Megan McArdle: Too stupid to opine on global warming

Why does Atlantic columnist Megan McArdle believe in global warming alarmism?


… I’ve basically outsourced my opinion on the science to people like Jonathan Adler, Ron Bailey, and Pat Michaels of Cato–all of whom concede that anthropogenic global warming is real, though they may contest the likely extent, or desired remedies.

If they say the planet is warming, then I trust that this is very likely to be true–not just because I like them, but because if you’ve convinced leading libertarians that humans are contributing to global warming, you’ve convinced me…

Adler is a law professor. Bailey is a writer. And Pat Michaels is no alarmist by any means.

Anyway, what libertarianism has to do with whether greenhouse gases are measurably changing the climate for the worse is anybody’s guess.

Read the entire commentary.

3 thoughts on “Megan McArdle: Too stupid to opine on global warming”

  1. For such a precise analysis and staunch stand on One Shining Gleickness, this is a headscratcher of a position. More like, “it’s not important enough to care all that much so I’ll pick three guys out of the hat and go with that – now moving on to something I want to talk about.”

  2. Global Warming? The critical questions have not been asked by the alarmists let alone adequately answered. How much and from what reference point? Then, if it has warmed, is the warming outside the normal variation of the last one hundred million to a billion years of geological history? If not, why do you think man adding a trace level of CO2 to what is a trace component of the atmosphere will cause a catastrophic runaway temperature increase? If you do believe that the runaway is possible, what is your incontrovertible evidence that it can happen even though it hasn’t happen in the over 3 billion years of earth’s geological history?

    The ONLY objective evidence in favor of the warming catastrophe is that the earth is a slight bit warmer than it was in the depths of the little ice age. This fact does not disclose extent, future direction, nor cause of the future temperature. It is not at all surprising that it is warmer now that it was when it was colder. It is also equally unsurprising that it is colder now than when it was warmer. Might, would, could based upon computer simulations are interesting parlor games but how about actual proof of is, can, and will for a change?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.