Global warming vs. prosperity
By David Holcberg
web
posted April 9, 2001
Emboldened by their recent success in causing California's blackouts,
environmentalists now want to extend California's energy crisis to the
whole country. Greens have managed to prevent the construction of nuclear
plants in America for almost two decades, and are now set to prevent also
the construction of plants powered by coal, oil, and eventually gas. They
intend to do this by passing legislation to cut carbon dioxide emissions
nationwide. The new bills, introduced in the Senate on March 15th [S.556.IS],
and in the House on March 27th [HR.1256.IH]and
April 4th [HRES
117 IH], if approved, will cause power plants to either slow down
or close down.
For a long time Greens have been relentlessly promoting the idea that
carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. They have been able
to convince most Americans of it. In schools, universities, and especially
in the media, global warming is taken for granted. The goal of the Greens'
global warming campaign has been to make cuts in energy production gullible
to the public.
Even President George W. Bush seemed to have swallowed global warming
during his campaign, but reversed his position and decided not to regulate
carbon emissions after all. Bush said "the nation has got a real
problem when it comes to energy" and noted "the incomplete state
of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate
change." Bush got it right: there is no real evidence for claims
of global warming. Quite to the contrary, experiments conducted during
the last two decades indicate a slight cooling of the globe.
Radio measurements taken around the globe by 63 weather balloons, as well
as microwave measurements taken by satellites orbiting the earth showed
an average cooling of 0.16ºF in the lower atmosphere since 1979.
The data determined a cooling trend of 0.09ºF per decade. The data
is undisputed, though global warming advocates often ignore it.
The evidence debunking global warming is indeed so forceful that 17,000
U.S. scientists signed the 1998 "Oregon Petition," declaring
that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release
of carbon dioxide is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate."
The only measurements apparently supporting the global warming theory
are surface temperature records from urban areas. This data, collected
in cities that cover only a tiny fraction of the earth's surface, do not
reflect global temperatures, but urban temperatures. Moreover, because
cities are mostly covered by concrete and pavement, which absorb lots
of heat, temperatures in cities rose through the years as they sprawled.
But this is not global warming—it is merely urban warming.
The whole case for global warming actually rests on dubious results from
computer models, not facts. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change knows it, and explicitly admits their lack of knowledge about climate
factors used in their computations. Even so, they made the wild prediction
that global temperature will rise by 10.4ºF in the next century.
They weren't even bothered by their own recognition that they have only
"low" or "very low" scientific understanding for nine
of the twelve factors used in their models. The truth is that much research
is still needed to establish the causes of global climate, which are poorly
understood.
Also poorly understood are the consequences of an eventual global warming.
All things considered, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a warmer
climate may end up doing more good than harm. Scientists know as an experimentally
demonstrated fact that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would boost
global agriculture and all forms of plant life, which feed on the stuff.
In sum, there is no credible evidence supporting the theory of global
warming, and the best evidence available shows the theory to be false.
Thousands of scientists are convinced that global warming is not happening,
and many among them say that even if it were, its effects might be beneficial.
Should we cut down energy production and progress under these circumstances?
Carbon dioxide emission control is just another Green attempt to cut back
energy production and to eventually shut down modern industry. Greens
have already succeeded in choking power production in California. Will
they succeed in choking it all over America?
If environmentalists get away with passing the new legislation, Americans
will soon find themselves in darkness, suffering through a nationwide
energy crisis that will make California's recent experience pale in comparison.
The House and the Senate must support President Bush and reject the Green's
legislation for the same reason that Americans must reject the Green's
ideology: because America's progress and prosperity depend on that. 
David Holcberg is a freelance writer and has appeared in Capitalism
Magazine on a regular basis.