For several years we have listened to reports on the polar bear that were designed to tug at your heartstrings. If we don’t do something about global warming all those cuddly bears will disappear.
On the way to the melting ice-caps a funny thing happened – the number of polar bears exploded to five times the amount some 40 years earlier.
Having this tale of woe debunked, Algore and his helpers put out a warning that ice-caps were melting so fast that the seas will rise 20 feet and within a few years coastal cities like New York, Miami, San Francisco and others will be mostly underwater.
A fifth grader stopped this panic with his scientific experiment. He filled a glass of water half full and added ice cubes until the water came to the top of the glass. When the ice melted a strange occurrence – the water in the glass did not spill over.
Okay, back to the drawing board. Global warming surely caused those nasty hurricanes in 2005. Darn, that didn’t work out either as hurricanes in the U.S. have greatly decreased in the ensuing four years.
Of late “scientific” reports indicate the glaciers in the Himalayas will be gone by 2035. It is now determined those two scientific reports came from a climber and a student writing a term paper.
These little incidents may seem somewhat insignificant but the cumulative effect of such propaganda and gullibility of some, especially in the education institutions, have brought us to a “climate change” bill (note the change from global warming) which has already passed the House of Representatives.
This bill could be as economically damaging as the health care bill, but thankfully warnings on its affect on all of us are beginning to be portrayed.
As so often the case the do-gooders fail to consider seriously the economic effect. Let’s assume for a moment global warming is occurring at an increasing rate and most of it is caused by mankind.
Both of those assumptions are facing serious challenge but for the sake of considering proper action steps let’s concede.
As suggested by Lord Lawson who served with Margaret Thatcher in Britain, the time has come to abandon the Kyoto style folly that was exhibited in Copenhagen last month and move to plan B.
The basics on Plan B are clear. We must do what mankind has always done and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may arise in the future.
This enables us to take advantage of the benefits of change in climate whichever way it goes. If the earth cools, we save lots of energy in summer time cooling. If warming comes, land areas open up for agriculture and energy is saved in warming for winter.
Here is the simple truth. Following the advice of those that want us to stop economic advancement will take us back years in our standard of living and probably have only a minute effect, if any, on climate change.
Bjorn Lomberg, a longtime skeptic of global warming, has tried for years to arrange a debate with Algore. Mr. Gore refuses because, you see, the time for discussion is over – sounds like healthcare doesn’t it? Mr. Lomberg states that all major climate economic models show that to achieve any significant effect on climate change it would cost the world a phenomenal 40 trillion dollars a year. This wild guess estimate has as much validity as the nonsense propagated by wild-eyed environmentalists.
Mr. Lomberg states whatever prosperity we currently have or are likely to achieve in the near future depends heavily on our ability to acquire and burn carbon emitting fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
Only common sense tells us a better use of resources would be to explore and research a better and cleaner way to use these fossil fuels. It doesn’t mean we should abandon the development of alternative methods such as wind and solar, but let’s not kid ourselves, this will not be accomplished without major breakthroughs.
There is another aspect of this issue that is seldom noted. Algore and his group have made tens of millions trying to sell us on man-made global warming.
Follow the money and you will find Algore’s schemes for selling carbon offsets aren’t just a theory but all center around the biggest beneficiary being Al Gore himself. The outcome of this kind of exercise is known as a conflict of interest.
How can a proponent like Mr. Gore be objective when he benefits by the millions based upon one theory and he strikes out if you follow the opposite position?
(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)
