How Many Economists Does it Take to Change a Florescent Lightbulb?

On July 20, 2010, Dan Turner of the L.A. Times wrote an article bashing some of the people opposed to Californian proposition 23. His targeted audiences were 1) the "scientists and economists" who put together the list of "scientists and economists" opposing proposition 23, to let them know that their "list" has no significance whatsoever and 2) the American people. His claim was that getting 118 "leading economists" to agree on an issue as controversial as global warming is impossible and doing so makes even the biggest believer of global warming raise their brow. He backed up his claim by pointing out that leading economists don't agree on anything and certainly not something as huge as global warming. He also pointed out that Americans are already skeptical when it comes to trusting organizations with academic sounding names and the Union of Concerned Scientists won't get a second thought.

I love this article because it highlights the real problem of the global warming debate. According to the IPCC, "long term climate prediction is not possible" so all of these scientists stating otherwise are bafoons. The problem arises when American citizens see all of these scholarly articles and consensus performed by "doctors and scientists." With all the skewed data and graphs being thrown around, it would be a miracle if anyone could actually put out 1 chart that goes along with all the "data" being thrown around. I'm not quite sure why these panels of scientists are so eager to throw around data and sign petitions, but in doing so they are making a mockery of the institute of science. The economists mentioned in the article are pushing for action again climate change now when it has already been said, and is actually quite obvious, that we don't know what the climate is going to be like so far in the future. It would be a risky venture financially and the last thing we should be thinking about during an economic depression.