Do ‘experts’ believe their own predictions? |

Do ‘experts’ believe their own predictions?

In December, New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity released the results of a survey of 365 economists who are experts on the economics of climate change. To qualify as such an expert, an economist had to publish “an article related to climate change in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed economics or environmental economics journal since 1994.”

Here’s the key finding: “Economic experts believe that climate change will begin to have a net negative impact on the global economy very soon — the median estimate was ‘by 2025,’ with 41 percent saying that climate change is already negatively affecting the economy.”

Fifty percent of these experts are so convinced that significant economic damage looms on the horizon that they advocate “immediate and drastic action.” Another 43 percent believe that “some action should be taken now.” So, nearly all economic experts on climate change surveyed advocate at least some government action to combat the menace.

Among the sectors these experts fear will lose because of climate change are agriculture, fishing, utilities, forestry, tourism and health services.

To recommend government “action,” of course, is to recommend that government spend mostly other people’s money, or that it restrict mostly other people’s options, in pursuit of the proposed “solution” to a problem (be that problem true or trumped up). Yet, the ability of experts to stake mostly other people’s property and lives on a proposed “solution” encourages those experts to be careless when recommending policies. After all, none of these experts is personally bearing the brunt of the costs of the recommendations.

So to probe the seriousness of these economic experts’ stated beliefs about the impending consequences of climate change, it’s fair to ask if they personally put their own money where their mouths are. How many of these economists are, for example:

• Buying land in the upper Midwest and inland Canada (the price of which will rise significantly if global temperatures make much of the South, as well as coastal areas, quite unpleasant places to live)?

• Investing in pharmaceutical companies that own patents that extend beyond 2025 on medicines to treat illnesses that are especially prevalent in the tropics and subtropics?

• Shorting shares of companies that specialize in attracting tourists to subtropical and tropical destinations, especially those on or near seacoasts?

If I were truly convinced that global temperatures will continue to rise and will bring about the misfortunes that mainstream environmentalists predict, then I would do more than merely preach to public policymakers. I would also put my money where my mouth is by investing in ways that will increase my personal wealth when my predictions come true.

Furthermore, being an expert economist I’d understand that my investing in these ways would bring benefits not only to me personally but also to all of humankind.

It’s possible that most of the 339 economists who advocate government action to combat global warming are investing in these ways. But I’d make sure that they are so investing before even considering taking their policy advice.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.