Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change

Chicken Little Lives

Source: http://www.uschamber.com/press/opeds/0206kovacsclimate.htm

By William L. Kovacs
June 2002

We know the story of Chicken Little. The little chick thought the sky was falling because she was hit in the head by an acorn. She convinced the other barnyard animals that the sky was falling and soon they were all in hysterics.

Well, when it comes to global warming, environmentalists have adopted a Chicken Little approach. Recent news reports have fanned global warming hysteria over the contents of a Bush administration report on climate change. Environmentalists focused on two sentences out of 255 pages to “prove” that permanent global warming is being caused by human activity and that major ecosystems will disappear, water supplies will be permanently disrupted and we will suffer an ever-increasing number of stifling heat waves.

“Environmental havoc” was the description of our future in The New York Times, which claims the report “unambiguously states that humans are the likely cause of most of the recent warming.” Some talk radio hosts went further, claiming that cities such as Miami and Mobile would be underwater one day.

The 2002 Climate Change report needs to be read. It states that its own projections “are limited by the paucity (smallness) of data available.” The report cautions “current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments.” Later the report states “definitive prediction of potential outcomes is not yet feasible.”

The earth has been around for millions of years and one thing is certain: the weather changes dramatically. The earth has experienced ice ages as well as warming periods. The North and South poles are 50 degrees Fahrenheit colder than they were when dinosaurs roamed the earth and a vast tropical forest dominated North and South America. Our climate has remained somewhat stable for the last 10,000 years, with the exception of a Little Ice Age in the 14th century. In the 1970’s, hearings took place on Capitol Hill about a coming Ice Age. Today, Capitol Hill hearings look at global warming. The political winds change faster than the weather.

Worrying about the weather is harmless until Congress actually believes it can do something about it. The problem is that solutions based on the belief that the “sky is falling” would drastically limit the amount of energy that we can use to run our businesses, homes, cars, computers and every aspect of our lives. Based on a Wharton study, the impacts of limiting our use of energy to reduce global warming gases – as proposed by the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty – would lower our annual gross domestic product by about $300 billion; cause the loss of more than 2.4 million jobs; and raise the annual energy bill for every household by $3,700. Even if the United States limited global warming gases, developing nations will not reduce their own emissions and the net impact would be zero.

The Bush Administration needs to stay on its course and continue to reject the Kyoto Treaty. It should spend the billion or so dollars needed to develop good science and sound computer models to evaluate the problem. It needs to ensure that developing nations use the most energy efficient technologies, so that emissions of global warming gases are reduced while these countries become more competitive.

Finally, the Bush administration needs to stop apologizing for using common sense. It can’t change the weather. “Environmental havoc” makes for catchy headlines, but the story is clear: long-range climate forecasts are less accurate than the local weatherman. The best the Bush administration can do is what the King did for Chicken Little – buy umbrellas for the hysterical, but stay focused on sound environmental progress without compromising our economic recovery and jobs.

William L. Kovacs is the Vice President of Environment and Regulatory Affairs at the United States Chamber of Commerce.


Joyce Comments: Dan and others interested in this subject should know that the debate still rages on and that there is NO universal acceptance of "Global Warming"/"Climate Change". I suggest you check out http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm for more information. Also, you may want to turn your interest away from this baseless Fascist crusade to destroy the United States of America through shaking down our government with intimidation and ignorance and instead invest your time and energy into actually lessening pollution, if that is indeed your interest.

4 comments:

Dan Eisner said...

I will comment about global warming later, but I'd like to say something about this:

"Also, you may want to turn your interest away from this baseless Fascist crusade to destroy the United States of America through shaking down our government with intimidation and ignorance..."

I'm assuming you are referring to the so-called effort to silence global warming dissenters. How in the world is this Fascism?

The definition of Fasicsm is this:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

While you may argue that global warming believers are working to suppress opposition and criticism, that effort has had nothing to do with the government force. In fact, you wrote that in this "crusade" people are trying to "shake down our government." But Fascists, by definition, control the government. Call it what you will, but it is not Fascism.

You argue that these "crusaders" are using intimidation. By employing the emotionally-charged word "Fascist," you are doing the same exact thing that you criticize.

Joyce Kavitsky said...

Dan, it is not Fascist to call to attention others who are being Fascist. And you got the defination of it exactly right. With leftist and leftist leaning governments in Europe and elseware trying to shove "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" down everyones throats, as you noticed while trying to stifle those who with a lot of reason disagree with them and their declaration, by prematurely claiming that the debate is over and settled when it is far from it. It is admirable to want to keep pollution down to a responsible mininum, but it is irresponsible to try to make the world greener by putting many skilled Americans out of work and sending our society back to the Stone Age. You have to draw the line somewhere otherwise, the doomsdayers and Chicken Littles run your life and cloud your thinking with false prophesies and scare tactics to say the least. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dan Eisner said...

I didn't say you were being a Fascist. I said that the use of the word "Fascist" is a form of intimidation. It is the sort of scare tactic that you decry.

Where in Europe is the forcible suppression of oppostition? I see no use of force in Europe. And where is the aggressive nationalism? Where is the racism?

Fascism is exemplified by Benito Mussolini. The global warming "Chicken Littles" in Europe are not doing anything that even remotely compares to the tactics of Mussolini. Perhaps they are being insulting and close-minded. Perhaps their media organizations are shutting down dissent. But fascist tactics simply are not being used. Man.

There are extremists who do advocate a return to some sort of subsistence living, no doubt. But they exist on the margins. Most people are more reasonable and are simply arguing that we need to limit our use of fossil fuels and curtail the amount of CO2 we shoot into the atmosphere. If this were actually a recipe for ecomic disaster there is no way that a superb businessman such as Rupert Murdoch would try to have his company be carbon neutral by 2010.

Joyce Kavitsky said...

Dan, we can agree to disagree on whether saying a specific movement is Fascist or not. I happen to think it does use some form of Fascism as you defined it and I stand by that. Also, kudos to Mr. Murdock and other businessmen for voluntarily running their business more econimically and environmentally efficient. The word is voluntarily. When it is done this way it is done right and businesses likely will survive. When is it governmentally forced upon businesses to run this way, this is where it is wrong and it impacts the businesses by being large and expensive burden to lawfully execute and many small and medium sized business would go under. The way to do it is by giving businesses and people incentives, whether through rebates or what, to do it voluntarily. President George W. Bush also deserves some series kudos from you and others for how environmentally efficent he made his own house in Crawford, Texas http://phillipsphiles.blogspot.com/2007/02/president-bushs-crawford-tx-home-is.html