Laurie David: The Debate On Global Warming Is Over!

I saw a truly scary interview on CNBC last Tuesday morning. Cheryl Crowe and Laurie David, producer of Warm Boy Al Gore's movie, are hitting the road for a joint tour in support of global warming. Or is that against it? Hard to tell anymore.

In answer to Joe Kernen's careful, diplomatic questions regarding those scientists who are not part of the 'consensus' on whether there actually is unusual global warming, and/or its definitive cause, Laurie David declared that the debate on global warming is"over."

That's right. Finis. Done. Finished. Now that the liberals have at least a temporary crescendo of popular support, they are moving to close discussion and demand that all humankind 'fix' the problem.

Which means, in other words, something like, 'now that we have momentum on this issue, and have cowed the media into suspecting anyone who disagrees with us, we think it's time to close the debate.'

Yes, I can see how that would be convenient. Sort of like LBJ's War on Poverty. Just full speed ahead, and nevermind any well-founded dissent or contradictory evidence.

Among the bullying tactics David used to parry Kernen's questions were to cast doubt on any research disputing Gore's global warming conclusions. Nevermind that liberals funded his movie. Nobody is above reproach if they dare to actually examine the topic with an open mind. That will no longer be allowed.

In response to a few of Kernen's other questions, including whether we aren't going off a little early on spending untold hundreds of billions on this issue, David pointedly lectured him on some other factoid, using the politician's old favorite, 'answer the question you want to answer, not the one that was asked.'

As if to punctuate this narrow-minded hysteria on the part of liberals about this issue, during that day, one of my more liberal acquaintances actually pronounced herself unable to have conversations with me anymore, because I did not embrace Gore's doctrine on global warming. For added emphasis, she found my business post, here, contemptible, for daring to suggest that Schumpeter's views on monopoly power were correct. I was informed that they are always evil, and if allowed to exist, throttle competition in perpetuity. Guess she really didn't understand the post after all.

To be fair, I should probably enunciate my own beliefs about the topic of observed recent warming of our planet.

Here are five statements pertaining to the topic:

1. The planet has warmed by about 1 degree centigrade over the (fill in your desired timeframe) or so.

2. The planet has recently warmed to an extent, over a time period, that is significantly, statistically, outside the expected range of naturally, historically occurring planetary temperature variation.

3. Scientific evidence shows that, in earlier periods, the earth was much cooler than it is now, although with higher levels of CO2, the 'greenhouse gas' about which Gore & Co. are so worried, suggesting that the scientific community does not actually know with certainty that it is greenhouse gases that cause planetary warming of a statistically significant nature.

4. Even if the planet is warming to an extent outside of historical variation, we do not know with certainty, statistically, that this warming is due to human-sourced activity.

5. It matters, in terms of the sensibility and type of actions to take, whether one believes that recent temperature changes are naturally-occurring, and, thus, a part of the Earth's dynamic processes, or, that the recent temperature changes can be reversed by man's activity.

I agree with statements 1, 3, 4, and 5. I do not agree with statement 2.

I believe that the 'global warming' crowd agree with statements 1 and 2, but disagree with statements 3, 4 and 5.

What is most disturbing to me, from an economic perspective, is their stance on statement #5. As Bjorn Lomborg, an ex-Greenpeace economist, now crusader for more sensible eco-action, has noted, global warming is consistently ranked, by numerous, different deliberative bodies which have participated in exercises with him, among the least attractive issues to address in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Clean water, basic healthcare and hygiene for the poor of the world, and food supply, always rank ahead of this issue.

The reason is simple. If the recent warming of the planet is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, then it makes little sense to attempt to stop it by radically altering the global economic system, impoverish the world's populace to fund the attempt, and potentially forego many other quality-of-life enhancing projects.

The bullying and silencing of legitimate critics and doubters of the certainty that recent warming is human-sourced and outside the naturally-occurring variance of historical temperatures, is a serious ethical and scientific issue. But the ultimate price will be borne by everyone if we foolishly and mistakenly embark on a path of trying to stem a naturally-occurring, dynamic planetary process.

We all know and laugh at the story of King Canute, who ordered the incoming tide to reverse itself, in order to show his subjects that he was not all-powerful.

Who will do the same to show King Al that he, too, cannot stop the earth's natural rhythms?