What Do We Learn From Boys Who Cry Wolf?

With the upcoming prospect of a child addressing Congress last week, conservative outlets made much hay over a well-timed list put out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute of failed predictions of eco-apocalypse.

A prime example of this comes from John Nolte of Breitbart, with the title, "Climate 'Experts' Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions." A skim will immediately show a problem with the title: The cited predictions are not all about climate, although many are.

But that's hardly the biggest problem. A more careful reading will reveal something that threatens to nullify the usefulness of lists like these:

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for "experts" who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41 times, would you hang in there for number 42? [minor edits]

Nolte is absolutely correct that it is foolish to listen to someone with a proven record of error. But he misses a larger point.

Charles Ponzi (Image by the Florida Times-Union, via Wikipedia, public domain.)

But suppose, to borrow his analogy, that your investment counselor, who has never steered you wrong, is telling you that NOW is the time to bet the farm on something that sounds like it could be a Ponzi scheme. His record might be great, but you would be a fool to ignore your gut and everything you know to "panic" (as Greta Thunberg labels the kind of action she would have us take) and dump all your assets into his plan. Does this plan sound like a Ponzi scheme? Why do Ponzi schemes always eventually fail? What do such investments keep you from doing with your money? Most important, why are they illegal? Aren't they a form of fraud? At the very least, you should take as much time as you need to investigate this recommendation, including consulting with others.

It doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate such a counselor is, there are some conversations you shouldn't even be having with him.

And that's what we're having with the proposals being bandied about by the Greens. If it looks like fascism/socialism, swims like fascism/socialism, and quacks like fascism/socialism, then it probably is fascism/socialism: Even if the experts were right every single time so far, there is no reason whatsoever for us to "sacrifice our economy and our personal freedom" (to be redundant) as a means of addressing it.

Why? Because man, being the rational animal, depends on the unfettered use of reason to survive, and doing away with freedom prevents him from acting on his best judgement.

The central planning of fascistic, socialistic programs such as the Green New Deal, will almost certainly prevent countless individuals from acting (individually or collaboratively) as they judge best to solve any problems caused by the alleged crisis (or otherwise). And the inherent central planning, lacking numerous inputs is a certainty to make wrong decisions -- which the government will then attempt to force everyone to act upon.

So Nolte may be right that catastrophists make poor guides, but he misses a chance to make the positive case against massive government action on "climate change" -- or the "climate crisis" -- or whatever it's being called at the moment -- or anything else but its job of protecting the individual's right to make and act on his own decisions. In fact, all of those other things are worse than keeping the government from doing its job.

This is why fraud is wrong, and this is why Greta Thunberg and her puppet masters are wrong.

The folks who are most smug about catching the boy crying wolf are missing the point of that fable: The boy's errancy about wolves is a sign that he is probably going to lie about other things, too. Your investment advisor is wrong and he's offering a share in a Ponzi scheme.

Or: There is never a good time to "sacrifice our economy and our personal freedom."

-- CAV