March 07, 2008
Paul Driessen
http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=21&idarticle=1418
QUOTE: "Meanwhile, China is adding the equivalent of another Germany
every year to global greenhouse emissions, says climatologist Roger
Pielke"
The mantra is repeated daily. There is consensus on climate change.
Global warming is real. It will be a disaster. Humans are to blame. We
have to do something - immediately. However, the consensus of 100
scientists is undone by one fact, Albert Einstein noted. The United
Nations and its Climate Cataclysm army of 15,000 in exotic Bali clearly
understood that.
They were not about to let even one fact prevent them from promoting
climate scares and a successor to the Kyoto treaty. Gloom-and-doom
scientists and bureaucrats owned Bali's podiums. Radical
environmentalists fumed and staged stunts. Al Gore denounced President
Bush, repeated myths that enthralled the Academy and Nobel committees,
and demanded sacrifices - by others.
Meanwhile, respected climate scientists were barred from panel
discussions, censored, silenced and threatened with physical removal by
polizei, if they tried to hold a press conference to present
peer-reviewed evidence on climate, such as:
Climate change is natural and recurrent. The human factor is small
compared to that of the sun and other natural forces. There has been no
overall global warming since 1998, and most local and regional warming
trends have been offset by nearby cooling. A half-degree of net warming
since 1900 (amid a number of ups and downs) does not foreshadow a
catastrophe. Recent glacial retreats, sea-level rise and migrations of
temperature sensitive species are all within the bounds of known natural
variability.
The best approach is to adapt, as our ancestors did. Money and resources
devoted to futile climate prevention actions would be better spent on
malaria, AIDS, poverty and other pressing problems. Perhaps most
im****tant, no country can progress or prosper without abundant,
reliable, affordable energy that would be in short supply if draconian
climate laws are implemented.
UN alarmists would not tolerate such heresies. They blamed every
regional weather and climate blip on human emissions, and trotted out
computer scenarios that they insist "prove" we must take drastic actions
to avert Armageddon.
But computer models do a poor job of incor****ating our still poor grasp
of complex and turbulent oceanic, atmospheric and solar processes. They
are based on conjecture about future technologies and emissions, and
cannot predict climate ****fts even one year in the future, much less 50
or 100. They simply produce "scenarios" and "projections" of what might
happen under assorted assumptions - enabling alarmists to trumpet the
most alarming outputs to sup****t drastic action.
Those scenarios are evidence of climate chaos the way "Jurassic Park"
proves dinosaurs can be cloned from DNA trapped in prehistoric amber.
However, Bali negotiators last December insisted that the world faces a
climate crisis that can be averted only by sla****ng greenhouse gas
emissions. Ultimately, they could agreed only to "deep cuts" by 2050,
with definitions to be written later by countries that are not about to
commit economic suicide. Many environmentalists and members of Congress
nonetheless continue to demand CO2 reductions of up to 40% below current
emission levels by 2020 - and 80% or more by 2050.
It'll be easy, they insist. Rubbish, Even a 25-40% reduction over the
next twelve years would impose major sacrifices on families, workers and
communities, especially poor ones - while leaving no room for population
or economic growth.
Fossil fuels provide 85% of the energy we use. Sla****ng emissions by
even 25% means sla****ng the use of these fuels, paying vastly more to
control and sequester emissions, and radically altering lifestyles and
living standards. Families will do so voluntarily, or under mandatory
rationing systems, enforced by EPA, courts, climate police and
"patriotic" snitches. Getting beyond 25% would require a "radical
transformation" of life as we know it.
Senator Joe Lieberman admits his "climate protection" bill would cost
the United States "hundreds of billions" of dollars. Economist Arthur
Laffer calculates that "cap-and-trade" schemes would reduce economic
growth and penalize average American families $10,800 in lost income by
2020.
That's on top of the $2000 in higher energy costs that US families have
endured since 1998 - and the 11% extra that USA Today says average
households will pay this winter compared to a year ago. Higher energy
costs will increase the price of everything we eat, drive, buy and do.
Reaching or exceeding 25% targets could require transformations like
these. Parking your car - and riding a bike. You'd get to work and the
grocery in better shape - and guilt-free if you don't exhale.
Disconnecting air conditioners and setting thermostats to 50 degrees all
winter. Swim suits and UnderArmour are excellent substitutes.
Eating all leftovers. Seattle has decreed that by 2009 single-family
homes must recycle all table scraps - because their decomposition
generates greenhouse gases - or have their garbage collection
terminated.
Shutting down coal and gas power plants, and replacing them with new
nuclear plants or forests of gargantuan wind turbines. Blanketing
Connecticut with turbines could meet New York City's electricity needs,
and covering Texas and Louisiana could satisfy US needs, at least when
the wind is blowing, says Rockefeller University professor Jesse
Ausubel.
Closing paper mills and factories. Perhaps newly unemployed workers
could find jobs in China and other developing countries, where the tough
emission standards won't apply - or in the new carbon-free economy that
politicians promise will arise once climate bills are enacted.
Closing dairy and poultry farms. Producing meat accounts for 18% of all
greenhouse gas emissions, so this would make both greens and PETA happy.
Adopting "sustainable green technologies," like the treadle-powered
irrigation pumps environmentalists are sending to poor countries, to
replace diesel pumps. An Indian villager toiling on his eco-bicycle for
three years could offset the CO2 from one jetliner full of
environmentalists heading to Bali.
An appropriately green solution would be requiring that climate confabs
be via video-conference - from Albania or Zambia, to discourage
attendance by bureaucrats and activists. We might also insist that
politicians eschew private jets and take Smart Cars to campaign and
global warming rallies.
Meanwhile, China is adding the equivalent of another Germany every year
to global greenhouse emissions, says climatologist Roger Pielke. Thus,
if CO2 really does cause climate change, all these sacrifices might
prevent global temperatures from rising 0.2 degrees.
Adapting to whatever heat, cold, floods, droughts and storms nature (or
mankind) might bring seems a much saner and less costly course of
action.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial
Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and author
of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ? Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Steward****p Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
|
