Global Warming: The Heat Is On

Climate Change: In Congress, business and the media, those who urge "doing something" about global warming are moving ahead with an agenda that seeks to stifle free speech and scientific inquiry, and kill the economy.

The announcement that, as part of her "first 100 hours," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) intends to create a special committee to create new laws for global warming shouldn't be a surprise. Pelosi is among a large group of global warming advocates who believe November's election was their big chance to slash our use of greenhouse gases.

In addition to Pelosi's panel, at least four bills are already making their way through Congress to address warming. And as if that weren't enough, a coalition of 10 major companies -- including Alcoa, GE, DuPont and Duke Energy -- have joined with environmental groups to help shape coming legislation.

No doubt, action is on the way. But once here, it won't do much -- other than serious damage to the global economy.

The lack of discussion about what Kyoto would cost is really shocking. It's a lot, yet the focus has been on the bad science and scare tactics of leftist propaganda like Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Let's start with one stunning "inconvenient truth" -- that no one really knows how to "cut back" greenhouse gases without significantly damaging the economy. That's right: Lowering our output of greenhouse gases would mean a lowering of our GDP.

The annual loss for the U.S. alone, according to the U.N., could be as much as 1.96% of GDP. Today's economy, about $13.3 trillion, would thus shrivel by about $260 billion a year, or more than $11 trillion by 2050. Other estimates go as high as 5% a year of GDP, or $670 billion. That's a total U.S. cost of nearly $30 trillion by 2050.

No matter what you've heard, global warming remains a theory. Yet Kyoto proponents treat it as fact, thus beyond dispute. They want to close off debate, as if we lived in some kind of totalitarian dictatorship.

Sorry, but this is science. And in science, debate ends only when there's no longer convincing evidence to the contrary. And we're a long way from that when it comes to warming.

Yet, some observers, like the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen, advocate revoking the credentials of those who refuse to toe the ideological line. "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change," she said, "then maybe the AMS (American Meteorological Service) shouldn't give them a Seal Of Approval."

Cullen would have been right at home in the 17th century, when the Church threatened Galileo with sanctions for backing Copernicus' theory of the sun's being at the center of the solar system.

Cullen is one of a growing number who want to halt scientific debate. By demonizing those who speak out about the bad science and even worse economics behind Kyoto, they hope to sway public opinion. And it looks like they're succeeding.

Take the sad case of Exxon Mobil. Not surprisingly, the oil giant has long opposed global warming as bad science and helped fund groups that did research challenging the theory. But a while back, green groups threatened to boycott the company's products. Then Democrats regained control of Congress, promising to make life hell for those who didn't go along.

Now Exxon has changed its tune: Global warming is a threat, it says, while cutting off funding of those who disagree. Is it sincere in its new belief? We doubt it. It's a conversion of convenience, like Paul Newman emerging from the ditch in "Cool Hand Luke" to tell the sadistic captain of the chain gang: "I got my mind right, boss." Exxon and others are getting their minds right.

As we keep saying, the science on warming remains very murky. But even if we take Kyoto proponents at their word, the expected 1- to 2-degree rise in temperature by 2100 would be cut by just 0.04 degrees if we accepted their terms. Major polluters such as China, India and Russia remain exempt. So even that 0.04 is in doubt.

Is such a tiny improvement, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, really worth it? We don't think so.

In coming weeks, the new Congress will no doubt try to shore up its environmental credentials by passing something, anything, to make members seem like they're acting on a warming threat. Even President Bush will get in on the act, using warming as a talking point in his State of the Union address.

"WE may hear the term global warming change again this week. Mr. Gore is supposed to give a talk in Idaho Monday on global warming." ~ midwyf

I hope there will be people there who confront that two-bit weasel with these facts, and more (easily obtained on the net):

Enron Gave Big Bucks to Democrats, Backed 'Global Warming' Scam
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Jan. 17, 2002

Scandal-plagued Enron Corp., cited by Democrats as a big giver to President Bush and the GOP, gave a cool $420,000 to Democrats when the corporation was desperate to get the Clinton administration's help in having the potentially disastrous Kyoto treaty made the law of the land.

Senate ratification of the treaty, which foes explained would have cost the U.S. billions and had a deadly effect on the U.S. economy, would have been a bonanza for Enron.

What's Good for Enron Isn't Good for America

According to Washington Times reporter Jerry Seper, a December 1997 private internal memo written by Enron executive John Palmisano said the treaty would be "good for Enron stock!!"

"The memo said the Kyoto treaty - later signed by Mr. Clinton and leaders of 166 other countries, but never ratified by the Senate - 'would do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.'"

Easy Access to Clinton and Gore

Writing in Wednesday's Times, Seper reports, "Federal and confidential corporate records show that after donating thousands of dollars in soft money and PAC donations beginning in 1995, Enron received easy access to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore."

Seper revealed that Clinton's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency "often made themselves available for Enron executives to discuss the firm's needs, according to records, even arranging for meetings with key congressional staffers."

Enron's drive to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified continued even after the Senate voted 95-0 to set restrictions on any climate negotiations. The Senate resolution warned U.S. diplomats against negotiating any climate treaty in which less developed nations such as communist China would have fewer restrictions imposed on them than the U.S. and other developed countries.

That vote gave clear warning that the Senate would never ratify the treaty, costing Enron potential profits in the billions. As a result, Enron used its open door to the Clinton White House to lobby hard for a treaty that would give it the ability to buy and sell trading credits to emit carbon dioxide as part of a strategy to reduce "greenhouse gases."

Under the system pushed by Enron, new investments in gas-fired plants and pipelines would be expanded and coal-fired power plants, which emit more carbon dioxide, would be curtailed. Seper noted, "Natural gas, electricity and their delivery systems constitute Enron's major businesses."

During a White House meeting in July 1997, Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay prodded Clinton and Gore to support a "market-based" approach to what he described as the problem of "global warming," a theory discredited by a majority of the world's climatologists.

In the face of Senate hostility to the Kyoto accords, Enron continued to urge the Clinton administration to seek a "restructuring" of the treaty that would have been a "first step to solving the problems of global climate change." Seper notes that the company "sought laws that would have favored Enron's natural gas inventory and reduced competition from coal."

On Feb. 20, 1998, during a meeting with Energy Secretary Federico Pena, Lay "encouraged the Clinton administration to seek electricity legislation favored by Enron," outlining for the secretary what the company believed were the "important" pending legislative concerns.

"Today's meeting between Ken Lay and Energy Secretary Federico Pena to discuss electricity legislation went very well," said a memo written by Jeff Keller, the company's Washington governmental affairs chief.

"Secretary Pena indicated that the White House proposed bill is 'on the president's desk,' and that Clinton could be convinced to release the White House proposal in the next few days," Keller wrote. "He suggested that President Clinton might be motivated by some key contacts from important constituents."

The records showed that Lay took that advice and sent a letter to Clinton that day, asking him to "move this matter forward."

Seper writes that Clinton administration officials have denied any wrongdoing, saying they were only responding to constituent requests.

Hypocrisy Alert

But while such Democrats as Rep. Henry Waxman of California attempt to create suspicion that Enron's contributions to President Bush and other Republicans gave the company undue influence with the administration without a scintilla of evidence to back up their imaginings, more real proof of the cozy ties between Enron and the Clinton administration continues to unfold.

Seper recalls, for example that, the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India in 1994.

Wrote Seper: "Mr. Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. 'Mack' McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal.

"Mr. McLarty - who later became a paid Enron director - spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party."

2002 http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_04/various-enron.html

Enron chairman Kenneth Lay met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office in 1997, prior to the Kyoto energy conference, according to the Washington Times of Jan. 16. The apparent purpose was for Clinton and Gore to get an agreement from Enron that it would support the draconian regulations and higher costs on the industry that would emerge from the conference, in exchange for government guarantees and taxpayer subsidies. This would expand the government's power within the industry and guarantee handsome political contributions for the Democrats.

Enron would not disappoint. It became the poster corporation for the junk science of global warming, and supported the industry-killing Kyoto Protocol. Enron probably believed that promised taxpayer payouts would make up for its losses in support of unproductive, but politically correct, energy initiatives. The U.S. Senate, however, recognizing Kyoto's negative impact on the economy at large, foiled Clinton-Gore plans by voting 95-0 to trash the unfair and inequitable Protocol. The Senate action wouldn't stop Enron, however, from attempting to become the corporation of choice for the Clinton-Gore globalization agenda.

One source has stated that at Hillary Clinton's prodding, seats were allotted on government trade mission flights to $50,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) donors. Documents related to the practice were later subpoenaed, but were reportedly shredded, Enron-style. Nevertheless, Enron was apparently there with checkbook in hand for the coveted seats. In 1994, chairman Lay accompanied Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on a trade mission to India. An Export-Import bank $302 million loan to build an Enron-controlled Indian plant soon followed. The DNC received a $100,000 check from Enron just four days before India approved the power plant project. Another $100,000 Enron check followed in 1995. Clinton had instructed his chief of staff to help Enron obtain the power plant construction contract in India, and Enron received $398 million in taxpayer assistance. Another $100,000 Enron donation to the DNC in 1996 may have resulted in Regulatory Commission rulings favorable to the firm.

Federal and confidential corporate records show that Enron donated thousands in political soft money beginning in 1995, according to Jerry Seper and the Times. Seper further reports that Clinton energy and EPA officials often made themselves available for Enron executives. A December 1997 Enron memo emphasizes that approval of the Kyoto Protocol would be good for Enron stock. In 1998, Enron called for "restructuring" of legislation to deal with "the problems of global climate change." Never mind that there was growing skepticism about the seriousness of global warming.

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is heading the Senate investigation of Enron, has benefited from $250,000 given to his political causes by firms with Enron ties, but has not recused himself. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin now runs Citibank, which is owed $800 million by Enron. Rubin called the Bush Treasury Department to seek an Enron bailout and was turned down cold. So this is the Enron record: They sold out their own stock-holding employees, bought big into the global warming myth to get government handouts, banked on the Kyoto Protocol becoming law even after being drubbed in the Senate, and gave most of their money to Republicans when they were getting all that favoritism and assistance from the Democrats.

Here's more exposing the connections of some of the "scientists" at "Ozone Hole Scam" NASA:

"There is no pressure or mandate, from the Bush administration or elsewhere, to alter or water down scientific data at NASA, period," Deutsch said, adding that after being tasked to work with Hansen, "I quickly learned one thing: Dr. Hansen and his supporters have a very partisan agenda and ties reaching to the top of the Democratic Party.

"Anyone perceived to be a Republican, a Bush supporter or a Christian is singled out and labeled a threat to their views. I encourage anyone interested in this story to consider the other side, to consider Dr. Hansen' s true motivations and to consider the dangerous implications of only hearing out one side of the global warming debate," Deutsch said."

Excerpted from the 2/11/06 WaPo article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001766.html?nav=rss_politics

"...These claims are nonsense. Political inclinations should have no impact on science analyses, but in any case the above description of my inclinations is inaccurate. I can be accurately described as moderately conservative. I am registered to vote (in Pennsylvania) as an Independent. ...

As for “ties reaching to the top of the Democratic Party”, early in the first Clinton/Gore term I was invited to and attended in the White House a “breakfast with the Vice President” (along with Joyce Penner and Bob Charlson), which was my only meeting with Gore during his eight years in the White House.

In the middle of the Clinton/Gore administration, after publication of an Op-Ed in the New York Times (by Greg Easterbrook, I believe) that Vice President Gore objected to, it was suggested to me (via an intermediary) that I write an Op-Ed article to dispute the published Op-Ed article. I declined to do that.

My next interaction with Vice President Gore was in January 2006 in a meeting at his request to discuss current understanding of global warming. In this meeting he apologized (I presumed it was in regard to the request for an Op-Ed article), said that he would like me to be on a board overseeing a campaign to alert Americans to the dangers of global warming, and asked if I would critically review his slide/PowerPoint global warming presentation. I did not agree to be on the board, but I subsequently (February 6) reviewed and offered scientific comments on his presentation. ..

To the best of my recollection, I have twice contributed financially to election campaigns (probably $1000 in each case). The first was to the 1992 Clinton/Gore presidential campaign. The second was also to the Democratic ticket in one of the last two elections, either to Gore/Lieberman or Kerry/Edwards, I don’t remember which. I could probably find out by digging through cancelled checks, but I don’t think that it matters. ~ James E. Hansen February, 2006 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/polinclin.pdf

BROKAW’S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=258440

July 11, 2006

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw’s lack of objectivity and balance on the issue of global warming appears to have tainted his upcoming Discovery Channel documentary called: “Global Warming: What You Need To Know” airing on July 16.

Brokaw’s partisan past and his reliance on scientists who openly endorsed Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and who are financially affiliated with left wing environmental groups, has resulted in a documentary that is devoid of balance and objectivity.

Former Colorado state climatologist (as of July 1, 2006) and professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University,Senior Research Scientist in the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a Senior Research Associate position in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC). Roger Pielke, Sr, viewed an advance copy of the Brokaw’s special and declared that it contained “errors and misconceptions.”

“The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists,” Pielke wrote on July 7.

Unfortunately, viewers should not expect a scientifically balanced view of the climate from the former NBC newsman. Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Brokaw, who called Gore’s film “stylish and compelling”, has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming ‘irrefutable.” Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.

Brokaw’s partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to The Washington Post, Brokaw ‘very seriously’ considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. "I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement,” Brokaw said. Brokaw’s wife also serves as vice-chairman of the board of directors of the environmental group Conservation International.

In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature.

For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.

Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.

Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.

Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Brokaw’s special also features Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Brokaw once again fails to disclose Oppenheimer’s partisan and ideological affiliations to viewers.

Brokaw fails to note that Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like Hansen, endorsed Senator Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group Scientists and Engineers for Change and the green group Environment2004 financially bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as the chairwoman. Environment2004, which put up billboards in Florida mocking President Bush in the final months of the 2004 presidential election.

Viewers of Brokaw’s program will not be informed that Oppenheimer personally donated to the group Environment2004, a group that was so partisan it encouraged visitors to their Webpage to “get involved” in defeating President Bush by playing a game called “Whack-a-Bush.”

In addition, Oppenheimer also serves as a "science advisor" to the left wing and politically charged group Environmental Defense and was a co-founder of Climate Action Network.

Finally, Oppenheimer appeared with Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio and Gore’s movie producer Laurie David on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show.

Brokaw’s Special ‘a disappointment’

Brokaw’s special has led climatologist Pielke to conclude that Brokaw presents “a narrow view of the issue of natural and human climate variability and change.”

“It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system,” Pielke wrote.

Pielke has authored more than 275 peer reviewed journal articles on climate. According to Pielke, Brokaw also presents flawed science in his program.

“Rapid glacial retreat is not a new observation, nor are all glaciers retreating. The Grand Pacific glacier in Glacier Bay National Park, for example, retreated 48 miles from 1794 to 1879, and a further 17 miles by 1916. Large masses of glacial ice breaking from the Antarctic continent are not a new feature of this region,” Pielke noted.

The Discovery Channel, the BBC and NBC News Productions jointly produced Brokaw’s global warming special.

bttt

"I think the key is to study and make known the numerical errors in climate modeling. There are good scientists working in the field, they need to be supported and their work widely published."

Sweden's Royal Academy of Sciences on Thursday named American scientist Wallace S. Broecker as the 2006 prizewinner in geosciences. Here is a quote from Dr. Broecker:

"My lifetime study of Earth's climate system has humbled me. I'm convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling very difficult, if not impossible."
(11 of 13) [02/12/2003 10:05:30] Wallace S. Broecker, "Will Our Ride into the Greenhouse Future be a Smooth One?" GSA Today 5/97

Dr Broecker wrote in part: "The climate record kept in ice and in sediment reveals that since the invention of agriculture some 8000 yr ago, climate has remained remarkably stable. By contrast, during the preceding 100,000 yr, climate underwent frequent, very large, and often extremely abrupt shifts. Furthermore, these shifts occurred in lockstep across the globe. They seem to be telling us that Earth's climate system has several distinct and quite different modes of operation and that it can jump from one of these modes to another in a matter of a decade or two. So far, we know of only one element of the climate system which has multiple modes of operation: the oceans' thermohaline circulation. Numerous model simulations reveal that this circulation is quite sensitive to the freshwater budget in the high-latitude regions where deep waters form. Perhaps the mode shifts revealed in the climate record were initiated in the sea. This discovery complicates predictions of the consequences of the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...." HERE

2 American Scientists Win Prize ABC News ^ | Jan 18, 2007 | Unattributed Posted on 01/18/2007 3:58:47 PM EST by Ben Mugged

bttt

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.