Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

By Julian Dunraven, J. D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingness to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

More Than 650 Scientists Dissent over UN Global Warming Report

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

Whenever any religion seeks to turn dogma into law, society should be wary. Inevitably, when dogma becomes law, liberty, reason, and true scientific inquiry all suffer. It is not hard to find examples. Just look at the disasters which befell the Catholic Church with Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church learned its lesson though. It has since formed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to ensure that the Church is never again on the wrong side of the facts. The academy is more interested in truth than in dogma, and thus does not require its members to be Catholic. As a result, its membership roster includes some of the greatest minds of our time, such as Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Hawking, a man who believes more in mathematics than in the common conception of a creator being.

Contrast this with the nations under the sway of Islam. There, any scientific finding that does not fit with the Muslim dogma is either discarded or, worse, condemned. It is a common complaint among the expatriates of Islamic nations that, in order to conduct decent scientific research, they must first leave their native countries. To these people, the West has been a safe haven. However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the West has its own problems.

In 2003, Michael Crichton famously criticized environmentalism as shifting from genuine scientific concern into the religious preference of urban atheists. In 2005, he continued his criticism of the zealous absolute faith our people seem to place in the idea of global warming, despite a great deal of uncertainty in the data. Certainly, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) displayed a dogmatic commitment to global warming worthy of any Islamic nation when it issued its recent report on climate change in June of 2008. It claimed to represent a consensus of scientific thought and pronounced that the debate over global warming had ended. They should have said that the debate over global warming would no longer be tolerated.

It seems someone forgot to inform the bureaucrats and politicians who assembled the IPCC report that “consensus” and “compromise” are words from the world of politics which have no place in the world of science. While useful for crafting policy, incontrovertible facts do not compromise no matter how much political pressure they may be under or how many people dislike them. Yet, since the publication of the report, we have learned that it was indeed policy—not proofs—which the UN and IPCC were expressing. Any study which did not confirm or support the conclusion that Global Warming was a real problem caused by human action was systematically excluded from the report. It is fiat science.

Fortunately, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has sought to correct this egregious misrepresentation of scientific fact. The Committee’s Minority Report cites over 650 scientists who dispute the claims made in the IPCC report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists. Among its 231 pages, you will find links to peer reviewed studies which claim that the sun’s increasing activity may be responsible for the warming we have recorded on earth, along with many other theories that did not fit into the agenda of the global warming advocates at the U.N..

The studies cited should make it abundantly clear that the debate over global warming is far from finished. The topic of climate change is still filled with a great deal of uncertainty and deserves far more study before we commit to climate policies which could damage both our liberty and economy without giving any guarantee of helping our environment. In the meantime, we should be wary of what to believe on faith alone. Though waiting on the scientific method may be tedious, history shows us the disastrous consequences of putting our faith in the wrong place. The modern Islamic world gives us a very good picture of what dogmatic science can do to a society. More to the point, though, if we cannot trust our own government to manage even basic fiscal policy responsibly, why should we trust an organization of many governments to issue scientific findings by political decree on something as complex and uncertain as the climate? I should think the current financial crisis would be more than enough reason to keep them away from anything more complex than acknowledging that the sky is, indeed, blue.

Climate Change Blasphemy Must Be Prosecuted Says NASA Scientist

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

It always amazes me to see how people view the legal system. Dr. James Hansen, vaguely referred to by The Guardian as one of the world's leading climate scientists (presumably due to the fact that he becomes hysterical more swiftly than the others), now thinks we should prosecute oil company executives for, "high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming."

Last time I checked, expressing doubt as to any theory, and then trying to disprove that theory, was part of the scientific method--not a violation of the criminal code. But never mind that, we have important criminal accusations to consider.

So, what are crimes against humanity and nature anyway? Article 7 § 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:

any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in
violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on
political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in
paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible
under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this
paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Strangely, it says nothing about climate at all. Even if it did, Global Warming might be widespread, but could hardly be called a systematic attack upon any civilian population by oil company executives from the lawful operation of their businesses.

That leaves crimes against nature. Crimes against nature are not international crimes at all. They are generally part of state law. They forbid things like masturbation, oral sex, and sodomy. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), most of the so called crimes against nature are unconstitutional as they violate our fundamental right to privacy. Of course, bestiality and necrophilia are both still forbidden, but Global Warming just does not seem to fit into this category does it? Then again, perhaps it does.

It seems the oil companies have violated neither international nor domestic law with their pernicious doubts about Global Warming. Of course, this is not the real problem here. The particular criminal charge does not matter so long as we can find one that will work to silence these doubters once and for all.

Generally speaking, true scientists want a lot of doubt expressed about their theories. They want the whole scientific community to have a go at them, and, if they still stand up, undamaged, at the end of the day the whole world is likely to embrace them. Such is not the case with Global Warming, though. Almost any rational person can manage to find considerable holes in the Global Warming theories. A scientist would say this means it requires more research and study.

Dr. Hansen and his ilk, however, remind us that this is about more than just science or law: it is about moral goodness. More research and more study takes time. Persuading lawmakers to act takes even longer. But we know what is evil now. Global Warming is evil. Those who doubt it are evil. There are many of them out there—doubting—and they are getting away with it!

There was once a time when our legal system would have accommodated such thinking. Indeed, both Church and State tried for a long while to prosecute irritating “doubters” for insufficient belief. Back then, though, we did not use those words. Instead, we used words like Inquisition, heretics, and blasphemy. The system had a splendid effect upon morality, but apparently science lagged a bit. We called that time the Dark Ages. Ironically, today, any government that tried to manage belief in such a way would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. See supra, Article 7 § 1(h).