The public and scientific facts are left to tell the truth about
be forgiven for expecting Climategate would be the story of the
decade, or at least the year, or even the week for that matter.
When all of those emails were leaked and the deliberate
deception to substantiate global warming, though unsupported by
sound science, began to unravel, logic said the popular media
would attack with more ferocity than a dead guppy.
Instead, the media has remained
mostly silent about the scientific scandal. It’s been mum, too,
about the fact that global warming is not occurring, or that if
it was, it wouldn’t be at the hands of man. Any climate news in
the popular media still seems geared toward the alarmism of
In fact, according to a recent
study conducted by the Business and Media Institute, Networks
Hide the Decline in Credibility of Climate Change Science, the
three major television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) ignored
Climategate for 13 days after it became public knowledge.
According to the report, “Less
than 10% of stories (13 out of 133) mentioning “climate change”
or “global warming” brought up Climategate and other climate
science scandals between November 20, 2009 (when the scandal
surfaced), and April 1, 2010. Even in the few stories about the
climate scandals, network reporters often downplayed the threat
to the credibility of the so-called scientific consensus.”
Keep in mind, Climategate
precipitated other newsworthy events.
For instance, an international
conclave on climate change met in Denmark in December to wrangle
what was supposed to be the successor to the Kyoto Protocol—an
international agreement addressing global warming—which expires
in 2012. The talks collapsed in light of the questionable
science revealed in Climategate. You were hard-pressed to find
news about it, let alone headlines.
“Despite these events, the debate
over global warming is far from over,” said By Joseph L. Bast,
president of The Heartland Institute (THI). “Global warming
alarmism is fueled by billions of dollars in funding from
government agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and the
renewable energy industry. They won’t just quit and go home.
Unfortunately, we will be reading and hearing about the “threat”
of catastrophic global warming for the rest of our lives. But
the scientific debate can be won, and the American people can be
told the truth.”
Bast offered opening remarks at
the THI 4th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in
May. This was no local coffee klatch. The event was co-sponsored
by 67 think tanks and advocacy groups from 18 countries. The
event drew more than 700 participants from around the world to
hear from 75 of the globe’s leading experts in climatology,
economics and policy.
What Credible Science Says
“Global warming is over at least for a few decades,” said Don
Easterbrook, a presenter at the ICCC. “However, the bad news is
that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global
warming, and a cause for even greater concern.”
Easterbrook is emeritus professor
at Western Washington University. He documented geologic
evidence for sudden climate fluctuations of warming and
cooling—all of which occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide
began to rise sharply.
According to Easterbrook, 10
abrupt changes occurred over the past 15,000 years, and another
60 smaller climate changes occurred in the past 5,000 years.
Based on new analysis of ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica,
Easterbrook said global temperatures rose and fell from 9° to
15° in a century or less, temperature swings he calls
“Expect global cooling for the
next two to three decades that will be far more damaging than
global warming would have been,” Easterbrook said. He explained:
Twice as many people are killed
by extreme cold than by extreme heat.
Global food production will suffer because of shorter, cooler
growing seasons and bad weather during harvest seasons.
Energy consumption will rise, and
consumer prices will rise along with it.
Political and social instability could result as the world
population grows 50% in the next 40 years while food and energy
“None of the scary stuff about
global warming is true, and what is true about global warming,
what the science actually tells us about man’s role in changing
the climate, is far from terrifying,” said Ben Lieberman, Policy
Analyst for Energy and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.
“So those who have attended the Heartland conferences, or read
its Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change, are the ones least surprised by the lengths the U.N.
scientists had to go in order to manufacture a global warming
What Regulating Carbon Does
Facts regarding policy were just as stark at the ICCC.
“Global warming is not a crisis
and should not be addressed as one. Pending global warming bills
before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency’s
regulations would do far more economic harm than environmental
good.” Lieberman explained. Among his talking points:
The Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade
bill seeks to drive up energy costs so that consumers and
businesses are forced to use less energy.
Waxman–Markey and similar Senate
bills would impose annual costs of nearly $3,000 for a household
of four, and destroy more than one million jobs—a very expensive
solution to an overstated threat.
Rather than imposing big
government constraints on the economy, the government should
unleash the forces of free markets, since they, not regulation,
have a proven track record of fostering real environmental
improvements over the long term.
“If there is one overall theme to
the economics of cap and trade, or other proposed global warming
abatement measures, it is that there is absolutely no cheap way
to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. This is
especially true if you want to reduce emissions substantially
and over a relatively short timeframe, which is what most of the
activists still insist is necessary,” said Lieberman. “Cap and
trade has to raise energy prices high enough so that we are
forced to use less in order to meet the emissions reduction
targets. Inflicting economic pain is not some unintended
consequence: It is how any system works that is designed to
reduce carbon emissions.”
In June, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report asserting that global
warming legislation being considered by the U.S. Senate would
cost the average U.S. household $80-$150 per year. Proponents of
carbon dioxide restrictions are heralding the study as proof
American families can easily afford carbon dioxide restrictions.
EPA’s assessment, however, does
not reflect economic reality, according to James M. Taylor, THI
senior fellow for environment policy.
“The EPA report is dependent on
many fanciful assumptions that have absolutely no chance of
occurring in the real world. For example, EPA assumes nuclear
power technology will lead to substantial efficiency gains and
there will be no political opposition to a major expansion in
U.S. nuclear power production. EPA also assumes all industrial
nations will agree to cut their emissions by 83% by 2050 and all
developing nations will cut their emissions by 26% by 2050, such
that few if any jobs will relocate overseas as a result of
disparate energy prices. Good luck on either of those scenarios
happening in the real world.
“While EPA makes preposterous
assumptions to paint carbon dioxide restrictions as affordable,
President Barack Obama has acknowledged that ‘electricity rates
would necessarily skyrocket’ under his cap-and-trade system. CBS
News reports the Obama administration has privately concluded
cap-and-trade legislation would cost the average U.S. household
$1,761 per year. And the Obama Treasury Department reports
cap-and-trade legislation would cost the average U.S. household
nearly $3,000 per year.
“The American public is fed up
with being sold costly big-government programs at pennies on the
dollar only to find out later – the hard way – that these
programs are going to cost much more than politicians initially
admitted. This bait-and-switch approach may have worked for
Obamacare, but the American public is wiser now, and it will not
be fooled again.”