Over their global warming witch hunt: (original Newsweek story is here)
“If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A ‘well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.’ This ‘denial machine’ has obstructed action against global warming and is still ‘running at full throttle.’ The story's thrust: discredit the ‘denial machine,’ and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.”
And later in the article:
“Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's ‘denial machine’ is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used
a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)"
Yup, it’s bad when your story’s lede is an urban legend. I’d expect that Bob’s going to have a somewhat chilly reception the next time he goes for a bite at the Newsweek lunchroom… But kudos to Newsweek for swallowing the bitter pill.
The bulk of Mr. Samuelson’s piece is focused on the practical technological barriers to implementing climate control. There are significant political barriers as well – no one seriously believes that the leaders of China, India, Pakistan, or even the EU are really willing to put their economies on the rack in return for negligible climate impact. Or for that matter, leadership of the Democratic Party – otherwise, they would demand a Senate ratification vote on the Kyoto Treaty.
An additional unspoken piece is that many of the alternatives being bandied about also have hidden costs or unintended consequences. For example, the mad rush to biofuels creates pressure to take unused lands and convert them to farms, leading to habitat loss, etc., as well as increases in the prices of food for the poor.
Increased CAFÉ standards impose a hidden tax by forcing people into smaller, less safe cars, as well as potentially driving one Detroit’s big three out of business.
Big changes mean big tradeoffs, lots of winners and losers. The hysteria surrounding global warming has shoved aside most of the discussion of cost benefit analysis, and mostly proposed tactics to benefit the politically connected, like Enron.
It’s also somewhat humorous to note the premise that a hardy band of geeks from the AEI or the Heritage Foundation have managed to stymie all efforts to discuss global warming. I guess that there are no climate control proponents in the government, universities, or the press.
|