Global warming takes another hit

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that cautions us to think clearly about global warming issues. The author of the article, Bret Stephens, looks at a popular book called Freakonomics, which came out in 2005. Its authors, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, had a lengthy chapter on global warming where they discussed former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold and some of his ideas. Global warming fanatics were not happy with this book, says Stephens, because its authors did not appear to be sold on the hysteria surrounding global warming.

Now these two men are out with a second book, SuperFreakonomics, and the results are the same. Al Gore, a former Clinton official name Joe Romm, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lash out at this book for its supposedly bad reporting as well as its lack of enthusiasm for global warming. Actually, Levitt and Dubner are considered careful researchers. In addition, Stephens says they do acknowledge temperatures have risen a little over one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. But here's where they part company with the global warming hysteria. They note that sea levels will probably not rise more than 18 inches over the next 90 years, which is less than the normal variation of tides along most coastlines. They say "changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." My favorite quotation is from Mr. Myhrvold when he says Al Gore's scary scenarios "don't have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame."

Stephens indicates SuperFreakonomics also challenges the current climate-change craziness in other ways. For example, the authors say climatologists show a herd mentality by matching one another's forecasts. In addition, like everyone else, they respond to the economic reality of research funding. Money is available for those who can claim the greatest problems lie ahead of us. The two authors also point out that huge problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Think of world hunger -- it was solved not by population control but by developing better strains of rice and wheat. So maybe, they suggest, we can tackle global warming with a variety of cheap fixes rather than destroying the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations. They even say we may want to do nothing until the state of technology gets better and can tackle the problem with better solutions.

As you might expect, global warming fanatics hate these ideas. They are interested in controlling huge economies, gaining vast new powers in the process. Stephens quotes Newsweek's Stefan Theil as support: "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Remember how people said it's important to follow the money? Well, here's another good example.

Books like Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are important. They cause us to slow down and truly think rather than being carried along with our emotions. Before we destroy our economy, let’s consider the evidence carefully.