By Richard W. Rahn, Washington Times
What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was it is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts. As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary. Despite the prediction of all the major climate models, the Earth has been getting cooler since 1998. At first, it was not considered a big deal because temperatures fluctuate from year to year. However, the drop has now been going for a decade, with another big drop last year. The global warming zealots have just been handed another rude shock, when the peer-reviewed journal, Nature, reported on May 1 that according to a new (and hopefully improved) climate model, global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade. Roger A. Pielke, environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, and not previously a global warming skeptic, reacted to the Nature article: “Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming policy.”
Hudson Institute environmental economist Dennis Avery said: “The Earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration - and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions.
As a direct result of the global-warming hysteria, which, as noted above, was grossly overblown to say the least, governments reacted by restricting energy production from traditional sources, such as oil, gas and coal, and by enacting very costly regulations on CO2 emission sources. Governments also quickly jumped on the fad of “biomass” production, which, at least in the case of corn, does not result in less CO2 but more than standard oil and gas wells produce - a clear “intelligence” failure. The restrictions on oil and gas have greatly increased the cost of gasoline and home heating oil, and the production cost of almost everything else, especially plastics and food. See story here.
By Philip Stott
The highly-respected Lausanne-based Institute for Management Development (IMD) has just issued its 20th anniversary ‘World Competitiveness Yearbook 2008’. It is not a pleasant read for the UK. The IMD report downgrades the UK’s position against its global rivals on the crucial factor of economic performance, from seventh out of 55 countries to an alarming sixteenth. And the cause of this decline? Yes, you have guessed it - the rising tax burden and worsening business environment.
I could go on and on, about higher food, petrol, and energy prices. But the point is already painfully clear. When times were good -"nice" to employ Mervyn King’s acronymic word - we could just about stomach nonsensical ‘Green’ trumpery over things like the Climate Change Levy and ‘Green’ taxes, which did nothing whatsoever about climate change, but which ‘sustained’ politicians in their pontificating about “Saving the Planet”. By stark contrast, in the present challenging world economy, such follies, such self-inflicted burdens, have, recalling the words of Benjamin Franklin - “even a small hole can sink a big ship” - , morphed into the iceberg that could well help to hole H.M.S. Britannia below the water-line.
When metro-media-anti-business folk witter on incessantly about the imponderables of ‘global warming’, I get a queasy, sinking feeling. We are sailing blindly into an economic iceberg. We are unthinkingly blunting our competitive edge in the world; we are imposing more and more burdens on industry and on business, especially on small businesses, while others do not; we are forcing retrogressive costs and taxes onto the poorer of society; we are neo-colonially hindering development; and, we are losing power and influence in a world in which, as Carl Mortished so tellingly reminds us: “… the flow of oil, food and raw materials will shift increasingly towards China and India, rather than towards America and Europe. Life will become more expensive and more difficult for Europeans.”
Indeed, it will. Self-indulgent ‘Green’ trumpery can have no place in the real-world economic battles that lie ahead. This is no computer model, and it is no comfort that France may fare worse than us. The political party which grasps this truth first, and is then straight and honest with the electorate about the limitations of ‘Green’ policies, will not only improve Britain’s position, but, in the longer run, could well hone its own competitive, political edge as the British public returns to basics. It is time to state clearly that I, for one, will vote for the major party with least damaging ‘Green’ trumpery. We need a ‘Rational Party’, and urgently. We require a Captain who can see the looming economic threat - an iceberg that will not melt under ‘global warming’ hot air. We have a titanic task before us. Read more here.
Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography.
Icecap note: We can only hope and pray our next president and the congress will heed the lessons learned across the Atlantic before hitting our own icebergs and sinking our economy. The true science does not support the proposed, misguided efforts.
By Bob Webster WEBCommentary
I’ve been a long-time skeptic of global warming/climate change alarmism. I’ve written many times about the folly of the IPCC/Gore claim that human emissions of CO2 will bring about “catastrophic” change for human society. Well, I now freely admit I was wrong - but not for the reasons most often cited by alarmists.
I’ve been having an interesting exchange on a CO2 alarmists’ blog about the dangers human emissions of CO2 pose for future climate. While the exchange has generally been cordial and it has certainly been interesting while providing great insight into the rationale most alarmists agree too, I have yet to find the proverbial “smoking gun” that actually makes their case. Nevertheless, I do have to agree with them about one thing. The danger and cost to human society from climate change will be catastrophic and is, apparently, unavoidable.
But ironically, while the catastrophe to which I refer is unquestionably human-caused, it is completely avoidable. Therein lies the rub. The danger is not from a catastrophe arising from soaring temperatures and human misery that alarmists claim will follow (a highly debatable proposition). The catastrophe that seems unstoppable is the human misery that will unquestionably arise from the massive costs of soaring imprudent government regulation of CO2 emissions in the form of Gore-enriching “cap and trade” schemes that will, in the end, provide no discernable impact on global climate.
Indeed, it would be quite proper to term our Imperial Congress’s pursuit of CO2 emission schemes nothing short of “insane.” Congressional insanity is nothing new, but its costs this time will be catastrophic to the economy and well-being of every citizen of the US. No matter. They’ve all imbibed the “Cool-Aid” of human-caused “global warming” (despite the recent cooling climate trend) in Washington. Even the normally rational Newt Gingrich has flipped out over global warming. Evidently, the slick multi-million dollar campaign of the alarmists, added to the pervasive media bias, has made this propaganda campaign the greatest success since Nazi Germany’s use of the tool in the 1930s. We can all rest assured that the cost to humans of this propaganda campaign will be equally devastating as the cost to deal with Nazi Germany was. The difference today is that people do not seem to have the will to put up a fight. Read more here.
Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel Webster’s brother Ezekiel. Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.