The American Spectator

should review the definition of Congressional Oversight. br> — Jennifer Porter Gore br> Communications Director br> Project on Government Oversight (POGO) br> Washington, D.C. /p> p> ADJUSTING THE HEAT br> Re: William Tucker’s The Global Warming Two-Step : /p>

Having reviewed the climatological/geophysical evidence on global warming after previously writing about the subject, William Tucker now decides that both sides in the debate have a point. Unfortunately, he goes on to announce a conclusion that cannot be based on the science of global warming, but must be based on economics: “It’s worth doing something about.” Whether it’s worth doing something about depends of the costs and benefits of doing something about global warming. So now Mr. Tucker has repeated himself: he is making a recommendation without reviewing the relevant analysis or evidence. What will be the cost of “doing something” and what will be the resulting reduction of global warming is not something upon which he offers any evidence.

For example, numerous analysts have suggested, and proponents admitted, that the costly Kyoto Treaty would have no measurable impact on global warming; it clearly fails the cost/benefit test. Others have argued that global warming of the modest amount suggested in some climatological research will be a net economic benefit to humanity, and therefore incurring any costs to reduce this global warming would fail the cost/benefit test.