|
Newsletter (July 17, 2009)
Above the FoldPublic policy expert Dean Nelson recently featured the Cornwall Alliance and the WeGetIt.org campaign in his article entitled Climate and Cost: Clearing the Airwaves, which has been published both at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy and at the Eagle Forum of Alabama.
Richard Land also recently interviewed the Cornwall Alliance's National Spokesman on his radio show.
Reuters, too, featured the Cornwall Alliance in U.S. Conservative Christians Sound "Cap and Trade" Alarms. The Mississippi Center for Public Policy also brought the Cornwall Alliance's Cap and Trade talking points to attention in their July 10 Policy Snapshots.In this issue
Featured- The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End
- Pew Poll on Scientists' and Public's Views of Global Warming Deceptive
- Climate Change 'Morality'
- Scared Silly Over Climate Change
Debate- Global-Warming Politics
- European Hot Air
- Why Waxman-Markey Is Not a Climate Bill
Science- Back to Plastic? Reusable Grocery Bags May Cause Food Poisoning
Economics- Too Much, Too Soon, Too Far Left
- Malaria, Politics, and DDT
Meet the Critics: Timothy F. Ball & Hendrik Tennekes
Briefly Noted
Featuredby Sarah Palin
Governor of Alaska
Washington Post, July 14, 2009
. . . I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy. . . .
. . . Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase. . . .
. . . The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. . . .
. . . We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Special to the Cornwall Alliance, July 16, 2009
Proponents of alarm over alleged manmade, catastrophic global warming took comfort in a poll released July 9 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that found that while only 32% of the public believes that Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, 87% of scientists do. Alarmists think the result confirms their claims.
In fact, it doesn't. The vast majority even of critics of manmade, catastrophic global warming theory would agree that human activity has probably contributed somewhat to recent warming.
With that in mind, try this thought experiment. Consider scientists who hold each of the following seven opinions:
- Earth has not been warming.
- Earth has been warming, but human activity has had absolutely nothing to do with it.
- Earth has been warming, but human activity has been an insignificant contributor to that warming.
- Earth has been warming, and human activity has been a minor (under 10%) contributor to that warming.
- Earth has been warming, and human activity has been a substantial (between 10% and 50%) contributor to that warming.
- Earth has been warming, and human activity has been the main (over 50%) contributor to that warming.
- Earth has been warming, and human activity has been the sole contributor to that warming.
Forced to simply "agree" or "disagree" with the statement "Earth is getting warmer because of human activity," all the scientists in categories 3 through 7 would, if honest, have to "agree." But only those in categories 5 through 7 could believe in catastrophic, manmade global warming, and any of them could believe that the warming would not be catastrophic.
In short, the Pew poll provides no counterbalance to the 31,000+ American scientists who endorsed the statement, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
The PRCPP, which conducted the poll, is a subsidiary of the Pew Charitable Trusts, whose Environment Program in 2007 merged with the National Environmental Trust. The resulting Pew Environmental Group advocates for belief in and action to prevent manmade, catastrophic global warming. The related Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life issued a press release in April, drawing on data from a year-old poll, that likewise skewed results to exaggerate belief in manmade, catastrophic warming.
Meanwhile, a Gallup poll done March 5-9 of this year shows growing public skepticism; the number of scientists publicly rejecting manmade warming alarm continues to grow; the more theologically or politically conservative pastors are, the more likely they are (68%) to deny manmade warming; and people who believe the Bible is God's Word are more skeptical of manmade warming than any other population segment in America.
Related item:
Brookings Exposes Global Warming Polling Deceptions
by Pietro S. Nivola
Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Brookings Institution, April, 2009Back to top by Paul K. Driessen
Columnist, Townhall.com; Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and Congress of Racial Equality; Author, Eco-Imperialism.com
American Conservative Daily, May 30, 2009
The climate “crisis” is a “moral issue that requires serious debate,” Al Gore proclaimed in an April 27 AlGore.com blog post.
His conversion to the Anglo-American tradition of robust debate came a mere three days after the ex-VP refused to participate in a congressional hearing with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Republicans had invited Monckton to counter Gore’s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
But Gore froze like a terrified deer in headlights, and Chairman Henry Waxman told the UK climate expert he was uninvited.
Their hypocritical cowardice simply reflects a recognition that their entire energy rationing crusade would collapse if they ever allowed real debate.
Monckton would have focused on the science. But it is morality that truly requires serious debate. Climate Armageddon claims are being used to justify malignant policies that have no rational basis. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Bjorn Lomborg
Director, Copenhagen Consensus; Associate Professor, University of Aarhus, Denmark; Author, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
The Guardian, June 15, 2009
The continuous presentation of scary stories about global warming in the popular media makes us unnecessarily frightened. Even worse, it terrifies our kids.
Al Gore famously depicted how a sea-level rise of 20ft (six metres) would almost completely flood Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh, and Shanghai, even though the United Nations says that such a thing will not even happen, estimating that sea levels will rise 20 times less than that.
When confronted with these exaggerations, some of us say that they are for a good cause, and surely there is no harm done if the result is that we focus even more on tackling climate change. A similar argument was used when George W Bush's administration overstated the terror threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
This argument is astonishingly wrong. Such exaggerations do plenty of harm. Worrying excessively about global warming means that we worry less about other things, where we could do so much more good. We focus, for example, on global warming's impact on malaria – which will be to put slightly more people at risk in 100 years – instead of tackling the half a billion people suffering from malaria today with prevention and treatment policies that are much cheaper and dramatically more effective than carbon reduction would be.
Exaggeration also wears out the public's willingness to tackle global warming. If the planet is doomed, people wonder, why do anything? A record 54% of American voters now believe the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. A majority of people now believe – incorrectly – that global warming is not even caused by humans. In the United Kingdom, 40% believe that global warming is exaggerated and 60% doubt that it is man-made.
But the worst cost of exaggeration, I believe, is the unnecessary alarm that it causes – particularly among children. Recently, I discussed climate change with a group of Danish teenagers. One of them worried that global warming would cause the planet to "explode" – and all the others had similar fears.
In the US, the ABC television network recently reported that psychologists are starting to see more neuroses in people anxious about climate change. An article in the Washington Post cited nine-year-old Alyssa, who cries about the possibility of mass animal extinctions from global warming. In her words: "I don't like global warming because it kills animals, and I like animals." From a child who is yet to lose all her baby teeth: "I worry about [global warming] because I don't want to die." . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Climate Change Scenarios Scare, and Motivate, Kids
by Darragh Johnson
Staff Writer, Washington Post
Washington Post, April 16, 2007Back to top Debateby Anthony J. Sadar and Susan T. Cammarata
Certified Consulting Meteorologist (Sadar); Environmental Lawyer (Cammarata)
Washington Times, April 22, 2009
. . . In our combined 50 years of professional atmospheric and environmental science experience in government, academia, activism and consulting, we have observed a dichotomy between the real and the academic-bureaucratic worlds of environmental science.
Scientists and engineers who work hands-on in the trenches with real-world environmental-science challenges on a daily basis are skeptical of claims of a substantial influence on global climate from human activity.
Academicians who view the world from their computer screens, theories, limited field investigations and well-read published reports are not only true believers but avid promoters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The academics, whose student and public admiration and financial well-being depend on an urgent topic, have a powerful incentive to focus on a simple human-produced cause and therefore a human-correcting solution to the incredibly complex challenge of global climate warming. This narrow focus limits the creativity so necessary to scientific discovery that truly resolves issues and serves society efficiently. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2009
Climate change is set to figure prominently in this week's Group of Eight summit in Italy, but take any pronouncements about greenhouse-gas emissions targets with a grain of salt. While leaders may still think it's good politics to sing from the green hymnal, other realities are finally starting to sink in, especially in Old Europe. To wit: Restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions involve huge costs for uncertain gains and are just what economies in recession don't need.
Concerns about high costs and lost jobs have already threatened carbon-emissions control plans in Australia and New Zealand, and to make sure cap-and-trade would pass in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporters had to push through the legislation before anyone could read it. The fraying of the anti-carbon consensus in Western Europe is especially striking. Polls consistently show that voters in most Western European countries support attempts to ameliorate climate change, at least in the abstract. The EU implemented a cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005.
But that enthusiasm may be reaching its limit. Governments in industry-heavy countries are now less willing to sacrifice jobs for cooler temperatures. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Paul C. Knappenberger
Administrator, WorldClimateReport.com; Writer, MasterResource.org
MasterResource, June 29, 2009
“The current debate has proven one thing very clearly. The U.S. climate debate is not about saving the climate. It is about regulation for its own sake in the name of “saving the climate.” This fact should give pause to everyone who really cares about human welfare. Cap-and-trade is at odds with the economic wealth needed to adapt to a future that cannot be centrally planned by politicos.”
- "Cap-and-Trade and the Temple of Enron," MasterResource Saturday’s New York Times headline (print edition) read: “House Backs Bill, 219-212, to Curb Global Warming.” But if the 219 House members who voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454, aka the Waxman-Markey climate bill) thought they were casting a vote to “curb global warming,” they were sadly mistaken.
As I have shown, the climate impact of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions prescribed under Waxman-Markey is very small—best case it reduces projected global warming by less than one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050 and only about one-third of a ºF by century’s end—a reduction that is scientifically meaningless. Many Representatives, in their pre-vote statements on the House floor, pointed this out, and perhaps many of the dissenting vote casters took this fact to heart.
However, while many of the opposition speakers mentioned the paucity of climate impacts from the emissions reduction measures, the great majority of the supporting speeches focused on energy security and domestic job creation (a contention vehemently challenged by the dissenters) and left the influence on the climate out of it! Undoubtedly, they knew full well that it would be inconsequential.
The only thing that the bill’s supporters could muster up about climate is that U.S. actions were necessary in order to convince the governments of China and India to curtail their emissions (the countries that hold the biggest keys to the rate of future greenhouse emissions growth and thus climate change).
But this is a peculiar argument for passing legislation that will impact the daily lives of each and every resident of the U.S. in ways which we probably will not like (higher energy costs) and which will produce no direct climate effect. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Scienceby Karen Hawthorne
Writer, National Post, May 20, 2009
Get out your bleach and launder those reusable fabric grocery bags after each use. You're not clogging up landfill with plastic throw-aways, but your environmental conscientiousness could make you sick.
A microbiological study — a first in North America — of the popular, eco-friendly bags has uncovered some unsettling facts. Swab-testing by two independent laboratories found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags.
"The main risk is food poisoning," Dr. Richard Summerbell, research director at Toronto-based Sporometrics and former chief of medical mycology for the Ontario Ministry of Health, stated in a news release. Dr. Summerbell evaluated the study results.
"But other significant risks include skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections," he stated.
The study found that 64% of the reusable bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than what's considered safe for drinking water.
Further, 40% of the bags had yeast or mold, and some of the bags had an unacceptable presence of coliforms, faecal intestinal bacteria, when there should have been 0. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Economicsby Irwin M. Stelzer
Director, Hudson Institute's Center for Economic Studies; Columnist, Washington Examiner
Washington Examiner, July 3, 2009
Death by a thousand cuts. Or in the case of the efficiency of the U.S. economy, by at least four: Energy policy, health care policy, trade union resurgence, and fiscal madness.
Start with energy. Barack Obama says our entire energy sector needs a makeover. Never mind that we are fortunate to live in a country in which inexpensive energy has produced the world's most productive agriculture, a population capable of navigating America's huge spaces in air-conditioned comfort, and permitted the substitution of energy-plus-brain-power for back-breaking labor. Obama is going to fix it with wind that sometimes blows, solar power where the sun sometimes shines, and perhaps even nuclear power. Cost is no object.
Unless environmentalists stop him: some oppose using desert acreage for solar panels, see wind turbines as eye sores, and complain that we have no plan to dispose of long-lived nuclear waste. And as for coal, as we New Yorkers say, fugedaboutit.
All of this means that the electrical energy needed to power battery-driven vehicles won't come cheap, if indeed it is available. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2009
In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.
The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim "is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner," said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6.
Citing a five-year pilot program that reduced malaria cases in Mexico and South America by distributing antimalaria chloroquine pills to uninfected people, U.N. officials are ready to push for a "zero DDT world." Sounds nice, except for the facts. It's true that chloroquine has proven effective when used therapeutically, as in Brazil. But it's also true that scientists have questioned the safety of the drug as an oral prophylactic because it is toxic and has been shown to cause heart problems.
Most malarial deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where chloroquine once worked but started failing in the 1970s as the parasite developed resistance. Even if the drugs were still effective in Africa, they're expensive and thus impractical for one of the world's poorest regions. That's not an argument against chloroquine, bed nets or other interventions. But it is an argument for continuing to make DDT spraying a key part of any effort to eradicate malaria, which kills about a million people -- mainly children -- every year. Nearly all of this spraying is done indoors, by the way, to block mosquito nesting at night. It is not sprayed willy-nilly in jungle habitat. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Meet the CriticsHave you ever been at a loss for words when challenged by the alarmist's claim of scientific "consensus," or that dissenting scientists are unqualified? Not only does consensus prove nothing, but the very idea of "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic manmade climate change is simply unfounded. A 2008 Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Report documents dissension around the world:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Two notable critics are:
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D.
Former head of Friends of Science and Climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball is currently chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a senior fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and a frequent writer for Tech Central Station, Canada Free Press, and other magazines. One of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in Climatology, Ball has reconstructed historical climate change records and studied warming's effects, concluding that "[Catastrophic manmade global warming] is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy, and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." A few samples of Ball's publications include The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?, Warmer Is Better, Gore Getting Desperate Proof Public Cooling on GW Hoax, and, delivered at the 2008 ICCC, Climate Is a Generalist Discipline.
Hendrik Tennekes
Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes was previously director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute and professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University but was largely forced into retirement due to his stance against global warming alarmism. Somewhat of a pioneer in the science of weather prediction, Tennekes insists that "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." "We only understand 10% of the climate issue," he says, and "that is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures." A Skeptical View of Climate Models, A Personal Call for Modesty, Integrity, and Balance, A Revolution in Climate Prediction?, and RealClimate Suffers from Foggy Perception are a few of Tennekes's recently published articles.Back to top Briefly NotedLindzen: 'Is Climate Science Currently Designed to Answer Questions?
Steve Fielding says Al Gore is wrong
Hansen: 'G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change'
Obama’s Economic Recovery ‘Advisory’ Board: Little Dissent, Lots of Self-Dealing on Climate
Synthetic Genomics Inc. and ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company
Climate Change Solutions
PM's should Pause and Cool Down
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
