Skip to comments.Global Warming: The Heat Is On
Posted on 01/20/2007 8:56:49 AM PST by Mount Athos
Climate Change: In Congress, business and the media, those who urge "doing something" about global warming are moving ahead with an agenda that seeks to stifle free speech and scientific inquiry, and kill the economy.
The announcement that, as part of her "first 100 hours," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) intends to create a special committee to create new laws for global warming shouldn't be a surprise. Pelosi is among a large group of global warming advocates who believe November's election was their big chance to slash our use of greenhouse gases.
In addition to Pelosi's panel, at least four bills are already making their way through Congress to address warming. And as if that weren't enough, a coalition of 10 major companies -- including Alcoa, GE, DuPont and Duke Energy -- have joined with environmental groups to help shape coming legislation.
No doubt, action is on the way. But once here, it won't do much -- other than serious damage to the global economy.
The lack of discussion about what Kyoto would cost is really shocking. It's a lot, yet the focus has been on the bad science and scare tactics of leftist propaganda like Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
Let's start with one stunning "inconvenient truth" -- that no one really knows how to "cut back" greenhouse gases without significantly damaging the economy. That's right: Lowering our output of greenhouse gases would mean a lowering of our GDP.
The annual loss for the U.S. alone, according to the U.N., could be as much as 1.96% of GDP. Today's economy, about $13.3 trillion, would thus shrivel by about $260 billion a year, or more than $11 trillion by 2050. Other estimates go as high as 5% a year of GDP, or $670 billion. That's a total U.S. cost of nearly $30 trillion by 2050.
No matter what you've heard, global warming remains a theory. Yet Kyoto proponents treat it as fact, thus beyond dispute. They want to close off debate, as if we lived in some kind of totalitarian dictatorship.
Sorry, but this is science. And in science, debate ends only when there's no longer convincing evidence to the contrary. And we're a long way from that when it comes to warming.
Yet, some observers, like the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen, advocate revoking the credentials of those who refuse to toe the ideological line. "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change," she said, "then maybe the AMS (American Meteorological Service) shouldn't give them a Seal Of Approval."
Cullen would have been right at home in the 17th century, when the Church threatened Galileo with sanctions for backing Copernicus' theory of the sun's being at the center of the solar system.
Cullen is one of a growing number who want to halt scientific debate. By demonizing those who speak out about the bad science and even worse economics behind Kyoto, they hope to sway public opinion. And it looks like they're succeeding.
Take the sad case of Exxon Mobil. Not surprisingly, the oil giant has long opposed global warming as bad science and helped fund groups that did research challenging the theory. But a while back, green groups threatened to boycott the company's products. Then Democrats regained control of Congress, promising to make life hell for those who didn't go along.
Now Exxon has changed its tune: Global warming is a threat, it says, while cutting off funding of those who disagree. Is it sincere in its new belief? We doubt it. It's a conversion of convenience, like Paul Newman emerging from the ditch in "Cool Hand Luke" to tell the sadistic captain of the chain gang: "I got my mind right, boss." Exxon and others are getting their minds right.
As we keep saying, the science on warming remains very murky. But even if we take Kyoto proponents at their word, the expected 1- to 2-degree rise in temperature by 2100 would be cut by just 0.04 degrees if we accepted their terms. Major polluters such as China, India and Russia remain exempt. So even that 0.04 is in doubt.
Is such a tiny improvement, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, really worth it? We don't think so.
In coming weeks, the new Congress will no doubt try to shore up its environmental credentials by passing something, anything, to make members seem like they're acting on a warming threat. Even President Bush will get in on the act, using warming as a talking point in his State of the Union address.
But politics isn't science, and Americans should beware of confusing the two.
Sounds to me like lefty socialist DIMocRATs are just singing this tune to help bring down our country. Nothing more, nothing less! If Russia, China and India are exempt then what is the point? Sheesh, will the American peole ever wake up to these saboteurs?
Basically, this is just a ruse to raise more taxes.
"Evolution of the species is a fact! All opponents, sit down and shut up!"
Socialism has arrived in Amerika!
First, the assertion is made that we are causing global warming and/or climate change; then comes the assertion that we must control the climate through legislation/regulation and taxation.
The time for debunking is now. It might be much more difficult later. There comes a "political tipping point" after which bloodshed may be required to reverse the situation.
If humans are responsible for global warming are we also responsible for the rash of cold destruction sweeping across the fruited plain in many states such as Malibu Beach, CA? I cannot see how we can be held responsible for warming and not frigid weather too.
I imagine when Ms. Pelosi introduces her legislation, she'll slip in an exemption for the Starkist tuna plant in American Samoa.
I understand your frustration. In cases where disaster is a result of cold temperatures, the term "climate change" is used instead of "global warming", "change" implying, of course, a primary human causation (which is in dispute given that there are many other factors to consider).
Exactly why is the worlds biggest polluter allowed to sign Kyoto but is completely free of all aspects of the Kyoto protocol and its wealth transfer scheme, is it because they are Communists?
Tehran pollution kills 3,600 in a month
China's Boom Adds to Global Warming Problem
Damn glad I returned to public accounting this week.
Held off for years, opting for greater "stability" in corporate jobs.
What a dumbass I was. With the Democrats in charge, and the Republican party imploding, business will be even better (sadly) for tax advisors in the months to come.
I missed the Sarbanes-Oxley wave, but I won't miss this one.
Truthfully, it was more of finding the right situation: small (and very successful) office staffed by recovering "workaholics" who are also recovering from being the parents of teenagers.
One volcano eruption can ruin your whole decade...
Remember the millions (billions?) of gallons released from a nearby dam to enable that photo-op?
WE may hear the term global warming change again this week. Mr. Gore is supposed to give a talk in Idaho Monday on global warming. With the big storms moving thru the area with any luck they'll have to cancel. I don't think he can fly very well with his jets full of ice. I'm hoping because I want to hear the expanation.
IMO, any global warming caused now by humans might lessen the impact of cooling caused by ash output from the next major eruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.