"Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?"

Thomas Sowell’s statement draws a parallel between everyday skepticism about weather forecasts and broader skepticism regarding predictions about global warming. By referencing a paycheck, he appeals to personal stakes and risk aversion, suggesting that most people would hesitate to risk something valuable based on the perceived unreliability of short-term weather forecasts. Sowell then extends this skepticism to the realm of public policy and scientific prediction: if individuals shun such risks for daily weather, it appears illogical, in his view, for an entire nation to invest substantial resources—“billions”—in response to climate models he claims are less reliable.

The underlying rhetorical device is an analogy grounded in doubt about predictive science. Weather forecasting, especially short-term, is known to contain uncertainties, often acknowledged by meteorologists themselves. However, Sowell intensifies the critique by portraying climate science as possessing “even less foundation.” This reveals a common skeptical position: climate models, which operate on larger scales and longer timeframes, are sometimes conflated with weather forecasting in public discourse, but the two involve different methodologies. While short-term weather is volatile, climate modeling focuses on long-term statistical patterns and involves different types of uncertainty.

By invoking the image of “betting billions,” the statement also questions government policy and international agreements based on projected climate outcomes. Sowell’s skepticism aligns with the idea that the evidence for drastic measures is not compelling enough, given the perceived frailty of the predictions. The rhetorical power lies not only in challenging the science but in highlighting the magnitude of the investment at stake.

For readers, the comparison may evoke doubt or reassessment of both the reliability of climate science and the prudence of large-scale environmental policy decisions. It also appeals to economic self-interest and practicality, suggesting that caution and rigorous scrutiny should precede major commitments, especially when future outcomes remain uncertain.