The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Climate in Court

7.10.06 @ 12:01AM

MOLECULAR MAYHEM
Re: Iain Murray's Taking a Molecule to Court:

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue ended up in the courts. And why should it not? Everything else does, eventually. Way back in 1988, in the midst of severe drought, Dr. Hansen of NASA issued an article about AGW. Global Warming was here, he declared. Human activity, namely in the form of Greenhouse Gases (CO2, Methane), was the cause. Later that summer the news magazine followed up with articles. Two years later, Al Gore published his The Earth in Balance. From that point on, AGW became more of an advocacy issue, and not a scientific one. As the Soviet Empire imploded, and pure Marxism suddenly died a short violent death, environmental issues became all the rage. Before you knew it, manufacturing toilets that flushed more than 2 gallons of water became a federal offence; destroying the habitat of the Snail darter could land a property owner in a prison cell with Bubba. Forest rangers in Montana and California began to take orders not from their respective bosses, but from Federal Judges. Saving the Earth became a full time vocation for everyone from elementary school teachers to UN officials. However, from a PR standpoint, the Movement lacked certain credibility. It was very top heavy in lawyers, spin artists, protesters, aging hippies, movie stars, and busybodies. What the movement really needed was the Imprimatur of Science.

In 1998 they got it. Doctors Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a series of papers known as MBH98 (the famous Hockey Stick temperature graph). The UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) gave MBH98 its stamp of approval without auditing the actual papers. It took Einstein eleven years to get his idea on relativity peer reviewed and proven. Mann's data was approved immediately. Mann's Hockey Stick graph took on an almost religious symbolism. The earth was not only warming fast, but it's warming was catastrophic. The warming was not natural, but anthropogenic. Humans were destroying Gaia. Something must be done! Kyoto is what must be done! Here is where science and public policy mesh. According to most (even the President now admits AGW is serious), the "science is settled." Everyone today is getting into the act. Not a day passes without an archeologist, paleontologist, botanist, geologist, or economist rendering a "study" about AGW. The summer of 2005 was the warmest summer since the Ice Age. AGW caused the east coast floods. AGW caused the bitterly cold winter in Eastern Europe. A recent poll even asked people how AGW affected their lives. Hysteria induced by groupthink reigns.

Of course the science is not settled. The June NAS Report artfully said MBH98 was correct, but the scientists used flawed methods and questionable data sets. By artful, I mean the committee said the science was wrong, but the results were correct. Also, the NAS Report casually reinserted the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) back into the approved lexicon of climate studies -- something Mann and others rejected. Congress last year asked the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) to review MBH98 for its accuracy. There were still a few people in Congress who wished to get a second opinion before consigning the U.S. economy to the ash heap of history. The almost knee jerk acceptance of MBH98 by the IPCC alarmed not just some in Congress, but also those involved in the field of research. Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, began to audit the findings of MBH98 themselves. From the beginning they began to find problems with the study. McIntyre published these findings in Nature magazine, and thus began the firestorms that eventually lead to congressional hearings and the NAS Report. McIntyre's findings are very technical -- they mainly deal with statistical methodologies, the accuracy of the Southwest Bristle Cone proxy, etc. The NAS Report recognized McIntyre's findings, but in the end, the committee stood by the conclusions of MBH98 with certain caveats. The science may not be settled in their eyes, but the conclusions are. MBH98 findings are still correct -- to a certain degree. Maybe.

All of this may be a moot. Too many people have too much invested in AGW to let science steer the issue. Government bureaucrats, career government scientists, UN officials, former Marxists, Earthfirsters, as well as reputations of many who climbed on MBH98 bandwagon early on, cannot allow the slow pace of scientific research to stand in their way. Lawyers and judges may settle the policy questions with no regard for the science. Even the EPA, a regulatory agency, says they cannot regulate CO2, because Congress never gave them the legal means to do so. Besides, CO2 is vital for carbon based organisms (namely plants, animals, and humans). To say CO2 is a pollutant, and to regulate it as such is absurd. The EPA's mandate is to regulate harmful pollutants. What many people are asking the EPA to do is to classify CO2 as a pollutant. Only Congress can do this -- this they refuse to do. But that shouldn't stop the activists, as everyone knows, Congress doesn't write laws anymore -- the courts do. One can only hope, there are five members of the SCOTUS who will write an opinion that reflects constitutional law, and not advocacy.
-- JP
Indiana

I can't believe you published the following paragraph from "Taking a Molecule to Court.". The paragraph states the global warming theory as though it were accepted fact. It is not! Scientists have not "connected the warming trend to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere." Only contorted versions of climate computer models have done that and then only in part. Other parts of the same models have simply proven themselves wrong.

You should either publish a retraction or qualification of that paragraph. As stated, it is outrageous.

"The modern global economy is powered by hydrocarbons -- oil, natural gas and coal. Burning these fuels releases the energy we need to light our homes, heat and cool our offices, and get us from place to place. But the process also releases a byproduct called carbon dioxide (CO2). We have known for well over a century that, all other things being equal, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the atmosphere as it absorbs energy up to a certain point. In recent years, with the atmosphere warming since the 1970s, scientists have connected the warming trend to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the phenomenon of global warming."
-- Ken Jorgensen
Sunnyvale, California

A LACK OF STRATEGERY
Re: Patrick Hynes's Democrats of Little Faith:

Another trend seen among Democrat strategerists (Bush word) are these "quorums" or "seminars" they have in order to "construct a message" to reach certain groups of voters. Focus-group based outreach attempting to; "have the cake and eat it too" of which today's Democrat party is so fond of campaigning on.

Today's Democrats are focused on soft messages of "it's all O.K" and "we'll work it out after the election" that are aimed at not offending everyone. It ends up looking like an ill-planned camp-out where someone's getting shorted on S'mores and the counselor won't give up theirs either.

Look, its 2006, and it's been 2 stinkin' years since the last election and Democrats still haven't told us what the plan is. Heck, they don't know what the plan is! Republicans are scared of these guys?!
-- P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan

NOT YOUR FATHER'S SUPERMAN
Re: Carol Platt Liebau's Swallowing the Kryptonite:

As I was checking out your website, thinking of subscribing, I came upon the article by Carol Liebau on the new Superman film. The fact that the "American Way" was but a relative small offense. The fact that Superman, hero to millions, had sex out of wedlock, produced a bastard child, then left that child and mother with a live-in boyfriend who thinks the kid is his... Now that is seriously disturbing! Unfortunately, not to America... Bad enough that Christopher Reeve noted the color of Lois's panties in his first Superman film... What new worlds will our hero explore next chapter?
-- Ron

Although I would have liked to seen "truth, justice and the American way" in the Superman movie, I think Ms. Liebau's reaction to its absence is completely overboard. For one, that phrase was not used with the original Superman, but only appeared during the Second World War, after which it was dropped for several years. More importantly, what is surprising about this Hollywood film is that it goes against modern liberal sensibilities. Superman is analogous to Jesus Christ; Lois Lane declares that "the world doesn't need a savior, and neither do I." This is exactly what many intellectuals in Hollywood and elsewhere believe, but Superman softly retorts her statement, telling her that he hears people's cries for help all the time. Those watching the movie hear Superman's father, Jor-El tell him that human beings can be and want to be great, but they .".only lack the light to show them the way. For this reason above all -- their capacity for good -- I have sent them you, my only son." This parallels words from the Gospel of John (8:12, 3:16). Superman also suffers, dies (in a crucifixion pose) and is resurrected. It is a powerful parable. No, Superman in this movie is not quintessentially American, but neither is Jesus Christ! Contrary to Ms. Liebau's assertion, the movie tells us that we in fact DO need a savior, and few can question which savior exactly this movie points to.
-- Benjamin Rodkin
Maryland

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Business, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, United Nations, Energy, Oil