Al Gore's Economics

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704402404574527572868084330-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwMDExNDAyWj.html

Holman Jenkins has a perspective on Al Gore's investment in global warming (or, rather, the prevention of same) that starts out with a reference to Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn's question to Gore during a House hearing: did his investments in green energy mean he would benefit personally from cap and trade? Jenkins' perspective is that Ms. Blackburn was a little late since Gore had long ago jumped over to the side of "salesmanship" by whatever means. As far back as 1989, he insisted there was no dispute worthy of recognition about the danger of man made climate change. And, of course, he now titularly heads a vast establishment with a stake in one side of the argument.

So, Jenkins goes on to point out, after a decade in which the "EARTH APPEARS TO HAVE STOPPED WARMING" and even cooled, global warming advocates have rushed to embrace a computer simulation that predicts "cooling" and allows for future cooling, even while assuring that the world is destined to face disastrous "warming" anyway. This would be not dissimilar to prognosticators of doom who have, over centuries, adjusted their forecasts when the deadlines pass. Further, Gore's own predictions of a climate catastrophe have not lessened, and, every time he opens his mouth, the costs of meeting the emergency become easier and easier to swallow. According to Jenkins, they are not even "costs" anymore, they are "profits" (this is the new math from Gore's new book).

Mr. Gore points out that he has poured his own money into two climate action nonprofits, but, whatever his motives, aren't these nonprofits functionally propaganda arms (i.e., advertising) that benefit his for-profit investments?

Jenkins feels, and I agree, that evidence of man's impact on climate is maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. Mr. Gore disagrees, but the case for action has become less "closed" since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums of money and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.

Now, even climate activists recognize a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. For a while, the media could report evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what "causes" warming. Inconveniently (is that a good word?), however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined, the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.

Fortunately, Jenkins alludes to the fact that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) were never going to sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change.

For those of us who agree with the Jenkins' position, we might ask what will come of the upcoming discussions in Copenhagen where world leaders will be expected to do something about the issue? My guess: a strong statement that something needs to be done. That would be reasonable and very inexpensive.