return the economy to living in caves, BEFORE the discovery of fire. If we do that, we’ll need a lot more global warming!

Damaging the economy to “do something” is not just giving up our SUVs, or drinking fewer lattes at Starbucks. We are condemning hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people, those most at risk of the predicted dire consequences of warming, to remaining in abject poverty and unable to adapt if any of those predictions actually come true. Is that the socially responsible thing to do?

Objective risk-benefit analysis is almost completely lacking from the entire debate. Skeptics are vilified as flat earthers, Holocaust deniers, or believers in the stork bringing babies. Projected consequences are grossly exaggerated, while the economic costs are minimized. Even Al Gore and the IPCC admit that the “20 foot sea level rises” of An Inconvenient Truth are well beyond the realm of probability. Yet they persist, apparently in the belief that people must be terrified into demanding action.

But why? What is it about global warming that exempts it from rational, factual discussion and resolution? Could it be - a hoax? Most people with facts on their side welcome debate. Certainly on an issue as serious as they say this is, we need all of the ideas and input that we can get. Yet the alarmists want no part of debate. Apparently they think they not only have all of the facts, they have all of the solutions. Even if I had no skepticism on the science, I would have to be skeptical of anybody who thinks that they know how to control the weather. Not even the weatherman is that arrogant!

Yesterday Robert Crandall, former chairman of American Airlines, appeared on CNBC (see it here) to advocate federal regulation of the airline industry. He also wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times on the subject. Mr. Crandall is old enough to remember when airlines were regulated before, and despite his own successes under deregulation, he obviously remembers them as the good old days.

He spoke lucidly, showing no signs of senility, but his logic left me puzzled to say the least. He first pointed out that the airlines had difficulty making money when oil was $10/barrel, and still have difficulty when it is $117/barrel, so that wasn’t his reason. He pointed out that the air traffic control system is seriously inadequate, using outdated technology, and Congress was unable to agree on how to fund improvements. He then expanded his scope by pointing out that our highway infrastructure is a disaster, bridges are falling down, and we don’t have a rail system worthy of the name. His solution? The federal government needs to step up and do some serious “planning”.

Never mind that central planning worked so exquisitely well for the Soviet Union, let me see if I can unravel his logic. The air traffic control system (still run by the federal government) has major problems. The highway system (socialized for at least as long as Mr. Crandall can remember) is crumbling. And the ineffective rail system, called Amtrak, has been subsidized by the federal government for years. Obviously, therefore, if it’s hard for the airlines to make a profit in a “free” market, that same federal government should take over!

At least Mr. Crandall’s memory is not faulty. In his “good old days” of airline regulation, they did make a profit. Fares were outrageous, service was atrocious, and unprofitable routes were heavily subsidized, but airline managers could be fat, dumb, and happy and still make a profit. What Mr. Crandall is asking for is known as “rent-seeking”. Just like the electric utilities 100 years ago, Mr. Crandall has realized that competition is tough. Corporate welfare and protectionist legislation make life much easier - at least for industry fat cats. But as a passenger, I’d much rather let the airlines compete for my business.

As for the rest of our transportation woes, why don’t we fire the failures, instead of raising taxes and throwing good money after bad? Privatize air traffic control, airport operations, and especially that abominable TSA. Sell off the highway system - privatized toll roads are showing great promise. Finally, quit propping up Amtrak, and let the industry figure out how to run a railroad.

Some interesting points came out of the Clintons’ recently released tax returns. For example, they deducted over $10 million in charitable contributions. Sounds philanthropic, except that most of the money went to the Clinton Family Foundation. The Foundation has apparently disbursed only half of the money, and some of that appears to have been targeted to support Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Do you know what else would be interesting? How much of her campaign money has been paid to herself, Bill, or Chelsea, for campaigning? We already know that Bill is worth about $250,000 per appearance. The rich get richer by working hard and investing. Politicians get rich by talking about it.

Why must we use “the environment” to justify every argument under the sun? The New York Times invoked the environment this morning to argue against the border fence to stop “illegal” immigration. (Editorial, Michael Chertoff’s Insult) I happen to oppose the fence, because I believe in open borders. I believe that sovereignty of the individual trumps national sovereignty. If you want a “liberal” argument, the fence is racist. And experience has shown that fences keep more “illegals” in than out. So why does the NYT have to resort to the environment? I’ve been to the Mexican border. It runs through some of the most desolate wasteland in the world. Frankly, an atomic bomb along most of it wouldn’t constitute an “environmental disaster”. So why can’t we just debate the issue on its merits? The environment is not a justification for immigration any more than global warming is a justification for fascism (Al Gore notwithstanding).

Dennis Byrne’s column in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune (Feeling the Heat, Todd?) raised an interesting opportunity. Legally, it is possible for Illinois townships to secede from their counties, and given the shenanigans in Cook County government, I’m sure the idea might appeal to a number of townships there. The problem under current law is that voters across the entire county would have to approve the secession, and why would they vote to let others escape the misery that they cannot?

A bill in the legislature would allow the township to decide for itself on secession, without requiring the rest of the county to approve. Unfortunately, without strong citizen support, the bill is likely to die in committee. I think that many of us have a somewhat negative reaction to the idea of “secession”. We tend to think that the French Canadians in Quebec would be crazy to secede from Canada. And of course our own Abraham Lincoln took a dim view of the secession movement that led to the Civil War.

But let’s go back a little further in our history, to 1776. Our own Declaration of Independence was the ultimate secession document ever written, and probably marked the apex of freedom for all of humankind. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did not consult with the voters of England before declaring their independence from King George, so why should the voters of Palatine need to persuade the rest of Cook County before freeing themselves from His Majesty Todd Stroger?

The Revolutionary War should have established once and for all time the right of any people, aggrieved by their government, to secede and establish their independence. Even if we are quite content with our situations in Lake County, or DuPage County, or any other county, it’s our freedom too. If we don’t support the principle for our unfortunate brethren in Cook County, we are forsaking our own birthright as well. It would be hard to read the Declaration of Independence again and reach any other conclusion.