Consensus On Contentious Climate Change Forces Difficult "Three decades ago, it was rare to get three summer cuttings of hay at our ranch -- now this is the norm. Global warming is a plausible explanation. Barbra Streisand, Al Gore, and many scientists have proclaimed consensus: global warming is occurring, we are causing it, and the consequences are significant. But the question remains: If this consensus is justified, how should we act?

Wide consensus on unimportant matters is of little ethical consequence: Coke is better than Pepsi and plaid clashes with stripes. This is also true of important phenomena beyond our influence: the sun rises in the East, liquid boils when its vapor pressure reaches atmospheric pressure, and hairy caterpillars harbinger a cold winter.

But when issues have serious implications for the well-being of others, enforced consensus often signals a paucity of critical thinking and a wealth of cowardice. When consequences affect innocent others, it's ethically and intellectually irresponsible to stifle opposing viewpoints. Under forced consensus, opportunistic pretense trumps honest reflection.

This posturing is, alas, contagious. No wonder. Global warming represents the mother lode of externalities. Efforts to combat climate change enable hectoring and hypocrisy. Barbra Streisand jets into Washington to warn Bill Clinton about global warming, and jets out. Prince Charles has bricks put in his toilets' reservoirs to save water while his four-score servants maintain his lifestyle. It must be fun to wallow in sanctimony while deaf to counterarguments and insulated from consequences.

Reality is what persists when illusions are tested and found wanting. Here it comes: The world has far more problems than funds available to address them.

"