October 3 2013
Vicki E. Alger
Last Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its first review in six years.
IPCC’s review isn’t making headlines for what it found. It’s making news for what it didn’t find, namely, a solid basis for the hysteria of doomsday peddlers.
Investor’s Business Daily underscored the distinctly unscientific behavior of many global warming alarmists:
A weeping meteorologist says he'll forgo jet travel and having children because he's upset by last week's climate change report. …
Eric Holthaus appears to be a publicity hound crying out for attention. His tweet explaining how he broke down in tears to his wife upon hearing that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say it's 95% certain man is warming Earth is surely self-serving.
So, too, is his claim that on Friday he was boarding "the last flight I ever take" because flying is "not worth the climate."
The former Wall Street Journal weather writer also pledged to have "no children" and was "thinking of a vasectomy" to help him keep his promise.
IBD notes that Holthaus isn’t an isolated example. “Climate change delusion” has sent scores of otherwise rational people to hospitals and psych wards.
Elsewhere, Copenhagen Consensus Center Director Bjørn Lomborg writes that we need to be sensible, not scared silly:
We need to get back to reality. Yes, global warming is happening. In the long run, it has an overall negative impact. But actually — and surprisingly for many — economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit. Worldwide and in almost all regions, many more people die from cold than heat. With increasing temperatures, avoided cold deaths will vastly outweigh extra heat deaths. By midcentury, researchers estimate 400,000 more heat deaths but 1.8 million fewer cold deaths. …
We need to fix global warming, but we need to find smarter strategies to do so. Economists including three Nobel laureates in the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate found that the smartest, long-term solution would be not to subsidize today’s hugely inefficient green technologies but to focus on innovating to push down the costs of future generations of wind, solar and the many other, amazing possibilities. If future green technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, not just subsidized, well-meaning Westerners.