Question Earthority!

If you’re an environmentalist — libertarian or otherwise — you know the expression. Over the last year or so, I’ve come to think of it as “the hurricane smirk.” It’s the expression those arguing against any environmentalist viewpoint get on their faces when they think they’ve just asked you a “gotcha” question. A question like “so, where are all those hurricanes the global warming snake oil salesmen predicted?”

It’s no secret that the inability of scientists to develop a successful predictive model, combined with the propensity of advocates to make predictions anyway — has been the Achille’s heel of arguments in favor of global warming. Environmentalists find themselves relying on the weak rede of “the precautionary principle” … and “just in case” does not strike most people as a good argument for actions which severely impact economic freedom or their control of their property.

On the other hand, there’s a point beyond which the skeptics doth protest too much. When environmental model predictions are inaccurately portrayed — as they are in the case of hurricanes — the skeptics need to be called on the carpet.

Fact is, I know of no scientist who predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would feature more storms than the 2005 season. What scientists have said — and it makes sense — is that global warming can be expected to produce more intense storms. That’s a safe prediction, since hurricanes pick up their energy from warmer water temperatures. Katrina was not an especially strong storm until it turned west over the warm current in the Gulf of Mexico. If global warming is a real phenomenon, then we can expect storms to grow routinely stronger over time (as general water temperatures below them increase), and to take on bigger boosts from their passage over even warmer pockets or currents.

The skeptics have a wealth of data — or, more precisely, holes in existing bodies of data — at their disposal with which to dispute claims of a general warming trend. They don’t need to make stuff up, at least if their goal is to discover the truth. When they make stuff up, they justify the characterizations of themselves as industry pawns who have a stake in suppression of the truth.

Likewise, environmentalists need to be very careful which limbs they go out on. Every failed prediction carries a cost in loss of credibility. The only real benefit to failed predictions is that they may eventually force environmentalists to drop the “precautionary principle” and start proving their claims in ways that leave less room for dispute.