Jonah Goldburg: Global cooling costs too much

The LA Times is printing this? Strawmannissimo!

Jonah Goldberg:

Global cooling costs too much

What would you prefer -- increase temperatures by less than a degree, or give up all the world's wealth?
[...]
But let me just add that in the great scheme of trade-offs in the history of humanity, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity.
[...]
Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat. Of course, warming might get more expensive for us. (And we might do a lot better than 1,800% too.)
[...]
Frankly, I don't think the trade-off is worth it — yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time. Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today's costs. What technologies? I don't know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we'll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden's mouth.

Got it, Jonah. Thanks.

And, as I've said, it's always this Grail-ish "technology" thing that's our saviour with the "right."

You can read the whole thing here.

Busy Busy Busy summarizes Jonah's position:

I do think my judgment is superior to Al Gore's when it comes to climate change.