Global Warming

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

I think that the Liberals just need a GLOBAL WORMING and they will settle down and be allright!


What do you think!

Russell A. Krumnow

Temple, TX

[Stu]

How apropos that a discussion thread on “global warming” is in a folder labeled “U.S. Politics”.

Is it just me, or do others tire of hearing the words "global-warming" and "science" linked? Its as disingenuous (and irritating) as linking "Exxon" and "profits" (as opposed to net profit margin) or "domestic" and "spying" (as opposed to Terrorist Surveillance Program). But I digress.

International “experts” are entitled to opinions on the proximate causes for changes in the earth’s cyclical weather patterns, climate and topographic features, but not to call them “facts”. For those, we can go to open sources to find relevant and foundational facts to frame the debate that global warming proponents simply don’t want us to have.

According to the Tin Man, the purpose of science is this; to produce useful models of perceived reality by forming hypotheses/assumptions based on observation. The goal of science is not to answer all our questions, as those who share a certain world view already know.

Man’s activities can negatively impact the environment but its simply bad science to state as fact that humans control, much less cause, changes in climate and weather, movement of the Jet Stream, sea levels to rise and fall, etc. Instead, the scientific method can be used to separate truth from lies and delusions. To do this, one is first supposed to observe, then invent a hypothesis, and then predict the results. Once done, testing and experimentation follow until the results can be reproduced without discrepancies. Only then, at least scientifically, can one advance a theory based on proof.

“Consensus”, while it makes some feel good, does not constitute the proof required to justify a theory. Like evolution, and despite mountains of so-called “evidence”, global warming remains just a hypothesis; as do similar pronouncements that “human activity negatively affects the green house effect” and “oil is a non-renewable fossil fuel”.

And like evolution, academic, social and media elitists demand the global warming debate be loudly one-sided, thereby invalidating any possibility that results that support their hypothesis be viewed as science. For example, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel climate goddess, cited such experts as Ted Turner and Richard Branson to justify her “evolution” on the subject and why the AMS should now decertify meteorologists who dispute the global warming hypothesis. She's even co-opted Bill Nye.

Global warming proponents are also dishonest about the role politics, economics and social agendas play in driving this train. True science does not view history through a soda straw to avoid acknowledging that, in this case, natural and unexplained weather cycles occur that can last years or even decades. American examples that come to mind are the droughts of the 1930s and winters of the 1960s.

And now “experts” purport that our “carbon-footprint” contributes to the problem. Talk about a growth industry. Imagine the jobs required to invade our privacy in order to collect, compile and analyze personal data on our modes of travel, use of electricity and other fuel sources, and the type and location of foods we purchase. Can you say “big government” and “control”. Somebody wake up those who still think global warming is about science.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[lwoolley]

You've heard the saying that, "it's all in good fun until someone puts an eye out." Well, a variation I just experienced would read, "it's all in good fun until you're smeared in the London tabloids." Then it becomes really good fun.

Last Friday, a reporter for the Guardian newspaper in the UK decided to attack AEI (and me specifically) for allegedly trying to "bribe" scientists to undermine the recently released Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The story has been carried uncritically in a bunch of other papers - my hate-mail now comes in multiple languages!

Naturally, the story is complete garbage, and is nothing more than another ham-handed attempt to stifle all criticism of the energy-rationing, wealth-redistribution agenda of the UN and left-leaning environmental groups.

Rather than being an attack on climate science, the focus in our current project (as it has been in all of my previous efforts) is to critically examine the dominant climate policy proposals, with science entering into the picture only where it is claimed to "dictate" a particular policy response, such as rapidly forcing down greenhouse gas emissions. Any rational person will understand that while science can tell us "what is," it does not tell us "what action is best."

But the global-warming zealots of late have decided that one is not allowed to question anything at all: not the science, not the politicized process, not the UN's favored policy proposals, nothing. People who do dare to question are slandered as industry shills, and are threatened with "Nuremberg-like hearings" for trying to "deny" the climate holocaust that alarmists so fervently believe is right around the corner.

AEI's President, Chris DeMuth sent an in-house open letter rebutting the Guardian letter. I've attached Chris's letter to this note, and attached the original invitation letter and Guardian editorial so you can see for yourself. But Chris's last paragraph tells the real tale:

"We should all be aware that political attacks such as the Guardian‘s are more than sloppy or sensation-seeking journalism: they are efforts to throttle debate, and therefore aim at the heart of AEI’s purposes and methods. The successive IPCC climate change reports contain a wealth of valuable information, but there has been a longstanding effort to characterize them as representing more of a “scientific consensus” than they probably are, and to gloss over uncertainties and disagreements within the IPCC documents themselves. Consensus plays an important role in science and scientific progress, but so does disputation—reasoned argument is essential to good science, and competition of ideas is essential to scientific progress. AEI is strongly opposed to the politicization of science, just as it is to the politicization of economics and other disciplines. On climate change as on other issues, we try to sort out the areas of genuine consensus from the areas of reasonable debate and uncertainty.

Needless to say, this bogus attack will not prevail - In fact, it only reinforces my determination to inject some rationality into the climate policy discussion, and gives me a bit more name recognition with which to do it.

Please share this with those who would use the Guardian's yellow journalism in order to stifle debate over climate policy.

Best,

Ken Green

----------------------------------------
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
kgreen@aei.org

[Stu]

I’m not a climatologist, meteorologist or scientist but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn. But then it doesn’t take the AEI or its bookend think-tanks the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institute for us to see the issue clearly. It simply requires common sense.

The current tsunami of global warming “facts” and warnings was actually first observed in the eastern sky in relation to global cooling during the period 1940 to 1970. Now as then, global (fill in the blank) was all the rage with the media, environmentalists and liberals as careers were built, international symposiums conducted, and socialistic programs advanced to “curb” our impact on the planet.

Proponents now warn that Exxon Mobile contributions drive the AEI’s policy positions. (Queue the whispered voice on one of Rush’s parodies; Exxxxxon Moooobile!) Like that’s any more relevant than the impact Ernst & Young has on Al Gore's delusions. Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

The media fawns over proponents of the global warming hypothesis because their agendas are in sync. They drown us with cherry-picked statistics to scare the uninformed and ignore or marginalize opponents who are just as qualified to opine. Proponents however will grudgingly admit, off the record of course, that civilized society could return to a Stone Age quality of life and it would do little to change the projected impact their hypothesis has on our climate. Logic therefore dictates that the changes they want made will only make them feel better and increase government control but not substantially improve anything vis-à-vis the environment. More importantly, solar activity, arguably the main culprit of climate change, isn’t affected whether we do anything with CO2 emissions or not. That kinda blows another hole in the “man is in control” argument.

If the UN actually wants to be value-added, then instead of supporting the global warming cabal it should confront, say, the global child porn epidemic. Even the French president would benefit as his opinions might actually be relevant to something that matters.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

Conservation is serious stuff, as is being a good steward of our planet and its resources, but the global warming shtick has moved to a new level of silliness.

It was not surprising that the SAG awarded an Oscar to An Inconvenient Truth. It was also expected, albeit quiet nauseating, that Hollywood would simply gush it’s admiration for Al Gore when given the opportunity to do so on national television.

According to the teleprompter, global warming is a moral issue, not a political one. Yeah, right. They won’t debate facts; they just shout louder about feelings. Some see a savior but rigid ideologies that leverage fear, disallow questions and tout sole possession of truth used to be called cults.

Then there was Melissa Etheridge’s song “I Need to Wake Up”. What a stunning understatement. The real inconvenient truth is that global warming is a perfect illustration of the Abilene Paradox. Ticket anyone?

This Oscar ceremony was also trumpeted as the first to “go green”. Someone ought to compute the carbon footprint of the planes, trains and automobiles used to transport the rush of beautiful people to the gala. That too might be funny if the impact of this nonsense wasn't so damaging.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[lwoolley]

Lynn,
Why doesn't anyone talk about the activity of VOLCANOES? Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, etc. They exceed, individually, the output that civilization in it's entire existance has generated.

Let Algore know he's needed on Titan. Scientific American, March 2007, Page 30-B has an article describing lakes of Methane and Ethane... They NEED HELP.

Thanks

Don

[Stu]

On July 15, 1942, six P38 fighters and two B17s enroute to England crash-landed on the eastern coast of Greenland. Twelve expeditions between 1977 and 1992 tried to locate them but it wasn’t until the spring of 1992 that the Greenland Expedition Society succeeded. The group bypassed one of the B-17s and focused on the recovery of P38F #417630. Not only was the process dangerous but it required a thermal meltdown generator to bore a vertical shaft through 268 feet of ice - roughly 27 stories – before pieces of the P38 could be successfully raised to the surface. Glacier Girl was restored by the Lost Squadron Museum in Middleboro Kentucky and flew again on 26 October 2002.

It’s a touching story but what, one may ask, does it have to do with “global warming”. Simple. Consider the facts and do the math.

The facts are indisputable. The planes were located on Greenland’s coastal ice sheet and an average of 5+ feet of ice did form over them each year from 1942 to 1992.

Despite these inconvenient truths, zealots have been apoplectic in predictions that “…Greenland’s [coastal sea] ice sheet could begin to melt this century and may disappear completely within the next thousand years if global warming continues at its present rate…perhaps raising the ocean by as much as seven meters and flooding coastal cities [as far away as Los Angeles].”

Hmmmm. Someone should ask Al Gore and his apostles for an explanation.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

The ice is indeed melting. Now even the Chicago Sun Times is challenging Al Gore's junk science. What next, the Associated Press and New York Times?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... 0b.article

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

Just in case the CST editors wake up and remove this from their archive......

*********

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

[Stu]

The ice must indeed be melting if even the AP has now begun to doubt the GW spin. Several articles recently caught my attention.

A tenet of this religion is that the data used to track environmental change is both accurate and statistically relevant over time. This, despite technological advances in instruments used to measure this data and disparate techniques used to calibrate them. We’re now learning that these factors alone negate any comparison or correlation using data from the accepted benchmark years of 1934, 1970 and 1998. Dada, da, da, da,….another one bites the dust!

The business world is also being exposed in England, America and the Pacific as profits soar for those paragons of virtue ostensibly seized with “saving the planet”. London’s financial district is now the nexus of a $30+ billion “Carbon Market” – a byproduct of the Kyoto Accords -- that manages “pollution permits” and the trading of “carbon allowance certificates” as a commodity. The AP wryly notes that the 1.6 billion tons of CO2 purportedly generated in 2006 were double that of 2005. Apparently shifting blame is good enough when the alternative is to confront real polluters, like China. Silicon Valley is attracting huge sums of venture capital for the exploration of “green technologies”. General Electric has emerged as a leader in “clean technologies”. Toyota has sold more than 1 million Prius hybrid sedans. Best of all, the financial markets in the United States, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Pacific caught the wave as trading in over 1250 “Energy and Environment Sector Funds” has reached a new level of activity….and profit.

Sadly, the colloquial “we” allowed emotion and the myth of scientific “consensus” to mask a socialist agenda of bigger government and redistribution of wealth. This global sham may be firmly entrenched but an informed citizenry will eventually expose it for the shtick it is.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

The selection of Al Gore to share the 2007 Nobel Peace Price is as predictable as it is phony.

We’ve had to endure a lot with this man. First there was Election 2000 and his subsequent attempt to reinvent himself. Then he helps invent a global “climate crisis” and wins an Academy Award. And now the Peace Prize has elevated him to prophet status in the Church of Global Warming. Conservation is great but is there no end to the silliness of this social, political and economic disorder?

The Nobel chairman said in 2002 that former President Carter’s award wasn’t a shot at President Bush for attacking Iraq. He was then caught derisively saying exactly the opposite. Unprompted, the current chairman quickly noted that former Veep Gore’s award wasn’t a shot at President Bush for rejecting Kyoto. Yeah, right. Give it a few more days.

There may be a silver lining in all this though. Given his meteoric rise on the world stage, it may now be impossible for Al to “just” be President. After all, can you imagine him trying to explain the carbon footprint of THAT entourage?

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

Few things are more annoying….and pathetic…..than the Man is God “experts” claiming our actions trump weather cycles and cause climate change. Even a British court now agrees.

On October 10, 2007 Justice Michael Burton of the England and Wales High Court ruled in Stuart Dimmick v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families that the “extreme views of Mr. Gore” contained in An Inconvenient Truth include nine factual errors that ironically “depart from the mainstream” of the very scientific community Mr. Gore cites. These errors and a few facts that buttress this ruling are offered for consideration.

“Global Warming is killing coral reefs.” To bad this statement ignores the impact of over-fishing and the fact that all living things eventually die.

“Global Warming is drowning Polar Bears.” Unfortunately 70% of cubs don’t survive to age 3 regardless of what mankind does. Add to this the economic motive of the main predator – Man – that encourages the hunting of Polar Bears; 518 tags at up to $20K a pop in one Canadian territory this year alone. Maybe we should take their rifles.

“Global Warming caused Hurricane Katrina”. There is simply no evidence to prove this connection; unlike how a software bug skewed some NASA climate data.

“Global Warming is causing the water in Lake Chad to evaporate.” Perhaps we should look instead at the spike in irrigation projects since 1973 that emanate from this land-locked basin to support the 20+ million people who inhabit the region.

“Global Warming is causing Pacific atolls to disappear.” Remember when the media reported that atolls built on decaying coral reefs (see above) have been sinking for centuries as have those rising over volcanic cores that too are breaking down? Me neither.

“Global Warming is melting the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro.” Or is the culprit the deforestation of this volcano’s foothills?

“Global Warming proves a correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperatures.” I suppose the two could be linked if the impact of solar activity was included.

“Global Warming is restricting thermohaline circulation in the oceans.” What the movie fails to mention is the normal and cyclical tension between Gulf Stream winds and surface and subsurface water currents (e.g., thermal and haline forcing.)

And an old favorite, “Global Warming will potentially raise sea levels up to 20 feet by melting the ice in West Antarctica and Greenland.” This was initially blamed on Global Cooling. (See post above.) It also conflicts with recent findings of a Senate contingent that traveled to the region only to hear scientists confirm that the region warmed from 1880-1955 but has been colder since.

Judge Burton’s ruling further states that Rev. Gore “promotes an apocalyptic vision that is being used to influence an array of political policies” therefore teachers must use a Guidance Note in order to avoid “influencing opinions instead of stimulating discussion”, ensure balance, provide context and prevent the promotion of partisan political views. The Note includes a succinct definition of “partisan promotion”.

• The superficial treatment of subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
• The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
• The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonizing of opponents and their motives.
• The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

Hmmm. A Guidance Note. Maybe that idea will grow legs as Election 2008 nears. But I digress.

Judge Burton's definition pretty much sum up how our media and education system approach other liberal social causes like evolution and homosexuality. And now Al wants to limit opposing views because the "reality" of Global Warming is "cut and dried". Can’t win in the arena of facts and logic? Yell louder. See a pattern?

Predictably, media pundits in America gave Judge Burton’s ruling the silent treatment because it doesn’t fit the template. That’s why the intellectually honest among us must continue to look elsewhere to continue our education on initiatives that actually conserve natural resources, pursue sound land management, protect the environment, efficiently recycle materials and promote the wise use of renewable energy sources, like oil.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

Global Warming remains a classic example of unchecked “group-think” and, like the Abilene Paradox, some people will not figure it out until they're back on the porch. The following are recent pickings from the media grapevine.

Gore joins Silicon Valley venture capital firm. Apparently GW activism – that’s Global Warming, not George W -- isn’t growing at the desired “lighting speed” but the same can’t be said about his net worth. It seems Mr. Gore is now partnering with KCP&B to help promote the types of economic initiatives mentioned in the postings above. Al touched a few hearts when he announced that he will donate his (pittance of a) salary but it should also be noted that he excluded stock options from this magnanimous offer. That is not surprising given their projected value at IPO given that North American and European venture capitalists have invested over $1.9 billion in just the first six months of 2007; a 10% increase over the same period in 2006. ““Its one of the benefits of not being in the public sector anymore,” Gore said with a laugh.” No doubt, all the way to the bank.

Cutting calories and [CO2] could help save lives and the planet. Scientists and health “experts” now say fighting obesity may not just be good for us, but may also reduce Global Warming. I can’t wait to see the “science” behind this hypothesis. No doubt the justification will bear similarities with the mythical AL 288-1. Still, McDonalds, Taco Bell, KFC, et al should brace for another round with the Food Police.

Throughout a fistful of other articles, verbs ascribed to the United States and China continue to be polar opposites. America is chastised to stop, eliminate, halt and reduce. Clearly the worst polluter on the planet, China however is encouraged to grow, expand, empower, and construct. This probably needs no explanation for those who refuse the Kool Aid.

There are occasional rays of sunshine.

Global Warming the greatest scam in human history. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, recently denounced GW as “a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam”, stating, “the impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.” Mr. Coleman also castigated the “current [TWC] generation” for allowing themselves to be “corrupted” and having “lost sight of the [TWC] mission”. He went on to describe in detail how Artic ice may be at a cyclical low point but Antarctic ice is growing….due to solar cycles. He closed by noting that the scientists and climatologists he knows that disagree feel pressured to sing along or risk losing their jobs. Like that’s surprising?


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

The Global Warming assault on political, economic and educational systems continues unabated by reason, facts and the scientific method. A recent example in our education system is the push to kluge No Child Left Inside and No Child Left Behind.

Signed into law by President Bush in 2001, No Child Left Behind mandates annual testing on reading and math in grades 3-8 and then once in high school. In January 2007, the US Department of Education published Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. The efficacy of the federal education apparatus should be debated but, given its existence, this report establishes appropriate boundaries; academic standards set by the states, schools held accountable, and the federal government provides resources.

The GW cabal however seized this report as an opportunity to inject their propaganda objectives by pressuring the US Department of Education to attach strings that help them indoctrinate our young. This is yet another predictable cult tactic that many in our country are missing.

A derivative of The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 is a source of these “strings”. This Act established the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation as a non-profit organization aligned under the US Environmental Protection Agency. In September 2005, NEETF published Environmental Literacy in America to capture the results of a decade-long study. While it makes some valid observations, GW disciples have cherry-picked sections of this 152 page report to bludgeon politicians into submission. Some of the more memorable quotes follow; emphasis mine.

“[The] NEETF is committed to fostering environmental literacy in ways that spur critical thinking skills and creativity on the part of individuals and institutions. We also emphasize practical, pragmatic, workable solutions – not more rhetoric.”

“Our mission dictates that we commit ourselves to more research, more listening, and more openness to collaboration with all sectors of this nation.”

And my favorite……

“[Our children are suffering from] Nature-Deficit Disorder…..As kids become more "wired" than ever before, they are drawn away from healthful, often soul-soothing, outdoor play. The age-old pattern of children spending hours roaming about and playing outside is becoming close to extinct due to a combination of electronics, cyberspace, and parental efforts to keep their children indoors and, in their minds, safer. Without being alarmist, these conditions are becoming less acceptable and more perilous to society. ……Comprehensive environmental education is the only real answer.”

How about the "off" button coupled with a renewed emphasis on real sciences like Geology, Chemistry and Biology?

GW lobbying efforts have proven successful though as Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) are pushing legislation, S 1981 and HR 3036 respectively, to revise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to “strengthen and expand environmental education in America’s classrooms”. These bills propose that No Child Left Inside be inserted into No Child Left Behind to link federal funding of state education to the training of teachers who operate “model environmental education programs”. These bills also re-establish the Office of Environmental Education within the US Department of Education.

If signed into law, the result of these education “reforms” would be more bureaucracy, funding strings and federal control plus an Environment Czar to oversee it all. They would also provide more examples -- as if they were needed -- of an education system in our country that has been hijacked by liberal social, economic and political special interest groups.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

The Associated Press headline screamed “WWF - Global Warming will destroy 60% of Amazon by 2030”. The apoplexy this time comes from the World Wide Fund for Nature, not the defunct World Wrestling Federation, although it is apropos to note the shared penchant for theatrics and “scripted events”.

While the WWF accurately identifies the culprit – deforestation - the proximate causes don’t fit the normal emissions-based template. Instead, they stem from land mismanagement and abuses that began in Amazonia in the 1960s.

1. Slash and burn agriculture. Subsistence farming coupled with Brazil’s status as the world’s second leading producer of Soybeans have resulted in the quadrupling of cultivated areas since 1992. Columbia is also in the mix as 80% of the world’s cocaine comes from that country and 70% of that is grown in Amazonia.

2. Highway expansion. The Belem-Brasilia and Cuiaba-Porto Velho highways were constructed in 1958 and 1968 respectively and expansion continues today to serve the growing markets of Central and South America.

3. Cattle Ranching and Logging. Since May 2000, Brazil has lost over 750,000 acres of forest to the increased demand for pastureland, commercial exploration, and World Bank projects

4. Power Generation. Given its growing energy requirements, Brazil is building two hydro-electric dams on the Madeira, a main tributary to the Amazon, at a cost of $9 billion. The Rondonia project will affect 210 square miles of forest.

Contrast these facts with how the WWF trumpeted a study by the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) which warned that the Amazon forest would “break down if it suffered more than two years of drought”. What the Woodies failed to mention is that the region was entering the second year of the prophecy when the article was written (July 2006) yet the predicted “mega fires” and ruination have still not materialized as foretold. The Old Testament has pretty sound advice on how to handle these kinds of prophets. Just kidding of course.

The WWF and WHRC also cite scientists who claim, “If temperatures rise more than 3.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, risks to the environment and to people are enormous. It is essentially the tipping point for catastrophic floods and droughts, rising sea levels and heat wave deaths and diseases.” These are the same scientists who claim Global Warming is killing the French wine industry and several species of frogs, no pun intended. Buried in the study is a quote from a skeptical Brazilian official who compared these wild and dire predictions with “looking at a blond, blue-eyed boy and saying he’ll [grow up to] be an Olympic champion.” As Thane might say, “Cease loading, Target destroyed.”

Before closing, I'd also like to tackle a key word in the GW activist arsenal.

“We can stop the destruction of the Amazon but we need the support of the rich countries” contends Karen Suassuna of WWF-Brazil. “Our success in protecting the Amazon depends on how fast rich countries reduce their climate-damaging emissions to slow global warming”.

The CIA’s World Fact Book contains a relevant baseline of per capita GNP using 2006 data in which Brazil and Columbia are #97 and #99 of 229 ranked countries. That’s above China (#107) and all but one of their neighbors (Uruguay, #86). A World Bank baseline also uses 2006 data and reflects Brazil and Columbia as #74 (upper middle class) and #100 (middle class) out of 187 ranked countries. That pretty much blows a hole in the “poor country” argument for these two.

If we use these standards then the majority of South America, Europe and North America are at least middle class and thereby qualify as “rich”. Why then is America consistently the main target of Al Gore and his global disciples? Yes Virginia, there is an agenda. It’s called the redistribution of wealth and more government control.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights