An editorial written by the New York Times on February 23, 2004 takes to task President Bush supporter’s response to charges from the Union of Concerned Scientists -- a group of leftist scientists claiming the Bush Administration distorts science. The Times writes,

“President Bush's supporters promptly denounced the statement and the report as an overdrawn and politically motivated work issued in an election year by an advocacy group known for its liberal disposition.”

At least the New Your Times recognizes the liberal agenda advocated by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It would behoove them though to dig a little deeper and let their readers know just how politically tied this organization is to the Democratic Party and one Presidential candidate in particular.

Fact: Teresa Heinz-Kerry is the chairman of the board of the Howard Heinz Endowment, which donated over $4,000,000 to the Tides Foundation. So when the Union of Concerned Scientists receives significant donations from the Tides Foundation and later comes out bashing the President, responsible citizens should be left questioning the political motives and the validity of scientific data of such an organization -- shouldn’t they?

 

As the Lieberman-McCain global warming vote draws near, the debating strategy of climate alarmists is becoming clearer. When it comes to the science of global warming, the alarmists think all the complexities and uncertainties have been settled. This is absolutely true, they contend, because of a single 2001 study by the National Research Council, which examined some of the key factors surrounding the issue. Lo and behold, groups such as NRDC and the Sierra Club interpret the study to mean that, yes, in fact, human beings are solely responsible for global warming. From which passage or passages do they infer this? Actually a single quote, taken from the report’s summary, which reads as follows: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.”

 

FACT: This statement by no means settles the global warming debate—far from it. The statement is typical of such “consensus” documents, which say a lot without saying much at all. For instance, the observation that “temperatures are, in fact, rising,” proves very little. It fails to answer several obvious questions, such as: Rising by how much? Is the increase meaningful? Does the increase pose catastrophic consequences (droughts, floods, etc.) for mankind? The NRC notes that, “changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities?” What kind of changes, exactly? It is a truism in climate science that climate is always changing. Further, the qualifiers “likely” and “mostly” belie claims that mankind is unequivocally the only cause of global warming. Even if one accepts the alarmist interpretation of the above quotation, it is amply contradicted throughout the NRC report. Just read about the manifold uncertainties of climate science on pages 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/).

 

One of the many canards about the Lieberman-McCain bill (S. 139) is the notion that the American public overwhelmingly supports it, and mandatory greenhouse gas reductions more generally. This is something supporters argued in last week’s debate, and will repeat with greater vehemence in the coming months. Opponents, as the argument goes, are guilty of obstructing the “will” of the people, something that, apparently, is fairly easily and readily identifiable. To find it, and discern its meaning, Lieberman-McCain supporters point to a recent Zogby poll, which found that “75 percent of Americans want the U.S. Congress to take action now to stop global warming,” according to Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. “The numbers speak for themselves,” Jeremy Symons, climate change manager for the National Wildlife Federation, said of the poll. “Americans want action now on global warming, and they clearly support the moderate approach being offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman.”

 

FACT: The Zogby poll provides no evidence of overwhelming support for S. 139 or Kyoto-style restrictions on energy use. Consider the questions: “Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have proposed legislation to begin addressing global warming. If enacted, the bill would—for the first time—require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, these industries would be required to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels within the next 7 years. How you feel about this proposal?” Not surprisingly, 75 percent “feel” pretty good about it, because the question says nothing about costs, who pays them, or what it means—both for consumers and the economy—to reduce emissions to 2000 levels. Here’s another: “Addressing global warming by requiring major industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can improve the environment without harming the economy. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?” Again, many respondents thought that sounded plausible as an abstract proposition. What might the reaction be to this question: “How would you feel about this legislation if you knew that, when fully implemented, it would increase your electricity bill by 46 percent?” Or: “How would you feel about this bill if you knew that, when fully implemented, it would impose a tax of $1,000 on every American household?” Or even: “Would you support the Kyoto Protocol if you knew it would impose substantial burdens on the poor, elderly, and minorities?”

 

Here they go again: this time, it’s the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG). In a new “study” (such groups are awfully prolific), U.S. PIRG makes the case for Kyoto and Kyoto-like policies to stop global warming. The argument can be neatly encapsulated in a syllogism: extreme weather events cost Americans $20 billion in 2002; extreme weather events are caused by global warming; global warming is caused by CO2-spewing SUVs and power plants; therefore, draconian reductions in CO2 eliminates global warming, and, by extension, droughts and hurricanes—all in turn saving us lots of money. Oh yes, and we could save even more, $70 billion in fact, if we would just kick our fondness for SUVs and accept CAFÉ standards of 40 mpg. “People say we can’t change the weather, but due to global warming we may already have,” said U.S. PIRG. “While the U.S. does nothing to curb global warming, consumers are losing out on the money-saving benefits of clean energy solutions, and we all pay the price to deal with the consequences.”

 

FACT: USPIRG’s study is pure alarmist fantasy, and if the group had its way, Americans would be paying hefty prices, with serious economic consequences, and no environmental benefits. Even assuming USPIRG is right—that taking their recommended steps would save $90 billion—the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion, according to the Clinton Energy Department. The Lieberman-McCain global warming bill, modeled after Kyoto, would reduce U.S. GDP by $106 billion, not to mention the competitiveness of American manufacturers, already a beleaguered lot. CAFÉ at 40 mpg? The National Academy of Sciences said CAFÉ kills an additional 2,000 people a year. So much for “savings.” As for the science, U.S. PIRG is wrong. Case in point: Dr. William Gray, professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and the world’s foremost expert on hurricanes, found that hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 30 year cycle in ocean currents. Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that droughts follow a natural “20 to 30 year periodicity.” In other words, there is no connection between global warming and extreme weather.