Last week I was a guest on Larry Kudlow’s Saturday morning radio program (on WABC, New York). A man called the program and said that some of these surveys which claim scientific support for the global warming hypothesis, contained some decidedly unclimatolgical signatures from pediatricians, gynecologists or just about anybody else with a terminal degree. In other words the case against oil was a little slipperier than reported.
“Gynecologists against drilling?”, I thought, “Seems like there must be some kind of conflict of interest here. I need to learn more.”
Googling ‘gynecologist’ and ‘warming’ is an adventure in itself, but eventually I found a report by the National Center Policy Analysis which indeed found such signatures on a letter released by Ozone Action, and widely circulated in the media. (See Bowyer's take on oil in the video).
Who am I to judge the scientific case for global warming? I have barely any more experience in climatology than I do in gynecology, although I am an eager student in both. However, it seems to me that the incredibly obvious point of weakness in the public policy argument is blindingly obvious.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist at Benchmark Financial Network, is a member of the Kudlow Caucus, and makes regular appearances on CNBC. He also writes extensively on finance and history for the National Review, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Crosswalk.com, and The New York Sun. He can be emailed at email@example.com.