August 4, 2006
WRTA.com
 Brown
Shoes Diary
Global Warming and Other Hot Air
Tim Slekar is hot on so-called global
warming. I'm not. In fact, I'd say I'm ice cold.
I'll discuss the science and the politics of the matter shortly, but Tim's
main point is that if there were global warming, it would require the
abandonment of capitalism. On this point, as on most things, Tim is decidedly
wrong.
First, if there were global warming it might very well be a blessing for
mankind. Do we have any reason to believe that the earth achieved its perfect
temperature, say, 100 years ago and that any deviation from that is a bad
thing? The hubris exemplified by those who believe that there is a "right"
temperature for our planet, that we know what it is, and that we can and must
maintain that temperature tells you everything you need to know about the
global warming crowd. They'll use any excuse to limit freedom and expand
government.
But if there were global warming and if it were somehow a bad thing, that
would mean capitalism is even more important and vital, not less so. In
dealing with the vagaries of nature there are two approaches--retreat or
adaptation. Retreat means a retardation in our standard of living and a world
of coercion because somebody is going to start telling us how to live our
lives. (Exactly how they're going to order 3.5 billion Chinese and Indians to
behave as they see fit I have no idea.) Adaptation, on the other hand, is the
usual evolutionary solution to the challenges of nature, and capitalism is the
system that provides us with the most resources and most effective means to
adapt. If there really is global warming and it really is a bad thing and it
really is caused by human-created carbon dioxide (remember, the leftists say
it's still okay to inhale, just don't exhale!), I should think this a problem
that will disappear within a century, probably less. Progress and invention
being what they are in a capitalistic world, it would be astonishing if our
carbon loving economy of today hasn't changed dramatically in the next 100
years. And the rest of the world will want to match our innovation and
efficiency so no coercion will be necessary to bring them along.
So, yes, capitalism is the answer for all our problems and for a simple
reason. Capitalism is not just an ideology, nor just a system of political
economy. It is a moral philosophy whose most basic precept is that each human
being is intrinsically valuable and is entitled to live his life however he
pleases so long as he does not trespass on others doing the same. This moral
philosophy of capitalism is the true road to peace and prosperity. To peace,
because it recognizes the dignity, sovereignty, and responsibility of each
human being; to prosperity, because it coordinates and maximizes the desires,
talents, and incentives of everyone in raising standards of living.
As to the science of global warming, please remember some basic things about
scientists. One, they are almost always wrong! You cannot study the history
of science and come to any other conclusion than that scientists are almost
always wrong, particularly when promoting a new theory. Many hundreds of
theories have been posited by scientists for every one that has eventually
gained some measure of empirical support. And even those theories that have
garnered substantial empirical support, such as Newton's Laws of gravitation,
have been displaced by better theories such as Einstein's view of gravitation
as the curvature of a four dimensional space-time continuum. Tim makes the
point that currently 97 out of 100 scientists believe in global warming (when
did science devolve to majoritarian politics?), but if you're going to make
odds and history is any guide, global warming is still a very long shot to be
true in the long-term.
One of the behaviors that scientists are most vulnerable to is going along
with the crowd. As Thomas Kuhn has pointed out in "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions," it seems the natural approach of scientists is to
agree with each other and accept a particular theory or idea ("the paradigm"
as Kuhn labels it). They hold fast to the paradigm until overwhelming
evidence (and not a few deaths among its strongest adherents) results in its
abandonment. In some cases, such as the sociologists who still revere
socialism, even overwhelming evidence isn't sufficient to dissuade them of
their cherished belief. Professional mandate to the contrary, scientists are
every bit as vulnerable to fallibility as the rest of humanity. It's
unfortunate, but unavoidable, that variations of mob rule occur in science
just as they do anywhere else.
Which is what I think Tim means when he gainsays the scientists who oppose the
theory of global warming because they happen to be drawing checks from the
private sector, including from evil, profit-mad oil companies. (Those are the
same oil companies that provide us with efficient and amazing energy for
transportation, heating, and cooling undreamed of 100 years ago, that has
dramatically raised our standard of living and our life expectancy.) It is
also what I meant by gainsaying the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. That was an organization created in 1988 after they had already
reached their conclusion despite a dearth of evidence on the matter and
because, I believe, it was a nice way to gain attention and get on the
government dole. Sadly, that's a very common strategy of many scientists
today thanks to our increasingly socialistic approach to science.
In fact, there is so little actual evidence of global warming and harmful
effects from global warming that the alarmists resort to computer projections
that may or may not include important feedback mechanisms of nature and man.
The computer models are obviously extremely limited in mapping out the
complexities of nature and atmospheric phenomena. And they certainly include
inputs and programs to accentuate the negatives. Hysteria sells.
As to the quality of evidence on global warming, though it may be the best we
can achieve, it is nonetheless suspect. Measuring the temperature of the
surface of the entire earth is an unbelievably daunting and complex task as
any intelligent person could surmise. How was it done 100 years ago? And who
the heck had the time to do it? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that
the satellite technology we use today wasn't of much help back then. Was
every measuring device back then and is every measuring device now, perfectly
calibrated? As I said on the radio, climatology today is about as advanced as
astronomy was 100 years ago, which is to say, not very advanced at all. If we
are talking about tenths of a degree over a century of time, just how much of
what we're worried about is nothing more than measurement error? One volcanic
eruption in the next 100 years could well dominate any effect of greenhouse
gases produced by man. There have even been some people suggesting that if
the polar ice cap melts, sea levels will rise. But since water is more dense
than ice, not less, melting ice will not raise the level of anything as you
can verify for yourself with a glass of ice water and enough time to let the
ice melt. (Laboratory tip: if you're short on time, use warm water.)
What really drives the global warming frenzy? Politics. It's the ultimate
loony leftist fantasy. Socialist predictions are never borne out, yet the
left remains shameless in its perpetual errors. In this case, however, it
will take 100 years or more until they're proven wrong. In the meantime,
they'll claim that every aberration in the weather substantiates their
theory. It's a perfect position: You take the most variable of all
phenomena, the weather, and claim that its variation proves your point. It's
a phony theory, but in the meantime the commies and Chicken Littles among us
will scream and carry on that, "We must act now!" Do they suggest we expand
freedom to increase our wealth so we can adapt to their alleged problem? Of
course not. They know the right temperature for the planet and they know that
controlling human beings (if not eliminating human beings altogether) is the
only way to solve this problem that is "beyond scientific debate" (Al Gore's
phrase). More government is the solution they propose--what a surprise! It's
the same old failed solution they always propose except in this case, it's a
made-up problem.
230 years ago, Adam Smith wrote:
"The annual produce of the land and labour of England, for example, is
certainly much greater than it was, a little more than a century ago, at the
restoration of Charles II. Though, at present, few people, I believe, doubt of
this, yet during this period, five years have seldom passed away in which some
book or pamphlet has not been published, written, too, with such abilities as
to gain some authority with the public, and pretending to demonstrate that the
wealth of the nation was fast declining, that the country was depopulated,
agriculture neglected, manufactures decaying, and trade undone. Nor have these
publications been all party pamphlets, the wretched offspring of falsehood and
venality. Many of them have been written by very candid and very intelligent
people, who wrote nothing but what they believed, and for no other reason but
because they believed it."
Smith had it right then and he's right now. Although doomsaying is an old and
sustaining profession, it has never been correct. And global warming is just
another in the long line of doomsday myths. In the meantime, let's keep the
likes of the UN, Al Gore, and all the other power-mad leftists from ruining
our existence with their grim fairy tale.
The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D
McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any
institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else. He can be
contacted at john@wrta.com.
Contact John D McGinnis
Back to
Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary
|