Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote a column on November 17 entitled, “What They Really Believe.” Curiously, when the column appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a new, although far clumsier, title was created: “Climate-bill critic’s fantasy.”

To his credit, Friedman doesn’t even try to support the claim that the earth is still warming (it has actually cooled slightly over the last decade), nor does he assert that man is the principal cause of climate change, rather than the sun. In fact, he abandons the global warming argument (since he apparently knows it won’t stand up) in favor of a “green hawk” argument.

Friedman spends most of the column trying to construct rhetorical interest by “logically” deducing certain climate skeptics’ beliefs based on known beliefs. Despite the fact that these discovered beliefs are ridiculous and obviously untrue, it’s hard to tell whether he is being serious or not. After all the column is entitled, “What They Really Believe.” What do the climate-change skeptics believe, according to Friedman?

- The world is going to face a mass plague, like the Black Death, that will wipe out 2.5 billion people sometime between now and 2050.

- It is much better for America that the world be dependent on foreign oil for energy rather than on clean power.

- People in the developing world are very happy being poor.

If, on the other hand, he is merely trying to assert that skeptics are thinking illogically, well, I am afraid Friedman falls into the very trap he is projecting onto others. He finally gets to his point near the end:

So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.

So, it’s:
A: Skeptics don’t care about oil dependency, or
B: Skeptics don’t think the price of oil will rise over time, therefore
C: We shouldn’t raise taxes.

Friedman is wearing intellectual blinders and doesn’t realize there are other possibilities, such as:

A: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about our dependence on hostile regimes for oil. I don’t know a single person, conservative or liberal, who is happy about such dependency.

B: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about what will happen to the price of oil in the future.

C. There is already an enormous profit incentive to develop alternative sources of energy. Can you imagine the money to be made from an invention or process that would provide an alternative source of energy at (and here’s the key) a price better than oil’s?

D. The government does not need to turn to a massive business tax to create alternative energy interest. The interest is already there. There is all kinds of research being conducted, much of it privately, and new developments are occurring rapidly.

E. A massive tax is simply a way to make energy more expensive today. Gee, just what our miserable economy needs. If the concern is the price of energy in the future, why make it more expensive now?

F. At the end, after advocating a massive cap-and-trade tax, he hilariously wants us to “let the free market and innovation do the rest.” In fact, the free market and innovation can occur without a job- and economy-killing tax.

G: In the meantime, yes, let’s drill oil domestically where we can, and yes, let’s build nuclear power plants that provide nearly limitless energy with no CO2 emissions. Both would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What do you say, Mr. Friedman?

You see, all the above are true, but the big-government liberals either can’t understand or address those possibilities effectlvely. So, they resort to constructing fantasies about those who can.