Steven F. Hayward of AEI reviews some recent history and then asks a good question of the climate change crowd:

This is more than just a problem of having cried wolf too often; there seems to have been little introspection or second thoughts among environmentalists about why their Malthusian alarms rang false in the past. Given their track record, why should anyone believe that this time the alarmists have it right? There has been only grudging acceptance among environmentalists of the positive role of economic growth, the resiliency of human beings, and the dynamic world human ingenuity creates.

Comments

[cactus]

One could ask the same question of the tax cutting crowd. I remember how the economy was going to tank after Clinton raised taxes. And then it was going to tank some more after he raised taxes some more. And then, eight years later, it did. And given GW's tax cuts (combined with extremely cheap money, a courtesy the Fed never gave Clinton) we should expect the economy to be growing so much faster under GW than it ever did under Clinton. (No link this time - the BEA's NIPA table website is down at this time so I can't quote any numbers - sorry.)

[Eric]

Taking aim at the climate change crowd is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, no? If we've hit the "tipping point" as many of them claim, isn't it true that we won't begin to see and feel the effects for decades? Regardless, it simply seems that no amount of scientific research saying the same thing will be enough for conservatives to buy into this idea though.

[Jake]

Global warming is such a wonderful theory. How can anyone resist it?

If it doesn't rain, global warming is the cause.
If it does rain, global warming is the cause.
If it is cold, global warming is the cause.
If it is hot, global warming is the cause.

Once we reject all technology, it won't be too hot, or too cold, or too wet, or too dry. Everything will be just right.

[Nathan]

I just read The State of Fear by Michael Crichton, an expose of sorts on globaly warming. It has all the stuff you would expect from a novel, especially lots of dead bodies and an interesting "blue ring of death" ooooh... But there are also lots of footnotes and citations of scientific journals. A nice quick read on the questionable science used to prove global warming. Which leads me to question the way that much of science is being done today...

Also the SPEL club at NCSU is considering having a debate on global warming. Check their blog http://spelbinder.blogspot.com to express interest.
Nathan

[cactus]

I'm not qualified to judge issues of global warming, but Craig Newmark's point is that people who are frequently wrong should not be relied upon. I remember reading Crichton's Rising Sun - it too had a bunch of footnotes and citations. It was a novel, but was intended to convey the impression (and as I recall, Crichton just about stated as much in the afterward) that the Japanese were going to take over the world, and they meant us ill.

[ptm]

Crighton is hardly a solid source on the matter.

The reason to think the alarmists may be right this is science. While plenty of questions remain (causation? effects? mitigation?), global warming is quite real. Feel free to peruse the National Academies' websites on the matter.