Yep. It's all just a communication problem. The Shrubberies believe they can b.s. their way out of anything. Will they ever learn? Will they ever be held accountable?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe Global Warming has become a euphemism for a political agenda. It has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics.

So how can anyone question the decrees handed down from the Ivory Towers to the unwashed masses? Answer: every religion has its heretics.

The simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.

For example, in May of 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:

1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes."

Read more... if you dare:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please don't be a stranger, we look forward to your take. It's somewhat of a painkiller and reality check at the same time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh how I love sarcasm and satire....

But of course global warming doesn't exist! It's those pesky liberals trying to scare the American people again! Just come on over to mama government's teet, everything is ok. (Why do I get the feeling that we should change our image of Uncle Sam to an elderly blind man drooling on himself. No offince meant to the elderly or blind, this is just the picture I get in my head when I hear anything coming from the government)

Oh, don't mind that hole in the ozone layer of Austrailia, it's not that big! (even though skin cancer is highly prevelent there)

And don't worry yourself with rising ocean levels or the shift in our magnetic pole. It's just the 'liberal boogyman' trying to scare you! But if you're still scared, we have plenty of pills to make it all better! And don't trust that pesky Al Gore, he's just crazy. So come to our christian church, take your pills, and always blindly trust your government. Because if you don't, you're crazy and sinful!
(*note: I do not hate all Christians. I take most of my beliefs from Christianity. However, with all the higher ups hiding behind that religion to justify their actions and the actions of what I call "Sunday Christians", I have become very cynical of the church in general)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, but you aren't looking at the whole picture, Will.

Just consider the inconvenience of having to evacuate New York city alone due to rising ocean levels. The cost of that alone will be incalculable. Cleaning up all those old factories and grounds so the oceans won't become more polluted, uprooting Lady Liberty and moving her to higher ground and dynamiting the island she currently sits on to remove that obstruction from the newly deepened shipping channel. Moving the docks to . . . where? Buffalo?

No, no, Will, it's much better to do nothing now and then scramble to let the people drown later with plausible deniablity and to say that you have to let the ocean become further polluted because it would be too expensive by then and you won't be able to get the job done anyway.

Consider that for a moment and then multiply the scenario by every coastal town and metropolis, AND don't forget to include every inland town where the waters will encroach through low lying channels of land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I stopped being concerned about global warming after watching this

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

by Doug Bandow

"We're all Keynesians now," declared President Richard M. Nixon when he surrendered his fiscal policies to liberal orthodoxy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did much the same with his recent executive order calling for draconian cuts in the emission of "greenhouse gases" linked to global warming. "The debate is over," he claimed.

The issue of global warming, though presented as a matter of scientific certainty, is actually highly controverted. Although the planet almost certainly is warming, how much of that is due to humanity -- which contributes only about .3 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions -- remains in dispute.

So does the likely magnitude of warming, as well as the ultimate impact on the climate. Over the last decade predictions of the temperature rise over the coming century have fallen greatly, with the most realistic estimates lagging behind the increase during the "little climate optimum," the Medieval period roughly 2.5 degrees centigrade warmer than today.

Indeed, moderate warming at night and in the northern hemispheres, when and where most of the recent warming has occurred, is a positive development for humanity. Such a temperature rise lowers morbidity and mortality rates and lengthens growing seasons.

Moreover, most of Schwarzenegger's claimed consequences of global warming simply aren't true. Joel Schwartz, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that warmer temperatures won't increase heat-related mortality, which has fallen by 75 percent since the 1960s.

Nor is the phenomenon related to asthma, as Schwarzenegger claimed. And higher temperatures are more likely to reduce than increase other air pollutants.

Nevertheless, assuming that global warming is a problem to be solved, the so-called Kyoto treaty, signed in December 1997, is not a good answer. By its own terms it would merely mean that the temperature predicted to occur in 2100 (any estimate a century off is essentially meaningless) would actually arrive in 2106.

Kyoto's original objective, to hold energy consumption at 1990 levels, is well-nigh unattainable, at least at acceptable cost. And since the Kyoto pact did not cover developing states, most importantly rapidly growing China and India, today's industrialized states would have to cut their energy consumption even more.

Even a dozen European nations that once championed Kyoto now concede that they will fall short. Notes Frances B. Smith of the group Consumer Alert, "People cannot simply turn up their air conditioner thermostats to 72 degrees from 70, or replace 75 watt light bulbs with 60 watt bulbs. Instead, the proposed Kyoto accord will require drastic reductions in energy use in every aspect of people's every day lives."

And that won't be easy. "Energy is the lifeblood of industrial civilization," observed Case Western University Law School Professor Jonathan Adler. Radical reductions in energy consumption mean radical reductions in economic activity.

Among the steps proposed to force down U.S. energy consumption are an emissions cap on greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide; a "carbon tax" on fossil fuel consumption; an increase in fuel economy (CAFE) standards on autos; new building codes and appliance energy standards; a national deposit on beverage containers; regulations encouraging high density home construction and discouraging driving; and a variety of subsidies for alternative energy sources and fuel efficient cars. Since fossil fuels remain the world's most plentiful and cost-efficient energy source, none of these steps would be cheap.

This article originally appeared on the American Spectator on July 1, 2005.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Total economic output would take a huge hit. Over the last decade or so estimates have ranged up to $350 billion annually. In the mid-1990s this represented an economic loss of up to $1,500 per person. Eugene Trisko of the United Mineworkers of America warned that "most credible estimates of the costs of reducing carbon emissions in the U.S. show cumulative GDP losses of up to $1 trillion to $3 trillion over a 15 or 20 year period."

Another cost measure is job loss. Estimates vary, but the projected magnitude is consistent. For instance, an early study by Wilbur Steger and Frederick Rueter for CONSAD Research Corporation predicted that between 240,000 and 360,000 jobs would be lost in the first three to five years after Kyoto's implementation, "and would be accompanied by adverse economic conditions, including high inflation, resembling the energy price shocks of the 1970s."

Within a few more years lost employment could rise above 1.6 million, with several more million jobs at risk in "vulnerable industries." Their work matches the results of a study by the consulting firm DRI, Inc., which predicted 1.7 million lost jobs. A Clinton administration study foresaw an employment loss of 900,000.

The more stringent the standards, the bigger the impact. Steger and Rueter considered proposals to reduce rather than stabilize energy usage (at the time based on 1990 levels). They warned: "We are looking at magnitudes of short-to-medium-term output, employment and value added effects that are double, triple, or possible even five times greater." The economic cost of large, arbitrary cuts in energy consumption would be enormous.

Another measure is energy price. Although the results depend upon the exact measures adopted, the Department of Energy projected a 50 percent hike in electricity rates. Another estimate foresaw a 60 cent a gallon increase in gasoline prices and a 50 percent jump in home fuel costs.

Price increases would ripple through the economy, from food to airline travel to heating to services to government operations. Higher energy prices and new regulations would cause other, indirect harms. Frances Smith points out that "numerous studies have shown the relationship between income and health." Sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy through higher energy prices would reduce money for other uses, ranging from health care to safe housing.

Moreover, some energy-saving measures are positively dangerous. For instance, CAFE standards push people into smaller cars, which lose when involved in car accidents with larger autos and trucks. Raising the standard to 40 mph would, according to a Harvard University-Brookings Institution study, cause an additional 3,800 to 5,800 accident deaths every year.

California, the nation’s most populous state, would bear a large share of Kyoto's burden. The Golden State leads the country in energy consumption. Dramatically cutting back on energy consumption would leave California as the biggest loser.

But Schwarzenegger doesn't want to just reduce energy use. He hopes to largely eliminate the consumption of traditional fuels. Joel Schwartz figures that Schwarzenegger's energy plan would cut energy use by 11 percent in 2010, 25 percent in 2020, and 87 percent in 2050.

Extrapolating from a federal study of national energy controls, Schwartz estimates that an 11 percent reduction would cost about $40 billion. He warns: "While reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions to 1990s levels would impose hardship, attempting to reduce GHGs 80 percent below 1990 levels would amount to destroying California in order to save it."

This article originally appeared on the American Spectator on July 1, 2005.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With the facts against him, Schwarzenegger repairs to the usual political redoubt of "protecting" the children: "We have no choice but to meet this challenge. We must leave a better world for our children and their children."

If it cost nothing to reduce use of fossil fuels, we could let sentimentalism rule and ignore serious doubts about the dangers posed by global warming. But wrecking the economy would be a high price to pay to deal with a phenomenon of uncertain magnitude that might end up being transitory and even positive.

Gov. Schwarzenegger was elected governor after promising to combat job-destroying regulation. Now he is proposing controls far more stringent than anything advanced by local Democrats. Alas, the more Republican politicians claim to represent the future, the more they look like their opponents.

This article originally appeared on the American Spectator on July 1, 2005.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want it to get warm so that I get to see all you limp wristed enviro-whackos DIE......from hysteria. I'll enjoy the added sunshine and a really good tan all year round. How warm does it have to be to grow bananas in Maryland?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

see you in extinction!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For a while I've been wondering about why all the right-wingers have been bothering to post so many comments on left and liberal blogs, attempting to refute global warming, human complicity and the negative effects it will cause. It has finally dawned on me.

They are losing their base on this issue. A great many conservatives are sportsmen, wilderness hikers, etc., and they are seeing the effects first hand. The neocons are running scared. Most of them (but not all) have more sense than to directly attack people who are their allies on other issues; hence they come here and attack us.

Think of all the huge reserves of hydrocarbons that that have been stored in the earth for tens and hundreds of millions of years and are now being rereleased into the atmosphere. This isn't supposed to have any effect on the biosphere? What a laugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read the list. Sounds good. and NY and Miami (and New Orleans!) under water. What could be better. Winter is bad for the health of older people. And who can afford beachfront in Florida or California anymore?

Climate changes throughout history. If you want things to stay the same, swallow a bottle of pills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps the planet needs all the global warming it can muster, as the earth is both cooling down since creation and is also slowly heading towards another of it's periodic Ice Ages or 'maximus glacial'.
The end of the last 'age' being about 10,000 years ago and the next 'ice age' to reach it's maximum cold stage in around another 10,000 - 15,000 years.
And anyway with the huge modernity of China and their increase in use of greenhouse emission fuels, any cut backs from America will only be offset by them and other fast developing nations.
However, that doesn't mean that clean and green isn't the optimum way to think about the fuel and energy crisis.
So what's the big fuss about global warming, if in the end the planet will run out of fossil fuels and then the climate will recover anyway?
And since we're already aware of the problem of rising oceans then we're also ready to deal with evacuations and relocations of endangered species and communities living on low lying islands.
And finally there is no direct proof or evidence that this phenomenom of global warming would not be occurring to the planet even if we were still just burning wood and coal as we did up until this past century or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]