Saturday, February 28, 2009

Hot Air

Well, he’s going to try to do it after all. Even the burden of having to pay for that noxious ‘stimulus’ bill still hasn’t assuaged his appetite for destructive spending. President Obama announced in his State of the Union Address that he plans to ask Congress to impose an onerous cap and trade scheme. See yesterday’s (2/27) WSJ editorial for a good analysis of its ramifications. ). And the putative reason for doing it? To mitigate the effects of ‘global warming’.

This is what the climate change faithful would have you believe :
1. The world has experienced a warming trend
2. This trend will continue inexorably for the foreseeable future
3. Global warming is, on balance, bad
4. Humanity is causing GW
5. The specific predominant human contribution to GW is CO2 production
6. Only a significant reduction in human produced CO2 will mitigate the harmful effects of GW
7. We have the means to effect this significant reduction
8. We have the will to do it (i.e. - China and India will go along)
9. The benefits of pursuing these reductions exceed the costs (i.e. – even if the costs are so high they cause, say, a worldwide economic collapse, not acting will be worse, say, a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario)

Note that if one of these points is invalid, the following points become moot. For example, if humanity is not the cause of global warming, it doesn’t matter whether or not we have the means to significantly reduce CO2 production.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish academician and author, is a believer in points 1-5. He believes that GW is real, it’s bad for the world (on balance) and it is predominantly caused by human CO2 production. However, he sees the current concern over global warming as grossly overstated and thinks that the measures being considered to combat GW (such as the Kyoto Protocol) are wasteful at best and very harmful at worst. Read Lomborg’s book, “Cool It”, for a succinct explanation of his views. Also watch the video on YouTube of him giving a lecture on managing climate change. It’s about 30 minutes long and is both informative and entertaining. His genius is quantitating costs and benefits, something policy makers almost never do. Listen to him and you’ll know why Al Gore backed down from his invitation for a debate.
There is an even stronger view, held by many in the scientific community, that the whole theory linking GW to CO2 emissions is wrong. And no, these people are not on a par with “Holocaust deniers”. There is presently a petition circulating on the web, ( which rejects the ‘consensus’ view of GW. Over 31,000 scientists have signed it to date. Being a scientist myself, I know a few of the signers and they are all quite intelligent (all have PhDs) and thoughtful. Also, If you can, get hold of a copy of the DVD, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a BBC(!) produced documentary. It’s not easy to find. I had to order it from in the U.K. The documentary’s thesis is that only point 1 (and possibly 2) is valid, but there are other factors, most likely solar cycles, that are far more important than CO2. The claim is also made that GW is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, now there’s evidence that GW has stopped altogether and a global cooling period has begun. And GC would be a far greater danger than GW. As a scientist/contributor to “The Great Global Warming Swindle” says, (not an exact quote, but close) “Would you rather have advancing glaciers or receding glaciers? No one wins with advancing glaciers.” There are many sites and articles on the web discussing potential GC. For example see ( and ( .
Well aint that a kick in the head, Al!

Actually not. Ignoring (or not knowing or caring about) the evidence, Obama and his buddies in Congress will help Gore and his other 'green' constituents fleece all of us with their economy crushing cap and trade tax scheme. (For a discussion of how Gore and friends stand to profit from all this see ).
Aside from armed insurrection there are three ways for anti-capitalists to wage war against the free market : taxation, regulation and litigation. Their 'global warming' agenda gives them an opportunity to use all three - a perfect strategic trifecta.

No comments:

Post a Comment