Sometimes, as we write about the logical effects of the global warming fraud and the obvious motives of its perpetrators, I begin to wonder how this could all be true. A background in science is not well suited to this. Like a civilized man in the street faced with a goblin (we are indebted to Jeff Cooper for the metaphor) who is about to take his life, the reaction is, "No! This cannot really be happening!'' - a deadly reaction that robs him of the chance to save himself. Read, therefore the words of Jack Kemp in "Global Warming comes to Capitol Hill,'' published December 10 in
"Many of us who believe deeply in a balanced and market-oriented approach to preserving our environment are profoundly concerned that the Clinton administration is abrogating America's leadership responsibility by ceding authority and control over economic policy to the United Nation's conference on global climate change, now taking place in Kyoto, Japan. We should not be misled by the administration's rhetoric that "we will not be pushed around in the negotiations.'' The fact that we are negotiating at all is evidence of a clear misunderstanding of purpose and lack of resolve. The question is no longer whether we will react out of fear and submit ourselves to the control of energy and environmental bureaucrats but only how much and how quickly we will submit to their rationing of hydrocarbons and economic growth.
"Last week in the
Wall Street Journal, Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson succinctly summed up the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. Up to 50 years ago, atmospheric temperatures had been rising from a 300-year low point, probably as a result of the solar magnetic cycle. Then, for about 30 years, there was no significant increase in global temperatures. For the past 20 years, precisely the same 20 years during which carbon dioxide levels have increased the most, the earth has actually cooled. So, which is it? Global warming or global cooling? Scientists cannot even agree."As the authors pointed out, 'there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.' But one thing is for sure, increased carbon dioxide emissions have greatly benefited mankind and the environment. The industrial and technological revolutions, which have alleviated poverty and raised living standards world wide, would not have been possible without fossil fuels and their attendant CO
2 waste products. And, far from harming the environment, the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has actually made the planet more hospitable to plant and animal life."How can we even contemplate, much less negotiate, energy rationing, new energy taxes and more economic regulation, all directed by some amorphous U.N. bureaucracy, when 1) scientists cannot even agree on whether the climate is warming or cooling; 2) there is persuasive evidence that if the climate is warming, it is unrelated to man's carbon dioxide emissions and unconvincing evidence to the contrary; 3) there is widespread scientific opinion that absent any harmful climatic effects, increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere are beneficial to plants, to animals, and even to the environment; and 4) it is understood that the tax increases, energy rationing and regulations now being negotiated will slow economic growth and retard the increase in living standards all over the world? A recent Heritage Foundation study of the Clinton administration's proposal to hold emissions to 1990 levels found that by 2020, energy prices would rise between 50 and 200 percent; average households would pay $1,620 additional taxes a year (about a 14.5% percent tax hike); and the economy would contract by a total of $3.3 trillion.
"One can only conclude that the U.N. negotiations in which the president has gotten himself ensnared are not necessarily about the environment. Rather, the Kyoto negotiations are the rear-guard effort of latter-day Malthusians and international central planners who want to control the workings of free markets and restrict the actions of free people.
"How else can one explain the extreme position taken by Vice President Gore that global warming results, in part, from too many babies being born? He suggests that third-world countries can help reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by eliminating the births of 2 to 5 billion babies during the next 20 years. Employing the code words of the so-called 'pro-choice' lobby 'the empowerment of women to participate in decisions about childbearing' the vice president implies that strict family planning techniques as well as abortion are acceptable tools of choice to prevent global warming. Frightening. It is clear that the real intent of many participants at the conference is to establish a global regulatory apparatus with real power over the economic and reproductive decisions of everyone in the world. Make no mistake about it, this conference is not so much about the natural environment, about which we all care, but about political and economic power. Who will be in control, free people acting alone and in concert through their democratic institutions or regulators acting at a distance through international bureaucracies?
"There is no need to rush to judgment on the global climate question. There is no scientific consensus that the world is careening toward a man-made global warming crisis. To the contrary, the empirical evidence suggests just the opposite. The only basis for the fear that carbon dioxide levels might induce a global warming crisis comes out of theoretical computer models which cannot even successfully capture the climatic effects of clouds or forecast short-term weather patterns.
"The president is being misled by ecoextremists and neo-Malthusians who claim to have a monopoly on concern for the environment. These same extremists are doing their best to confuse and manipulate the American people as well. Therefore, I do not criticize the president lightly, nor do I find fault with the 65 percent of those Americans recently polled by the
New York Times who said the United States should take steps now to cut its own carbon dioxide emissions. But I feel I must speak out when I perceive that the Clinton administration is making fundamental mistakes and itself misleading the public in a way that will harm mankind . . . . ''Mr. Kemp then goes on to express confidence that the House of Representatives and Senate will do the right thing and stop this rush to error. This is wishful thinking. Notice that the percentage is 65% and rising. How large a percentage will the Congress resist?
|
|
Vol. 25, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 25, No. 5 Date: January 01, 1998 04:26 PM Title: Perceived Reality
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|