The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

President Barack Obama assures us that the debate is over, but the very fervor with which he speaks suggests his fear that even his own party may not long be willing to vote for legislation wrecking the economy in the name of fighting warming temperatures that aren't warming.  For the alarmist case is not closing, but seems to be blowing wide open again.

Reports Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Poor Al Gore.  Just when he thought he had a winning role, the show is in danger of being canceled!

View all comments (5) | Leave a comment

Russell Seitz| 7.6.09 @ 9:53AM

Given Bandow's aversion to looking at decade to decade climate trends, I expect Kimberly's next editorial focus will be on temperatures having fallen between noon and midnight on nine of the past ten days.

Science can't be settled by a show of hands, left or right. Were Doug to actually read the scientific literature at first hand , he might cease to be part of the problem- disinformation , cherry picking and selective citation are singularly ineffectual in countering climate hype.

John Salem| 7.6.09 @ 10:22AM

God, and Nature gave us a perfectly balanced system, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more sea algai thrive and swallow it up. Mount pinatubo put out more co2 in a day than we humans have put in in 100 years.

Rmoen| 7.6.09 @ 10:41AM

I'm a Democrat who doesn't support cap and trade, and think the House overplayed its hand. I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Support for cap and trade appears to be evaporating. Whereas a week ago it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, it now seems to be 10-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this disastrous legislation from passing into law.

There's nothing to like about it. It will make energy more expensive, possibly big-time expensive. It will enrich a new class of financial speculator. Hundreds of lobbyists have their fingerprints all over it. Cap and trade will also drive-out manufacturing of every description. Plus, it's worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury. And the kicker? We'll never even know if cap and trade worked.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Missy| 7.6.09 @ 11:50AM

What ever happened to "global warming?" Did it go away or just never exist?

ncatty| 7.6.09 @ 2:39PM

How do the global warming folks explain the Medieval Warming period (1000-1300 a.d.) and Little Ice Age (1350-1800 a.d.) as other than natural processes?

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/06/climate-change-consensus-what
ADVERTISEMENT

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

David Catron | 2.6.12

Bigoted Barack, Red in Tooth and Clause

George Neumayr | 2.10.12

Unsafe at Any Smoke

Eric Peters | 2.10.12

Access This

Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12

The Delousing of a Movement

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 2.9.12

Justice Ginsburg Should Resign

William Tucker | 2.8.12

The Show Me State's No Show Primary

Andrew B. Wilson | 2.10.12

No Double Play

Peter Hannaford | 2.10.12

ADVERTISEMENT