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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?