It’s an interesting paradox often left unexplored by the media, but we seldom find someone who’s both passionate about climate change science and economic science.
Economist and professor Robert P. Murphy explored this at length in a recent column, using the April 22nd “March for Science” to demonstrate how little people know — or care to know — about economics.
Despite being supportive of the scientific method, Murphy aptly explained, the environmental activists taking to the streets to demand governments “do something” about the issue also used the event that gathered thousands of people across the country to show President Donald Trump they do not agree with his proposed budget cuts.
Claiming Republicans are “climate change deniers” who often ignore the “consensus” on global warming among the scientific community, these same science-loving advocates ignore the “consensus” on economic science. Instead of being consistent, they call for government intervention to bring an end to man-made climate change, Murphy correctly points out.
But as a Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research specializing in climate change, Murphy knows better.
A belief held by many economic science deniers includes the idea that a “bare minimum to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius” is imperative. However, if you consult the last United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, you won’t find anything that justifies that limit, Murphy wrote.
Furthermore, Murphy contends, “the IPCC’s own estimate of the economic cost of compliance with the policy goal [of limiting warming to 2°C] was greater than the estimate of the climate change damages from ‘doing nothing.’” Meaning that forcing governments to go along with this arbitrary cap would cost nations more, causing more damage than if government officials were simply sitting on their hands.
Still, Murphy continued, critics charged at him after he pointed their inconsistencies out, suggesting that the IPCC had used economic models that weren’t sufficient and adding they may have understated the risk posed by climate change. But by ignoring Murphy’s observations, climate change advocates who criticized his comments have also completely ignored the scientific process, putting their own beliefs before sound evidence.
Instead of relying on research and evidence-based results, Murphy concludes that the “refusal to follow the science” might be “more widespread” among environmental activist than one might suspect.
So what are these marchers doing when they take it to the streets to fight for the planet? Are they parading their “awareness” across the country out of a strange urge to appear “woke?” Or are they simply so oblivious of what science truly is that their lack of enthusiasm for the hard work that goes along with it shows, making them seem like the unsophisticated privileged kids they truly are?
We might never know.