Monday, May 28, 2012
“We are winning the war,” was a phrase I heard repeatedly
this week. Congressman Sensenbrenner, Vice Chair of the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, said: “We won on these issues because we were
right.”
Which war? The war that brought together more than 60
scientists from around the world—including astronauts, meteorologists, and physicians;
politicians—comprising the Congressman, a head of state, and a member of the
European Parliament; and policy analysts and media for two-and-a-half days in
Chicago, in a battle over climate change and the belief that there needs to be
real science—more “about honest debate than ideological warfare.”
Assembled by the Heartland Institute, the seventh
International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) provided the second
opportunity for Congressman Sensenbrenner to address the group. In his opening
comments, Sensenbrenner said, “We’ve come a long way.”
He recounted: “When I last spoke, the House of
Representatives was poised to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill; the
United Nations was promising the extension and expansion of the Kyoto Protocol;
and President Obama was touting Spain as our model for a massive increase in
renewable energy subsidies. Three years later, cap-and-tax is dead; the Kyoto
Protocol is set to expire; and Spain recently announced that it eliminated new
renewable energy subsidies.”
Sensenbrenner told about the behind the scenes wrangling
that went on to get the Waxman-Markey bill passed. “I was on the House floor on
June 29, 2009, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately pulled Members aside
to lobby, beg, and bargain for votes for the Waxman-Markey bill.” It did pass.
But “the electoral consequences for the proponents of these policies was
severe.” Just 16 months later, in the 2010 elections, “over two dozen of the
Members she convinced to vote ‘yes’ lost their jobs.”
It wasn’t just the Members who suffered harsh political
ramifications for their support of the Waxman-Markey bill—which was supposed to
nullify the impact of manmade global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme.
Sensenbrenner contends that support of the manmade (anthropogenic) global
warming position (AGW) also cost Al Gore the presidency back in 2004. He
explained: “West Virginia’s 5 electoral votes would have tipped the election
for Gore, and Gore’s near-evangelical support for climate change easily cost
him the 42,000 votes he would have needed to win there.”
While there is little debate that the climate does
change, there is debate as to what causes it. The camps are divided into two
general groups along the line of human’s role—with Al Gore’s camp believing
that the “science is settled” concluding that man’s driving of SUVs burning
petroleum products that emit CO2 (and other symptoms of the developed world) is
the cause, and the other disagreeing. The “other” is who gathered in Chicago
last week amid the thousands of NATO protestors. The “other” not only disagrees
with Al Gore’s AGW position—but they disagree with each other.
I attended session after session where sunspots were
addressed, deep ocean circulation changes were discussed, the CO2 contribution
of volcanoes was brought up, and the health impacts of a warmer planet were
touted—just to name a few. I brought home reams of documentation, some of which
are, frankly, beyond my comprehension.
Whether or not the documentable climate change—cooler in
the seventies, warmer in the nineties, stable for the last decade (just to
point out some recent changes)—is due to the sun or the sea, or myriad other
causes, the key take away is that the science is not settled.
Four former NASA employees presented at ICCC7—two
astronauts: Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) and Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt
(Apollo 17). They talked about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles
Bolden, Jr., in which they requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for
Space Studies (GISS) “refrain from including unproven remarks in public
releases and websites.”
The March 28 letter, signed by 49 former NASA employees,
declares that they “believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon
dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not
substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical
data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of
other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic
forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science
is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of
climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective
assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
statements.”
It is the “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major
cause of climate change” that should concern you and me—and, it is not just
coming from NASA. It is coming from the White House and the EPA, from
environmental groups and protestors.
The belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate
change is the driver for today’s energy policy.
Based on a supposed “consensus,” politicians, and the
nonelected bureaucrats they appointed, have, and are, making risky investments
with taxpayer dollars (think Solyndra, et al); subsidizing “alternative”
energies such as wind and solar that are not effective, efficient, or
economical; blocking access to resources that are abundant, available, and
affordable—which raises gasoline prices and punishes those who can least afford
it; and regulating America’s most cost-effective electricity out of commission.
The increasing energy costs are hurting all of America—individuals and
industry—and our competitive edge.
Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament,
offered these comments regarding wind energy and the entire green project in
his presentation at ICCC7: “Wind plus gas back up results in virtually zero
emissions savings. So, we are desecrating the countryside, we are wasting huge
amounts of money, we are impoverishing our children, we are choosing poverty
over prosperity—and after all that, we are not even achieving what we set out
to achieve. This is madness, madness, madness writ large.”
Once you remove the manmade climate change/CO2 concerns,
the foundation for expensive, intermittent “renewable” energy goes away—and
there is a huge investment, emotional, ideological, and financial, in keeping
the ruse alive.
In comparing the manmade climate change scheme to the
European single currency, Helmer said: “Both of the projects are falling apart
before our very eyes. But, as they fall apart, the true believers, especially
the people with a financial interest—let’s not forget that these projects have
attracted vast political and intellectual capital, but they’ve also attracted vast
numbers of rent seekers and hangers on, and people whose jobs depend on these
projects, and these people do not want to see them go away so these people are
coming forward and—are thinking of every possible excuse which might explain
what has gone wrong with the projects.”
No wonder there is a war. One side wants to “defend its
findings,” while the other wants to “find the truth.”
While America is in an economic war, “advocacy of an
extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact
of natural climate drivers, is inappropriate.” In this election season, all
candidates would do well to remember the fate of Al Gore and his many AGW
supporters. Sensenbrenner offered these wise words on energy policy: “Going
forward, we must continue to oppose bad ideas and continue to support
technological development the only way it works—by allowing markets to
determine the technological winners and losers.”
Echoing the war theme, Helmer offered encouragement in
his closing remarks: “This is a battle that we must win. We must win it for
America. We must win it for Europe. We must win it for our children and
grandchildren. And, we must win it for all mankind. I’ll tell you why we will
win it, because, we have two weapons in our armory that the bad guys don’t
have. The first weapon is the truth, and the second weapon is the climate.”
Whether scientist or politician, policy analyst or media,
one message that came through loud and clear at the ICCC7 is that we’ve come a
long way in the climate change war, and we are winning, but we haven’t won yet!
The climate change battle is at the center of global energy policy, and the
countries that have the ability to develop their natural resources to produce
cheap energy will be the victors.
No comments:
Post a Comment