Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Al Gore Won't Debate:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_14-2007_01_20.shtml#1169131766
The Wall $treet Journal has an interesting [1]subscribers-only op-ed
by Jyllands-Posten culture editor Fleming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg on Al
Gore's unwillingness to debate or take tough interview questions on
his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth. As Rose and Lomborg tell
it, Jyllands-Posten, the Denmark's largest newspaper, had an interview
scheduled with Gore to conicide with his visit to the country. The
paper also planned to include Lomborg as a counterpoint in the
interview, but it was not to be.
The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent
yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour
later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be
excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr.
Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's
evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to
have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a
reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by
Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the
agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's
suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are
not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over
the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live
in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate
Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an
environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for
the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have
left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle
many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate
change.
The article goes on to note that many of Gore specific claims are
either based on extremely unlikely scenarios, or misrepresentations of
the available evidence. For example, Gore shows seal-level rise
scenarios far in excess of UN projections, makes claims about malaria
that are contradicted by the historical record, and only discusses the
health harms of higher temperatures without considering the benefits.
Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up
choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us,
according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century.
Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable
expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial
that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global
warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite
him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to
interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.
Unfortunately, Gore is not the only one running around promoting
climate scenarios based upon questionable assumptions or otherwise at
odds with the avaiable evidence. Another example is the infamous Stern
report. For a good summary of why the Stern report does not provide an
accuarate or even-handed assessment of the costs and benefits of
greenhouse gas emission reductions, see [2]this article by Robert
Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Mendelsohn points out that the problem is not just Stern's
questionable approach to discounting, but also other assumptions
embedded in his analysis that skew his results.
I should also add that those who claim that there is no "proof" of
global warming are also engaged in a bit of sleight of hand. Of course
there are uncertainties -- but that hardly makes climate change
different than other environmental concerns (or other subjects of
scientific inquiry).
As regular VC readers already know, [3]I believe the preponderance of
scientific evidence supports the theory that human activities are
producing an enhanced greenhouse effect that is altering the earth's
climate, and is likely to produce significant (albeit not
catastrophic) warming over the next century. In other words, I accept
the basic scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernental Panel on
Climate, but remain dubious of some of the model projections,
particularly those based on highly questionable assumptions about
future trends in population, economic growth, and energy use.
The fact is that the vast majority of the available evidence conforms
with our general understanding of the how the climate system works and
how it is likely to respnd to increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations. There are debates and disputes about specific
questions, ranging from the extent and nature of various feedback
mechanisms, the reltive contribution of certain exogenous factors, and
how climate changes will effect other global trends such as sea-level
rise, but this does not mean climate change is a made up concern.
Uncertainty is a fact of life. It is one thing to note uncertainties
when the stakes are high -- as they certainly are on all sides of the
climate policy debate -- quite another to exaggerate uncertainties
when politically convenient. I genuinely fear many of the governmental
policies climate fears may be used to justify, but it would be
disingenuous for me to respond by denying the real threats posed by
climate change. I wish more of my political or ideological "allies"
felt the same way.
The issue to me is not whether human activities are effecting the
climate system (it is almost certain they are). Nor is it whether
there should be a policy response -- I think there should be, even if
it means measures that are otherwise in tension with my fairly
libertarian views of government. Rather, the issues are how we assess
a risk of this magnitude and how we develop policy responses when the
costs of cliamte policy rival those of climate change itself. Neither
apocalyptic environental claims, such as those put forward by Gore,
nor ideologically convenient denial of the evidence, does much to
advance this debate.
References
1.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909379096479919.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-5.pdf
3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_12_31-2007_01_06.shtml#1167922177
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
