The ulterior motive behind the global warming con 1


By Tom Quiner

The recent revelations of Climategate II reveal the scientific duplicity behind the global warming movement. An international global warming conference is taking place in Durbin, South Africa, right now, with little international fanfare.

The movement has been discredited. As Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, says above:

“The message from Washington to the U.N. delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: you are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate.”

Global warming is relevant and will remain relevant for at least one more year because of liberal politics.

I sat in on a small gathering with former Minnesota Governor and presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty, earlier this year. He told us he embraced global warming theories for awhile before he took a closer look at the science, and learned it relied on shaky premises.

Same with Newt Gingrich. He called his initial embrace of the issue a “dumb move.” But you can’t blame a lot of folks for embracing global warming, or “climate change”, as it is now known. We were sold a bill of goods. There was a steady drumbeat of media attention and Hollywood adulation for this cause.

Mature analysts who have patiently waded through the hype have poked holes in the theory. Coupled with the latest revelations from Climategate II, we see the issue for what it is: a con job.

The global warming-related legislative priority for President Obama and his party was cap and trade. This would have foisted massive new taxation on America and dramatically lowered our standard of living (even more than Obamanomics has already done to us).

In light of the way the issue has been discredited, has Team Obama backed away from Global Warming/Climate Change?

No.

They are pursuing it with a vengeance through regulatory decree rather than the democratic legislative process by allowing the EPA to impose onerous new regulations on businesses.

Global warming has simply been a ruse to give Big Government more control over our lives. Mr. Obama’s head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, has publicly admitted that unilateral U.S. effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have no impact on the world situation. Nonetheless, she is moving ahead with the president’s blessing to essentially impose elements of Cap & Trade by presidential fiat.

The global warming religion provides the fig leaf to mask the ulterior motive behind the con: to expand the power of the federal government over our lives.

The principle of a limited federal government as established by our Founders is on the line in the next election in many ways. The Global Warming religion is but one of the battle fronts.

Global warming con job 4


By Tom Quiner

I’m like a lot of people: I’m a global warming agnostic. There is credible evidence that the earth is warming. But it depends on whom you listen to.

But if we assume the earth is warming, there’s a lot of disagreement on how that will affect the world. There are even credible spokesmen, like Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus, who suggest there are benefits to a warming planet, such as longer growing seasons and fewer deaths by freezing (which are far bigger issue than death by heat).

If we assume the earth is warming, there is serious disagreement on whether man caused it, and whether man can mitigate its effects in a reasonably cost-effective way.

That leads me to Climategate II. Newly hacked e-mails of scientists who are proponents of the science/religion of global warming reveal they manipulate data to promote a political agenda, not a scientific one.

They’re even willing to threaten scientists who don’t buy into their religion of global warming.

It looks pretty bad to us agnostics. We need proof of global warming. But we get the feeling we’re being conned by an Elmer Gantry type of global warming mob.

The stakes are high.

According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), taxpayers spent $106.7 BILLION dollars from 2003 to 2010 fighting climate change.

In addition, taxpayers have spent another $79 BILLION on climate change technology research and tax breaks for “green energy.” Our government has even bundled our money into foreign aid to help other countries with their “climate problems.”

Tax payers have been asked to pick up the tab on another $16.1 BILLION since 1993 in green energy subsidies. We’ve ponied up another $26 BILLION for climate change programs and activities as part of the president’s 2009 Stimulus Bill.

That’s a lot of money for something that seems more like a cause or religion than a science, especially in light of the debt crisis that grips our country.

Are we being conned? It seems that way.

Let’s put the drain on the public treasury on hold until real scientists can answer three questions definitively:

1. Is there truly a catastrophic threat to the planet from global warming?

2. If yes, what is causing it? In other words, is this just another natural cycle in the heating and cooling of our planet? Or is it caused by sunspots? Or is it caused by man?

3. If it is catastrophic and caused by man, can we do anything about it?

Another nobel laureate rejects global warming 1


By Tom Quiner

Is global warming based on good science or bad?

I ask this question because of the treatment Governor Rick Perry of Texas received from John Harris at the Republican debate at the Reagan library a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Harris tried to trap the Governor by demanding he list the names of the scientists on whom he based his skepticism of global warming. Mr. Perry really didn’t answer the question. Global warming evangelists who embrace Al Gore’s premise that the evidence in favor of global warming is “incontrovertible” were surely triumphant.

There is, though, a growing list of scientists who don’t buy into the whole global warming religion. The latest is Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Laureate for physics. He said of global warming:

“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Another dissenter is Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University of California at Santa Barbara. He said global warming is:

“the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Another dissenter is Nobelist Robert B. Laughlin.

Another dissenter is the late Nobelist Norman Borlaug.

The list is extensive, and it is growing.

The evidence in the eyes of these highly regarded scientists is not incontrovertible when it comes to global warming. What Mr. Gore and President Obama have done is make a leap of faith in their belief that global warming is real, that it is man-made, and that assuming these, it is even fixable.

In other words, it sounds like a religion.

The president could have made a more persuasive case for going green if he couched it in terms of weaning us off of mideast oil. Liberals and conservatives could agree on that. Unfortunately, we are left with the sense that the president is trying to establish a state religion.

 

Carbon emission clarity 1


By Tom Quiner

The Kyoto Protocol was ratified in 1998.

It was designed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to combat global warming. Almost every nation in the world has signed it and ratified, the U.S. being one of the conspicuous holdouts.

Nonetheless, our carbon emission production is in sharp decline as a percentage of the world total, as the chart above reveals. And our emissions are not increasing as fast as nations who DID sign the protocol, as the data from the Statistical Abstract shows below:

Change in carbon dioxide emissions from consuming fossil fuels, 1997 to 2008:

US:  4.4%

Canada:  5.0%

Switzerland:  5.6%

France:  8.0%

Netherlands:  10.1%

Iceland:  19.0%

World:  31.2%

Spain:  34.9%

India:  70.7%

China:  110.3%

Remember these numbers the next time one of your liberal friends says the U.S. isn’t doing enough to fight global warming.

What Should We Do About Global Warming? 1


By Tom Quiner

As seen in the Des Moines Register on November 29, 2009

Two heartbreaking tragedies hit Great Britain earlier this decade.

Tragedy #1 killed 2,000 people .   Tragedy #2 killed 25,000.

If you went by the media coverage, tragedy #1 was worse.  Those people died from a heat wave that swept the entire European continent back in 2003.  Media coverage positioned the cause of the catastrophe as global warming.  Press coverage was huge.

What was the cause of tragedy #2?  Excess cold.  It received minimal coverage.  In fact, cold temperatures  account for about seven times the number of deaths in Europe  overall  than heat-related deaths.  BBC coverage was modest.  International coverage was nonexistent.

If global warming is real, what will it do to us?  For one thing, it will help reduce deaths related to cold temperatures.

Former Vice President and global warming activist, Al Gore, told us “the debate is over” when it comes to global warming.  And yet recent and surreptitiously obtained correspondence from global warming scientists reveal some have been manipulating and suppressing data to support their cause.

What is one to think other than the debate isn’t over?

The subject of climate change raises three legitimate questions:

  1. Is the earth in fact warming?
  2. Is it caused by man?
  3. Can we do anything about it?

These questions are debatable, and the debate rages.

There is another question that isn’t discussed enough:  is this problem the best place to spend limited resources?  In other words, are there other problems, big problems, that are more fixable than global warming?

Let me introduce you to The Copenhagen Consensus (www.CopenhagenConsensus.com).  They assembled eight top international economists (including three Nobel laureates) to crunch numbers on the world’s biggest challenges.  Specifically, they assigned a cost/benefit ratio to a wide-ranging list of problems.  Since resources are limited and all of our problems can’t be fixed, countries are forced to prioritize.  These economists give us a fresh, analytical way to approach the challenges we face.

The video clip below gives you a quick introduction to the Copenhagen Consensus:

The results were surprising.

The Copenhagen Consensus believes that mankind is in fact changing the planet’s climate. However, they believe its impact is manageable.  They believe there are some upsides (fewer deaths due to cold temperatures and longer growing seasons) to offset some of the downsides.  But their numbers reveal that the cost/benefit ratio of reducing carbon emissions worldwide is cost-ineffective.  An investment of $800 billion over the next century would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees.

Is that worth it?  Every dollar spent in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions will generate but 90 cents in offsetting benefits.

On the other hand, the Consensus tells us that each dollar invested in clean energy research and development will generate $11 in results, especially technologies that allow us to store more energy from intermittent energy sources like wind and solar.

They looked at another problem:  disease in third world countries.  Affordable drugs can reduce the consequence of heart disease and diabetes. Malaria is a growing problem in these countries, too, because it’s getting harder to treat.  These problems are fixable with money.  The Copenhagen Consensus says $500 million could save a half a million lives a year, most of them children.  Every $1 spent fighting disease in these countries generates $20 in benefits.

Malnutrition is a big problem in parts of Asia and Africa.  Every dollar spent in research to make technological improvements generates $16 in economic benefits.

In all, the panel identified and ranked 30 international challenges based on prioritization, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency.  Carbon reduction finished dead last.  Issues such as expanded immunizations for children, improvements in third world rural water supplies, and microfinancing programs are a few that give a much bigger bang for the buck than cap and trade policies.

Global warming generates the most media coverage.  It’s a movement with big money and celebrities behind it.  It’s the issue of the moment.

Let’s be sure our political decisions are backed up with honesty and sound thinking.