GRASS IN REVIEW

GRASSROOT INSTITUTE OF HAWAII

Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society.

 WEEKLY GRASS IN REVIEW   -    December 5, 2007

Selective Recourse to "Consensus"
By John Hood

The next time someone tries to sell global-warming alarmism to you by asserting the existence of an unassailable scientific consensus, don’t be tempted to buy it until the sales rep answers some questions of yours.

1. A consensus about what? There are many separate and important issues tucked into the climate-change cubby. Some are technical questions about the climate, its history and the effectiveness of models forecasting its future. Others are economic questions about the costs and benefits of taking government action to forestall predicting warming. Claims about expertise are often inconsistent here, as alarmists complain when social scientists comment on earth-science matters but express no concern when earth scientists comment on social-science matters (such as how best to expend inherently scarce resources to maximize human welfare).

2. Who says? Look at the results of two comprehensive, international surveys of climate scientists on point to key issues of global-warming policy. Both were conducted by German environmental scientists, in 1996 and again in 2003. Some 530 scientists in climate-related disciplines participated. The surveys did, indeed, find what could properly be termed a consensus on the most basic question. In the 2003 survey, 82 percent of respondents agreed that global warming is underway. But on other key matters, the “consensus” was less overwhelming. Only 56 percent agreed that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes.” This is a magnitude question, of course – a far larger percentage would say that anthropogenic causes are playing some role.

On the other hand, only 35 percent of the climate scientists agreed with the statement “climate models can accurately predict climate conditions in the future,” 41 percent said that the models adequately dealt with water vapor, 35 percent said they dealt adequately with precipitation, just 24 percent said they dealt adequately with cloud cover. The bottom line? When asked if “natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion,” the respondents were split down the middle: 44 percent said yes, 46 percent said no, and 10 percent weren’t sure.

There are other indicators, of course. A number of scientific associations have released statements affirming certain propositions about global warming, including the anthropogenic cause of at least some of it. However, they do not typically endorse the wild exaggerations of Al Gore and other alarmists predicting sea level rise of 20 feet and such. And then there’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Doesn’t its recently heralded report settle the consensus question? Only if you want to know the consensus view among the handful of scientists, politicians, and regulators who wrote the summary documents that most reporters have fixated on. Hundreds of peer-reviewed, scholarly studies have questioned key elements of the alarmist story the IPCC summary report relates.

3. Do you always defer to expert consensus? This is an area particularly fraught with peril for left-wing activists who treat the global-warming issue as settled but agitate for many other public policies that run counter to the consensus opinion of experts. A good example would be trade policy and outsourcing. The vast majority of economists – by which I mean not just those from free-market schools of thought but everyone with graduate-level training in the field – agrees that the free trade of goods and labor confers net economic benefits and that recent free-trade agreements have advanced the interests of both America and its trading partners. There are many interesting disputes about how robust some of the effects are, for sure, but few serious economists believe that the inevitable laws of human action can be rewritten by legislation.

And yet, advocates of protectionism and labor-market restrictions routinely claim otherwise. They assert that raising labor costs will increase employment, that forcing consumers to pay higher prices for inferior goods will make them better off, and that increasing labor productivity by employing comparative advantage hurts the economy. These statements are more akin to the ravings of the Flat Earth Society than are skeptical comments about the net benefits of raising taxes and regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels.

I guess what I’m saying is that, when the usual suspects trot out the “global-warming consensus” argument in an attempt to shut down the debate, don’t let them browbeat or silence you. They are incorrect and inconsistent.

John Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation. This piece originally appeared on Carolina Journal Online.

TRY OUR BLOGS
Use these links to access various topics.

Dash of Calabash>>>Blog Archives>>>In China, a Man’s Home is his Castle Too

Dash of Calabash>>>Blog Archives>>>DC is Murder

Dash of Calabash>>>Blog Archives>>>Banning Gun Bans

The Mystery of Hawaiian History>>>Blog Archives>>>U.S. House Approves Race-Based Government in Hawaii

Read what others have written or add your own thoughts. Click here for more blogs.

LIBERTY NETWORK

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is a member of an extensive international liberty network of organizations that promote more individual autonomy and less governmental involvement in human affairs.

• GRIH president Dick Rowland will be in Washington, DC from December 2-6 attending a State Policy Network networking meeting.

• Did you miss Paul Jacob's keynote speech at the November 3rd Annual Dinner?  You're in luck, as it will be broadcast on Channel 54. Here's the schedule:
  
              Sunday, December 16, 3:00 PM
              Tuesday, December 18, 8:30 PM
              Sunday, December 23, 3:30 PM
              Monday, December 24, 8:30 PM

• One of our members reports that the deadline for the Elks National Foundation Most Valuable Student (MVS) scholarships is approaching, January 11, 2008.   Only high school seniors who are US citizens are eligible to apply and need not be related to a member of the Elks.  Applicants are judged on scholarship, leadership and financial need. Click here to see the details and download the application.  The Elks are planning to award 482 4-year scholarships ranging from $1,000 to $15,000 per year!  Let's find some good applicants from Hawaii.

• You may not have known that this year's GRIH Annual Dinner keynote speaker, Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance, was arrested October 2nd in Oklahoma for violating a law that imposes restrictions on who can circulate petitions in the state. The ultimate aim of Paul and his associates was to curb political spending in the state. If convicted, Paul and his colleagues could be sentenced to as many as ten years in prison.  Paul's plight was the subject of the lead editorial item by Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Magazine, in the November 26, 2007 issue.  Read "Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma?" on Forbes.com.

• Annual Dinner photos have arrived.  We will slowly begin e-mailing them to those of you who have only a few photos and contacting those who have many photos about delivering you a CD.  CDs will be created and sent to awardees automatically.  Remember that photos are not to be published, put on the Internet, or e-mailed to others without the permission of those photographed.

• GRIH seeks one or more individuals willing to endure up to six months of clerical work (to learn the center-right think tank business) who could then be promoted to handle some amount of program work. Funding for program work in the youth program and government/tax areas is available now.  Funds for programs in other areas forthcoming. We seek college graduates or individuals with an equivalent amount of work experience.  Applicants must be able to type and format Word documents; send, reply to and forward Outlook e-mail with various attachments; enter data in Excel work sheets; and have fair understanding of Windows XP file management and experience with standard office equipment.  We are looking for individuals who have something to show from their life experience that they can bring to the job, as well as good writing skills and knowledge of current events or American government. If this sounds like you or someone you know, call Wendy at the GRIH office -- (808)591-9193 -- or email resume to wendy@grassrootinstitute.org.
  

UPCOMING EVENTS

All of the Institute’s events, research publication dates and speaking engagements are available on our website.

• Chuck Muth, president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government public policy organization dedicated to putting the "public" back in public policy, will be in Honolulu during January.  We have tentatively scheduled Chuck for a luncheon speaking engagement at the Pacific Club on Friday, January 18th starting at 11:30 AM.  Tickets will be around $25.  If you do not regularly receive invitations to the Honolulu Calabash and would like to be invited, please e-mail dick@grassrootinstitute.org or call him at (808)591-9193. More information forthcoming. 

• Small Business Hawaii's Annual Conference is scheduled for Wednesday, January 9th at the Ala Moana Hotel, 8 AM - 2 PM.  Rocker & Entrepreneur Gene Simmons will speak on "Ten Points to Make You Rich Like Me."  Click here for more information.