Climate Talks Blow More Hot Air
by Tony Perkins
December 3, 2009
In December, more than 170 countries are meeting in Copenhagen to talk about a world treaty to cut greenhouse gasses. (A conference, ironically, that’s estimated to create 40,584 tons of carbon emissions—roughly the same amount that the entire country of Morocco generated in 2006). Liberals are hoping to put the environment on the front burner before Denmark—but that might be difficult considering the political climate in America.
A recent Pew poll found that Americans don’t think global warming is a serious problem. The number that do fell sharply—from 44% last year to 35% now. Others are skeptical that climate change was even a problem to begin with! That percent is bound to double or triple after scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted to “throwing away” raw temperature data to support their claim for global warming. According to the U.K. Times, “The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change skeptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.” This news, combined with ClimateGate and Americans’ doubts, should be more than enough to put off any international agreements on global warming indefinitely. President Obama has agreed to make the trip to the conference to lobby for cutting emissions by 17% in 2020. Given the revelations of disagreement in the scientific community and the growing skepticism in the public, the President should back away from a treaty that will cut U.S. jobs and raise energy costs for families.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
I’m wondering what kind of carbon footprint the president makes each time he or his wife uses airforce one and that seems to be at least once per week. It would be nice if you guys could work on figuring that out. Most probably that would be half of our countries allowance Jim
Attacking those who have claimed collusion amongst climate scientists as ‘conspiracy theorists’ constitutes an ‘ad hominem’ attack. It ignores some real evidence of collusion and attempts to paint them as a bunch of nuts in order to hide an unpleasant reality.
Psychiatrists have a saying that goes “It ain’t paranoia when they’re really after you.” In this case, it is no longer a conspiracy THEORY once the conspiracy is demonstrated.
The recent email release shows leaders in the climate research field engaged in some extraordinarily unprofessional behavior — including suborning the peer review process, denying access to and threatening destruction of raw data and cooking the analysis to fit preordained conclusions.
Such actions, if proven, would end the careers of many scientists.
Whatever your views on CO2 and climate, dismissing these acts as ‘no big deal’ and painting those who call attention to them as ‘conspiracy nuts’ only strengthens the deniers arguments. –PEACE. Michael Santomauro
“A recent Pew poll found that Americans don’t think global warming is a serious problem. The number that do fell sharply—from 44% last year to 35% now.” Most Americans think aliens visit our planet regularly and cannot name one country with a Pacific Ocean coastline. In contrast, most climate scientists think there is a grave problem and that action is required. In the ’70s concern about CFCs contribution to the protective ozone layer led to a ban on of CFCs in refrigerators and hairspray. Then, there were naysayers whingeing about the economic cost. If no action had been taken, we would be dead (even now, Australians are far likely to die from damaging radiation causing skin cancer than Americans because they live under the hole in the ozone layer). Thankfully four decades ago nations chose to be cautious and banned CFCs. The ozone layer is now healing and few people are dying from skin cancer. And different technologies have enabled Americans to enjoy inexpensive refrigerators and hairsprays.
Why on earth does the FRC support climate skeptics? Just suppose that the vast majority of climate scientists are right — why risk the lives of the already born? Even if there is no problem, it is sure nicer walking along a road when cares have lower emissions. Why doesn’t FRC want to improve the lives of asthmatics or anybody else that wants to enjoy clean air?
Your job should be to inform people, not mislead them with inaccurate clippings of hacked e-mails.
“”The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. . . .
Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann’s hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann’s theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann’s methods but agreed with his results.”
The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.
What is wrong with reducing emissions and enjoying cleaner air?
Why were my previous comments removed when I cited successful action to combat CFC that nearly destroyed our protective ozone layer? I could also add the successful curtailment of acid rain in the 1980s. Both our powerful example that environmental disasters can be avoided without destroying the US economy (by the way, if we didn’t have an ozone layer in our atmosphere, we wouldn’t have an economy to worry about!).
What is wrong with reducing emissions and enjoying cleaner air?
Why were my previous comments removed when I cited successful action to combat CFCs that nearly destroyed our protective ozone layer? I could also add the successful curtailment of acid rain in the 1980s. Both are powerful examples that environmental disasters can be avoided without destroying the US economy (by the way, if we didn’t have an ozone layer in our atmosphere, we wouldn’t have an economy to worry about!).
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying cleaner air, or reducing emissions to that end. However, if there’s no proof that man-made global warming exists (especially in light of the recently exposed emails showing that global warming scientists), then why should Americans (or the rest of the world, for that matter) be forced to pay for cleaner air, in the form of higher taxes and higher prices? Furthermore, did you know that we are breathing the cleanest air in 50 years?
I’m glad you brought up the Ozone layer, as it is a prefect example of what I’m talking about. In this case, CFCs were to blame for destroying the Ozone layer, but that’s only half the story. CFCs are very heavy, so they require strong upwards winds in order to reach the Ozone layer, which is in the stratosphere, higher up than most rain clouds. It turns out there are only two places on Earth with these winds, the North and South Poles, and even then those winds are seasonal (namely, during the winter). Considering that so few people live in either location, and that not a single illness or death can be attributed to CFCs’ destruction of the Ozone layer, how can you argue that getting rid of them was beneficial? Indeed, refrigerants and fire-supressors, to name a few of CFCs’ uses, are now much more expensive and less effective (according to experts in these fields, not me). In developing countries especially, this has led to a significant increase in food poisoning and fire-related deaths. Many people paid for CFCs’ removal not only with their money, but with their lives.
Instead of worrying about over-exagerated so-called “environmental disasters,” we should be worrying about the actual deaths being brought about in the name of “science” (I put quotes around it because the way it is commonly practiced today is not science).
Luke,
There are 22 million people in Australia alone exposed to higher UV from the damaged ozone layer. This equates to 1,600 deaths every year and $400million in costs. Survivors may suffer ongoing pain and disfigurement. These are official Australian figures, not exaggerations. I lived in Sydney for over a decade and a large percentage of Australian-born adults I knew had a skin cancer biopsies. Sadly, some were malignant.
To think that because CFC molecules are heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities is incorrect. The forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime, they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere. The initial curbs on CFCs were in the mid-70s. It was under the leadership of Regan (that lefty alarmist!) that the US joined other countries in a total ban. The Anatartic hole can shift with turbulence. It was not out of love for Australians but out of fear for Americans that the US acted on CFCs.
I have moved across various continents over the past couple of decades and consequently have had to make an unusual number of purchases of refrigerators. I can attest the cost (in terms of hours of work required to purchase one — based on *average* local salaries) has gone DOWN since 1980, especially when adjusted for quality (which has improved greatly). In fact, refrigerators have become so cheap that now the working poor of Kolkata, India (one of the places I visit frequently) can afford fridges.
Eliminating CFCs has not resulted in higher costs of manufactured products and I challenge the assertion that it has lead to deaths (as noted, lower costs and better technology have enabled more poor people to access refrigeration). The depletion of the ozone layers has halted and the hole is healing (by 33% since 1976). This will help save lives in Australia in particular and also eliminates a risk for the Asia Pacific and potentially much of the planet (i.e. if we just kept pumping CFCs the Antarctic hole was expected to widen and that heightened the risk for many more nations, especially if a turbulent re-distribution of gases in the atmosphere moved the ozone deplete area),
Air quality trends in the US have indeed improved since 1980, according to the EPA. This is encouraging and to gain further improvements (1980 is not a natural benchmark year!) emissions need to be improved as the number of cars increases with the poputlation. We don’t want to let pollution increase through passivity (do we?) The pollution levels in Kolkata (and other developing places I visit) has increased dramatically over the last 25 years. The number of friends and family suffering from respiratory ailments in Kolkata has increasesed (and this is reflected in general health statistics). Premature death related to respiratory conditions is also naturally increasing. Even on short term visits the change is palpable — neighborhoods that used to seem clean and healthy now make my eyes and lungs burn within minutes of landing. I expectorate black mucus. I wipe layers of soot from my skin several time day. People age more quickly and die earlier because of the pollution. If I stayed in Kolkata full-time, it would be equivalent to smoking several packs of cigarettes a day and my life expectancy would be shortened by many years.
Toxic fumes in the air is not only unsightly and smelly — it is deadly. Babies given formula mixed with dirty water die. Australians and Bengalis cannot be dismissed as because they are far away and not American. We all share the same air, the same atmosphere, and the same planetary water system. The flow of particulants (wheter natural from a volcanic eruption or man-made e.g. above ground nuclear testing) can be measured and traced. It is astonishing how quickly an atmospheric event is manifest across the globe.
The reality I observe lead me to think that lowering pollution saves lives, encourages innovation, and makes life more enjoyable.
[...] — remain unconvinced. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council noted in a blog post, “Climate Talks Blow More Hot Air,” Americans overall are increasingly suspicious of claims that the earth is warming or that humans [...]
Pollution? How many of you have no clue what carbon dioxide (CO2) even does. It makes plants greener! More plants mean a greener Earth. This is true science. Satellite monitoring shows the Earth much greener. Billions of tons of CO2 taken out of ther atmosphere. If you believe the lie about human caused warming, get rid of methane instead. It has 20 fold the ability. Why has the Earth cooled the last 8 years? How can the billions of tons of extra co2 STOP having any effect and actually now we are cooling? Acid rain? An inbternational Canada and U.S. showed almost no effect except on a couple already acid lakes. Ozone? Sorry its half-life is way too long and much is still entering the atmosphere. Maybe this is all the sun? Duh! Wake up. Read the evidence. Orlemanns studied glacier melt rate of 160 plus glaciers. It did not increase as CO2 has increased over the last 40 years. This SCIENCE proved once for all. Humans are not responsible.
I just read another whopper. Vast majority of the scientists? Go to http://www.oism.org/petitionproject and check out the 30,000 plus people with at least a BS in the physical sciences (9,000 with a PhD) who agree and put names on the line that there is no evidence for human caused warming.
Real scientific evidence shows that the earth’s temperatures have been declining and the ice caps growing in the past two or three years. Also, mankind’s entire contributions to carbon levels(breathing and all machinery, etc.) amount to, get this, 3% of 3%!!! Not a lot to make all that fuss over. It seems to me that by the time these scientists get their PhD., they forget all their first grade knowledge of how plants use co2 to live. they then ‘exhale’ oxygen, recycling what we need to survive. Global warming does not exist and if it did, we sure didn’t cause it. REJECT ANY CLIMATE CHANGE BILL!! the only reason that this movement stays alive is because people like Al Gore make millions off their speaking engagements. Global warming is 100% political and 0% scienctifical.
By: ehmoran | December 3, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Specific scientists have placed themselves in the position of Gods. Having used their influence granted through more than $40-million from the tax payers, they have abused the trust afforded to them placing a dark cloud over the scientific community as a whole. Surely, science will recover from this event as time heals all wounds.
‘Truth is the daughter of time’ was forgotten by this specific Scientific Fiefdom, but acknowledgment of other traditional philosophies which built science to the current respect also have been ignored, such as “Politics, religion, entertainment, fame and wealth have no place in Science”. Often, however, such important socially advancing fields as science need set backs and thus force both current and potential abusers to fall back to traditional thinking. This is the nature in the evolution of human thought and growth.
The hubris of denial by these abusers of social trust, along with their followers, of the devastating magnitude of their deceptive and deviant activity, while trying to maintain their stature in civilization, is incomprehensible. This denial will continue dragging the entire scientific community into the pit. Unfortunately, a self awakened reality of their misdeeds likely will not appear until admission followed by humility becomes obvious to society. Forgiveness is the divinity of our civilization but forgetting never can be allowed.