Do you fear the theory of “global warming”? If so, how deep is your fear? As in would you be willing to bet a substantial amount of your net worth that the theory is not just real, but earth existential? Tick tock, tick tock…
The questions asked rate extra asking in consideration of a recent report from the journal Nature. According to a New York Times accounting of the article, “New research has found that scientists studying sea-level rise have been using methods that underestimate how high the water already is.” The Times ads that based on the discovery, it turns out “that the vast majority of scientific studies have made this mistake,” which is said to mean that “Coastal sea levels are, on average, eight inches to a foot higher than many maps and models of the world’s coastlines indicate.”
Woops, or something like that? Naturally the Times is using the errors of scientists to stir up even more alarm about warming's purported effects, and the urgency of now since scientists have so severely miscalculated sea levels, but it would be foolish for the rest of us to let the newspaper or scientists off the hook so easily.
Lest readers forget, global warming’s truest believers have long made their case for a looming crisis all about “science.” To reject the alarmism has been to reject science, along with something like “97 percent” of all scientists…But what if the scientists were wrong all along?
It’s a question worth asking in consideration of how global warming theorists have seemingly always described the difference between planetary survival and planetary Armageddon in the most minute of terms. A degree of temperature here or there has always been billed as enormous in a planetary health sense, not to mention what the difference of a foot or fraction of a foot was supposed to mean for the catastrophe looming in sea levels. We've heard for quite some time that sea levels were at or beyond the point of no return such that the world’s coastal cities were on the verge of being underwater cities. What now, with the calculations so substantially off?
Of course, the problem with all the alarmism from the warming crowd has always been people. Or as Ronald Reagan quipped decades ago, “facts are stubborn things.” While scientists have always counted the heads of scientists to make their case, the migration of people has consistently revealed something very much at odds with scientific certitude.
That’s because where people choose to live and work is easily the world’s purest market signal. And it recalls a recent factoid reported by the Times. It turns out 40 percent of Americans live in coastal cities, which means the vast majority of wealth and top corporations can be found in or near coastal locales.
Would so many so willingly put themselves and their wealth in harm’s way? Would investors do the same by placing their precious capital right where it’s set to be vanquished by rising sea levels? Hopefully the questions answer themselves.
From there, perhaps we can reintroduce some sanity and humility to the debate about global warming's purported effects. Think about it.
While scientists get to speculate on the “science,” people speculate daily about the future by putting their lives, income, and wealth on the line. That they appear unperturbed by what scientists claim is settled should open some eyes.
Barring that, readers might return to this opinion piece’s open. Particularly if they’re still certain about the catastrophic effects of global warming, how much money would they back their alarmism with at Kalshi or Polymarket? Assuming they’re willing to speculate, the view here is that betting markets would tell us more about warming threats than scientists who’ve been so wrong for so long about sea levels.
