Give Me Liberty

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!