Warming a cold fact?
By Richard W. Rahn
February 27, 2007http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070226-090438-1111r.htm

Do you think those who have reservations about whether man is creating
global warming should lose their jobs and be denied the right to
present their views?

Over the last few months, there has been a concerted effort to silence
those who have doubts about global warming and man's effect on the
climate. The Oregon State climatologist was fired for disagreeing with
the "conventional wisdom." A meteorologist with the weather channel
demanded that dissenting views not be broadcast. CNN, in particular,
has treated skeptics with great disdain.

As an economist, I do not claim to know for certain who is right and
who is wrong in this debate, but I do know that attempts to shut down
debate are both wrong and dangerous. When I was a student, Keynesian
economics was the "consensus," and those few who disagreed, like
Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, were ridiculed by the economic
establishment, and students in many universities were not even exposed
to their views. By the late 1970s, it was apparent to those who cared
to look at the data and the world around them that Keynesian economics
had all been wrong and Friedman and Hayek had been right. Once
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and other government leaders adopted
the Friedman/Hayek model, their economies and also the world economy,
entered the longest and highest rate of growth ever. History is filled
with those who dissented against the conventional wisdom but were
proved correct, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Albert Einstein and many
others.

The doomsayers in the media and political classes were all atwitter
last month when the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report was released, saying humans were partly
to blame for global warming -- so I decided to read the report.

Let's do a mind game. The authors of the report predict average
temperature will increase between 3.2 and 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit over
the next century, and that sea levels will rise between 7 and 23
inches. Assume, for the moment, that mankind can do nothing about this
projected climate change. Given that information, how would you change
your behavior? If you are like most people, you would do nothing but
enjoy the few extra days of summer and swimming. If you were going to
build a house on the sea, you might build it a couple of feet higher
than the existing codes require -- no big deal. Unless you enjoy
shoveling the snow, having a little less of if to contend with each
winter probably would bring more pleasure than pain.

Now, let us assume mankind might be able to slowly reduce global
warming by drastically reducing carbon emissions. This can be done by
increasing the cost of power and fuel. How much would you be willing
to pay to make these changes for something you would barely notice
over your lifetime? Would you be willing to take on these extra costs,
knowing they would accomplish very little if the citizens of the rest
of planet did not do the same?

What do this and other reports about climate change tell us? A
majority agrees the most notable temperature increases will be in
upper Canada and Siberia, and the moisture these areas receive will
increase -- which means much better and longer growing seasons in
these areas. These favorable developments will be partially offset by
longer droughts in some localities. But given that both these positive
and negative changes will occur slowly over a century, humankind will
have plenty of time to adapt, and on balance it will be easier and
less costly to produce food. If you are a skier, your season will be
shortened, but if you play baseball, football, golf or swim, your
season will be longer.

However, if the politicians on the left operate true to course, they
will propose even more costly regulations and higher taxes, without
any offsetting tax reduction. This will unnecessarily make the poor
poorer and reduce job creation. The brains of many on the left (and
some on the right) seem unable to understand second-order effects of
policies and actions, which tends to make them overstate problems and
come up with solutions that do more harm than good.

Vaclav Klaus, who is both a distinguished economist and president of
the Czech Republic, criticized the new U.N. report on global warming,
saying it was a political document, "without scientific basis." He
also said, "a sane person can't conclude that we are ruining the
planet" as Al Gore has said, given that the planet is now far more
user friendly for humans than it has ever been in the past.

It is worth remembering that, as recently as the 1970s, a consensus
held we were in a period of global cooling and might face a new ice
age. Those who seek to shut down the debate are only revealing their
ignorance of history and disdain for liberty.

--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net

Warming a cold fact?
By Richard W. Rahn
February 27, 2007
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070226-090438-1111r.htm

Do you think those who have reservations about whether man is creating
global warming should lose their jobs and be denied the right to
present their views?

Over the last few months, there has been a concerted effort to silence
those who have doubts about global warming and man's effect on the
climate. The Oregon State climatologist was fired for disagreeing with
the "conventional wisdom." A meteorologist with the weather channel
demanded that dissenting views not be broadcast. CNN, in particular,
has treated skeptics with great disdain.

As an economist, I do not claim to know for certain who is right and
who is wrong in this debate, but I do know that attempts to shut down
debate are both wrong and dangerous. When I was a student, Keynesian
economics was the "consensus," and those few who disagreed, like
Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, were ridiculed by the economic
establishment, and students in many universities were not even exposed
to their views. By the late 1970s, it was apparent to those who cared
to look at the data and the world around them that Keynesian economics
had all been wrong and Friedman and Hayek had been right. Once
Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and other government leaders adopted
the Friedman/Hayek model, their economies and also the world economy,
entered the longest and highest rate of growth ever. History is filled
with those who dissented against the conventional wisdom but were
proved correct, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Albert Einstein and many
others.

The doomsayers in the media and political classes were all atwitter
last month when the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report was released, saying humans were partly
to blame for global warming -- so I decided to read the report.

Let's do a mind game. The authors of the report predict average
temperature will increase between 3.2 and 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit over
the next century, and that sea levels will rise between 7 and 23
inches. Assume, for the moment, that mankind can do nothing about this
projected climate change. Given that information, how would you change
your behavior? If you are like most people, you would do nothing but
enjoy the few extra days of summer and swimming. If you were going to
build a house on the sea, you might build it a couple of feet higher
than the existing codes require -- no big deal. Unless you enjoy
shoveling the snow, having a little less of if to contend with each
winter probably would bring more pleasure than pain.

Now, let us assume mankind might be able to slowly reduce global
warming by drastically reducing carbon emissions. This can be done by
increasing the cost of power and fuel. How much would you be willing
to pay to make these changes for something you would barely notice
over your lifetime? Would you be willing to take on these extra costs,
knowing they would accomplish very little if the citizens of the rest
of planet did not do the same?

What do this and other reports about climate change tell us? A
majority agrees the most notable temperature increases will be in
upper Canada and Siberia, and the moisture these areas receive will
increase -- which means much better and longer growing seasons in
these areas. These favorable developments will be partially offset by
longer droughts in some localities. But given that both these positive
and negative changes will occur slowly over a century, humankind will
have plenty of time to adapt, and on balance it will be easier and
less costly to produce food. If you are a skier, your season will be
shortened, but if you play baseball, football, golf or swim, your
season will be longer.

However, if the politicians on the left operate true to course, they
will propose even more costly regulations and higher taxes, without
any offsetting tax reduction. This will unnecessarily make the poor
poorer and reduce job creation. The brains of many on the left (and
some on the right) seem unable to understand second-order effects of
policies and actions, which tends to make them overstate problems and
come up with solutions that do more harm than good.

Vaclav Klaus, who is both a distinguished economist and president of
the Czech Republic, criticized the new U.N. report on global warming,
saying it was a political document, "without scientific basis." He
also said, "a sane person can't conclude that we are ruining the
planet" as Al Gore has said, given that the planet is now far more
user friendly for humans than it has ever been in the past.

It is worth remembering that, as recently as the 1970s, a consensus
held we were in a period of global cooling and might face a new ice
age. Those who seek to shut down the debate are only revealing their
ignorance of history and disdain for liberty.


--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.


"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net