Byline: By Robert Carter and Paul Driessen, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Bjorn Lomborg is avidly courting publicity for his new film, Cool It. He correctly observes that public discussion about global warming is largely between two entrenched camps of opinion. He's also right about our needing a Plan B climate policy that defuses the current rancorous and unproductive debate about the man-made climate problem.
Mr. Lomborg's first camp is inhabited by warming alarmists, supported by the majesty of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most major institutions in Western society have joined their funereal fugue (and funding pipeline) in supportive chorus.
In the other camp, empiricists (including a majority of independent scientists) argue implacably that we still await actual, factual evidence that our planet is still warming at all - let alone dangerously, let alone because of human carbon dioxide emissions.
Reality, of course, is a lot more nuanced, and it is simply incorrect to say, as Mr. Lomborg does, that most independent scientists argue that global warming was a fabrication.
The truth is, all competent scientists agree on three things. Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago, and its climate changes frequently. Human activities (not just CO2 emissions) definitely affect local climate and, combined, have the potential to affect global climate, perhaps measurably. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, albeit a minor one.
The real scientific debate is not about any of this. It is, rather, about the direction and magnitude of global human effects and their likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change.
After spending more than $100 billion since 1990 to support research by thousands of scientists, we are still unable to isolate and measure human influence on global temperature. That influence remains buried deeply in the noise and natural variation of Earth's climate system.
Mr. Lomborg is either ignorant of this fact or chooses to ignore it. He simply assumes the man-made climate problem is real - and proceeds to offer a solution. Governments should allocate yet more money for more research, this time into new renewable technologies for power generation, so that green energy eventually (and presumptively) becomes cheaper than hydrocarbon-based energy.
There are two major problems with this. First, technological innovation is not enhanced by governments attempting to pick winners but by encouraging and rewarding private investment and entrepreneurship in truly free markets.
Spending taxpayer money on problems government wants to solve generally means the problems - and the funding recipients - are chosen for political reasons. As failures like Europe's Concorde, Australia's pink-batts home-insulation program and America's Synfuels Corp. attest, they rarely achieve the desired result, but breed enormous cost, waste and corruption.
Second, the amount of capital invested in attempting to improve the efficiency of green energy during the past three decades is many tens of billions of dollars in tax credits and other subsidies. The results are lamentable.
Even when the sun shines or wind blows, solar-cell and wind-turbine power remain inefficient, unreliable, destructive of landscapes and at least three times more expensive than conventional alternatives. …