1998

Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked; New Evidence Shows Abrupt Global Climate Change

by William Yeatman on October 19, 1998

in Science

Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked

The Cooler Heads coalition sponsored a science briefing for media and congressional staff on October 9, featuring Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Gray, the foremost expert on hurricanes in the U.S., spoke about the link between global warming and hurricanes.

According to Gray, hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 40 year cycle that is correlated to changes in ocean currents. The 1940s and 1950s, for example saw many land-falling tropical storms. From 1947-1960 there were 14 land-falling storms, but from 1960-1988 there were only 2. We are now in a period of heightened hurricane activity.

The mechanism that controls the Earths most important and largest ocean current, known as the thermohaline circulation, is salinity. The Atlantic Ocean is much saltier than other oceans because there is more evaporation than rain. This salty (and warmer) water travels north where it sinks due to its higher density, cools and returns to the south. There it warms and becomes saltier, beginning the process once again.

When salt content is high the ocean current is strong, pushing the salt particles through the system rapidly, preventing the build up of salt. This weakens the ocean current leading to greater salinity which in turn strengthens the current again. This occurs in 20 to 40 year cycles, according to Dr. Gray, is entirely natural, and has been occurring for thousands of years. When salinity is high and the thermohaline circulation is strong this warms up the North Atlantic and hurricanes become more frequent and more intense. When the circulation is weak the opposite is true.

Dr. Gray also addressed the problems of climate modeling. He said that numerical modeling has been a great success for forecasting the weather for five to ten days into the future. This is because forecasters can measure the wind patterns that are there in the present and ride those out for a few days. After a while, however, the current energy fields no longer hold and predictive power plummets. Another problem is the “butterfly effect” where small modeling errors either in the measurements or in the physics grow over time becoming nonlinear and the whole thing “blows up on you.”

The greatest problem with the models, however, is the failure to correctly model water vapor feedback, Gray said. Water vapor feedback accounts for 85-90 percent of the warming in the models, according to Dr. Gray. James Hansen a well-known climate modeler assumes that upper level humidity goes up 50 to 60 percent in his model. Dr. Gray believes that as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases there is a slight reduction in water vapor to balance the carbon dioxide pick up.

Finally, Dr. Gray made some predictions. He believes that we are entering a period of weakened thermohaline circulation which means that we will see fewer land-falling hurricanes and a slight decrease in global temperatures over the next 2 to 4 decades. He also predicted that there will be fewer El Nio events over the next 20 to 30 years.

New Evidence Shows Abrupt Global Climate Change

The global warming debate has several facets. One of the most important is the detection of the human signal amongst the surrounding natural variation. The problem is that the variation is much larger than the predicted human-induced warming. Paleoclimatic research, for example has found very large and rapid temperature changes over the last 100,00 years, providing a puzzle for climatologists. So far, however, the evidence has pointed to a seesaw effect where the Earths polar regions experience temperature change at different times, shifting back and forth.

New research published in Science (October 2, 1998) has found evidence that the abrupt warming that occurred in the North Atlantic about 12,500 years ago, also occurred in Antartica. Ice core samples from Taylor Dome, in the western Ross Sea sector of Antarctica show that the temperature there warmed by 20 degrees Fahrenheit in a very short time. This corresponds with a 59 degrees warming that occurred over 50 years in the Arctic, suggesting that the temperature change was global.

According to James White, a climatologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder and a co-author of the study, “We used to suspect that some of these big changes that occurred naturally in the past were only local. Since we see the same thing at opposite ends of the Earth, it does imply that the warming was a global phenomenon.” These findings “throw a monkey wrench into paleo-climate research and rearrange our thinking about climate change at that time,” White said (Chicago Tribune, October 4, 1998).

Little Progress Expected in Buenos Aires; European Union Softening on Limits for Emissions Trading; Clinton Administration to Mo

by William Yeatman on October 19, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science, Small business

Little Progress Expected in Buenos Aires

The fourth Conference of the Parties (COP-4) will meet in Buenos Aires, Argentina on November 2-13 to further discuss greenhouse gas reductions. According to Melinda Kimble, acting assistant secretary of state, there probably will be little progress toward reaching the administrations goals. “Buenos Aires has the potential to be a small step forward,” Kimble testified on October 6 before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

The biggest hurdle is emissions trading. Different countries have different ideas on what an emission trading system would look like under the Kyoto Protocol though views have converged in recent weeks.

Kimble was questioned about the administrations definition of “meaningful participation” by developing countries. She admitted that the administration has “no definition.” But, she said, it will not be a “one-size-fits-all solution.” Targets for poorer countries with low emissions will be different than for richer developing countries with higher emissions (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 7, 1998).

European Union Softening on Limits for Emissions Trading

The European Union appears to have relented, for the time being, on its demand that the use of emissions trading be limited. In a meeting in Luxembourg on October 6 the EU environment ministers agreed that the EU will insist at COP-4 that emissions trading “be defined in a quantitative and qualitative terms based on equitable criteria” at a later date.

At the Council of Ministers moderate countries convinced hard-liners that it would be a mistake to demand a cap on emissions trading. “For tactical reasons there was a majority opinion that there is no reason to narrow ourselves to a precise 50 percent cap now,” said Peter Jorgensen, a European Commission official. “This is especially true when it comes to dealing with the Americans” (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 7, 1998).

Clinton Administration to Move Forward With Emission Trading

The Clinton Administration will pursue emissions trading even if there is no agreement reached at Buenos Aires, Kathleen McGinty, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, explained at a congressional hearing held by the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs.

There is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol that prevents the U.S. and other countries from pursuing emissions trading even if there is no agreement among the parties regarding the rules governing such a system. “Should push come to shove,” McGinty said, the United States will not be “held hostage to complete a unanimous agreement before we move on with trading measures.” McGinty also said that “while we have our option to proceed unilaterally it is our preference to proceed in partnership.”

She also said that the Clinton Administration will not submit the Kyoto Protocol to Congress until flexible mechanisms “are available and agreed upon by the parties” (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 13, 1998).

Business Could Get Credit for Early Greenhouse Gas Reductions

While many in Congress are holding the line against the unconstitutional implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, others are trying to facilitate implementation without ratification. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) has introduced a bill (S. 2617) that would give businesses credit for voluntarily greenhouse gas reductions. This bill would allow President Clinton to “enter into binding agreements with U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Energy Secretary: Global Warming Message Not Getting Out; Gores “Hot” Data Not Peer Reviewed; OECD Ignores Technology Trends, Fo

by William Yeatman on October 8, 1998

in Politics

Energy Secretary: Global Warming Message Not Getting Out

The Clinton administrations new Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently remarked that the administration has been “out-gunned in the Congress, [and] in media ads,” foiling its efforts to get the word out about global warming.

“We have to do better. And what we need to do is find ways that we can communicate why its important climate change, agricultural disasters, water rising, ozone layer why that is important to the American people,” said the energy secretary. “We need to do a lot better there and we need to be committed towards not just international treaties, but delivering the message to Congress and the American people.”

If the public has not embraced the administrations energy use controls and other global warming prevention measures, it is not because the White House has expended too little effort. As Cooler Heads has documented thoroughly, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other administration officials have trumpeted global warming warnings at press conferences throughout the year. Heat waves, tornadoes, and violent storms have all been blamed on man-made global warming.

The federal government has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on programs to promote the global warming scare. The EPA alone has distributed approximately $30 million to greenhouse lobby groups, such as the Climate Institute, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the World Resources Institute. Additional millions are spent by private foundations in an attempt to convince Americans to go on an energy diet (“Deep pockets, Hot Air,” Washington Times, August 31, 1998).

Gores “Hot” Data Not Peer Reviewed

At the beginning of 1998, Vice President Al Gore held a press conference to announce nationally that 1997 was the hottest year on record. Every month since, he has announced a new record high for each month. Unfortunately, the Vice President has been relying on data that has never been peer reviewed.

The un-refereed material was “developed for political impact” by the Commerce Departments National Climatic Data Center, according to University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels. An e-mail distributed by the NCDC admits “our methodology was not documented in the open refereed literature,” and states that “This [memorandum] is an attempt to provide documentation.”

It turns out, says Michaels, that the data cited is not a record of global temperatures, but rather an “index” combining three different measures. These measures include land surface temperatures, sea surface temperatures taken from ships, and temperatures taken from a network of buoys deployed in the 1980s. The sea surface temperatures were adjusted upward by 25 percent after 1982 in order to calibrate it with land surface temperatures. The result of this unorthodox adjustment is that recent years appear warmer in “indexed” terms.

Michaels also points out that the sea surface temperatures used are inconsistent with the air temperatures above the ocean, known as marine air temperatures. The marine air temperatures, however, match up nearly perfectly with the balloon radiosonde and satellite temperature data, and show no warming over the last 20 years (Washington Times, August 31, 1998).

OECD Ignores Technology Trends, Forecasts Oil Shortage

The International Energy Agency of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that world oil production will peak in as little as ten years. Sometime between 2010 and 2020, production is projected at 80 million barrels per day and then will begin a steady decline.

In the 1970s, we were told that the world was running out of oil and the only solution was to cut energy consumption. The old-school doomsayers are back, warning once again of an oil shortage.

Other estimates, taking into account technology and rising production capacity, differ from the OECD. The U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration does not project a peak in oil production until well after 2020. Other optimists see reserves growing rapidly through technological developments, which allow explorers to extract more oil from established oil fields. “Technology has managed to offset the increasing cost of finding and retrieving new resources,” says Douglas Bohi, an economist with Charles River Associates in Washington, D.C. “The prospect is out there for an amazing increase in the [oil] reserve base.”

One new extraction technique reduces the costs of drilling by a factor of ten. It employs a method of drilling downward and then across, reducing the number of wells needed (Science, August 21, 1998). A brand new technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance may massively increase the ability of explorationists to discover oil. It has already shown that it can distinguish gold from quartz in seams 10,000 feet under ground (The Scotsman, August 28, 1998). A chronic problem afflicting the doomsayers is the inability to predict future technological change. Without this ability prognosticators will invariably be wrong.

Christy and Spencer Respond to Critics; Water Vapor Still Not Resolved

by William Yeatman on October 8, 1998

in Science

Christy and Spencer Respond to Critics

For the last 18 years, John Christy at Earth Systems Science Laboratory (ESSL), University of Alabama, Huntsville and Roy Spencer at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center have constructed a global temperature record using measurements from microwave sounding units aboard satellites. These data have confounded the warming predictions of climate models, and in fact show a cooling trend from 1979 to 1997.

Recently, the accuracy of these data have been challenged in the peer reviewed literature, the most important criticism coming last month (Cooler Heads, August 19, 1998) from Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel (WS) of Remote Sensing Systems. They claimed that the satellite data is distorted by orbital decay. Christy and Spencer, along with Elena Lobl, (CSL) also of ESSL, in a new study published in the Journal of Climate (August 1998) painstakingly trace their methodology in constructing the temperature record. While the CSL paper was submitted prior to the publication of the WS paper, it does address the WS papers criticisms.

CSL show how they intercalibrate each of the eight satellites separately to remove the biases that result from various factors. Specifically, CSL performed the adjustment to account for drift-error and cyclic fluctuations. This is relevant to the WS article in that the analysis by CSL removed a large part of the bias created by orbital decay, even though they were not aware of it at the time.

CSL also responded to a paper in Nature (March 13, 1997) by James Hurrell and Kevin Trenberth (HT) of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The HT article claimed to have discovered spurious downward jumps in the satellite record that resulted from changing the satellites. Removing the jumps changes the temperature trend from negative to positive, according to HT. After careful analysis, however, CSL “found no such jumps by comparison with independent satellite and traditional atmospheric measurements.”

Water Vapor Still Not Resolved

One of the most important and least understood components of the global warming hypothesis is the role of water vapor feedback. Water vapor is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas and accounts for nearly all of the natural greenhouse effect.

According to global warming proponents, increases of carbon dioxide will warm the planet by slightly increasing evaporation and water vapor in the troposphere. This increase in tropospheric water vapor is what accounts for most of the warming in global warming projections.

The problem is that nobody knows for sure whether this feedback is positive (enhancing the effects of increased carbon dioxide) or negative (canceling the effects of carbon dioxide). Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, believes that the feedback will be negative, and that increased carbon dioxide will actually dry out the upper troposphere. A study last year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (June 1997) by Roy Spencer of NASA and William Braswell of Nichols Research Center found that the tropical free troposphere is much dryer than represented in the climate models an early indication that Lindzen may be right.

An article in Science (August 21, 1998) discusses the difficulties in detecting a trend in the water vapor content of the troposphere. The entire enterprise is plagued with inadequate instrumentation and conflicting agreement between types of instruments. A change to better sensors may also give the false impression “that the upper troposphere is drying simply because of the better instrumentation.”

The author of the article, David Rind of NASA, concludes, “so far, there has been no evidence to indicate that a strong negative water vapor feedback in the upper troposphere will in fact arise as climate warms. However, without our being able to observe upper tropospheric and stratospheric water vapor with sufficient accuracy over a long enough time period to see ongoing trends, some uncertainty will remain in this most important of climate sensitivity feedbacks.”

DOE Study Found to be Misleading; SO2 Trading Costlier Than Claimed

by William Yeatman on October 8, 1998

in Science

DOE Study Found to be Misleading

One of the first economic analyses used by the Clinton administration to downplay the costs of reducing carbon emissions was the “Five Lab” study done by the Department of Energy. The studys conclusions, as found in the Executive Summary and the “Analysis Results” section, “are not derived from, nor supported by, the technical chapters that analyze each energy-using sector.”

“Some of these main conclusions of the Five Lab study are merely ad hoc assumptions,” according to a new report by Ronald J. Sutherland at the American Petroleum Institute. The paper, A Critique of the “Five Lab” Study, also claims that “the Five Lab study uses a methodology to estimate costs and benefits that is inconsistent with the economic principles of cost-benefit analysis.”

The “Analysis Results” chapter shows the estimated reduction in carbon emissions under three scenarios: business as usual, efficiency and high efficiency/low carbon (HE/LC). The HE/LC scenario assumes a fee of $25 and $50 per ton of carbon dioxide. But, as Sutherland points out, “The results reported for a $25 and $50 carbon fee were not obtained from analyses in three of the four sectors.” In fact, “there is no correspondence between the assumptions actually used in the analytical sections of this study and the $25 and $50 carbon permit fee.” Thus the claim by the administration that the costs of carbon emission reductions are negligible are based on ad hoc assumptions not from the actual sector modeling analyses.

Other ad hoc assumptions found in the Analysis Result section include the discount rates used in the “Optimistic” (low discount rate) and “Pessimistic” (high discount rate) scenarios. Sutherland points out that “the discount rates do not appear in the sector modeling analysis, but are only discussed in the “Analysis Results” chapter as a key component of the Five Lab study.” Surprisingly, the Five Lab study states: “These discount rates are not those that describe current market behavior, but rather are reflective of costs of capital if the market did invest in energy-efficiency measures.” In other words the rates used were not actual rates.

The Five Lab study also claims that the benefits of reducing carbon emissions outweigh the costs. Sutherland shows, however, that the study ignores costs such as those “associated with policies designed to encourage technology adoption, such as rebates, subsidies and accelerated depreciation, higher energy prices imposed on consumers, nor the cost of prematurely retiring productive coal plants,” among others. Finally, the study failed to estimate the monetary benefit of the climate change improvement. In short it got both the costs and benefits wrong.

SO2 Trading Costlier Than Claimed

A Public Utilities Fortnightly report (May 15, 1998) casts doubt on claims that SO2 trading is a workable model for carbon emissions trading. Evidently, the full costs of the sulfur reduction have not yet been realized and wont be known until Phase II of the program is fully implemented.

Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have pointed to the U.S. acid rain program as an example of how to reduce emissions inexpensively. Like the acid rain program, the argument goes, the cost of reducing greenhouse gases will be negligible.

Heres why the acid rain program cant be used for comparison purposes: Phase II of the SO2 program will require that all major “fossil units” participate, and the cap will be lower than in Phase I. Utilities over-complied during Phase I and “banked” their emissions allowances in anticipation of the lower Phase II cap. At some point during Phase II, utilities will fully draw down their banked allowances and the real costs of compliance will be revealed.

Currently allowances are selling for about $100 per ton even though the marginal cost of compliance is actually $500. This is because utilities had difficulty in estimating their marginal costs. As a result, they may have invested “too heavily in control measures, creating more allowances for sale than needed to achieve the cap in any given year,” causing allowance prices to fall below actual marginal cost.

Once Phase II is fully implemented, long run marginal costs will equal the price of allowances. These costs should fall well within the range estimated by critics of sulfur emission controls.

Pre-Buenos Aires: The Global Warming Debate Scorecard

by William Yeatman on October 2, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

The comment in August by Bill Richardson, President Clinton’s pick for U.S. Secretary of Energy, that global warming advocates had been “outgunned” came as a surprise to those of us who have been watching the huge amount of cash being amassed by interest groups focussed on this issue. The U.S. government, of course, has been spending roughly $2 billion a year on global warming and now proposes a new $6.3 billion package, which includes a set-aside for public “education.”

But in addition, Pew Charitable Trust has pledged some $50 million over the next 10 years to promote this issue to the press and the public, largely through the National Environmental Trust and the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation just donated $1.5 million to train 60 “scientist-communicators” to work the press on global warming. Millions more have been donated by the W. Alton Jones Foundation and other foundations. The issue has been a major focus of the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and dozens of other green activist organizations. On the industry side, approximately $13 million was spent on a nationwide ad campaign in the fall of 1997. Word is that industry plans a similar ad campaign this fall.

In the run-up to the next round of global warming talks, in Buenos Aires in early November, we thought it would be useful to try to gauge how the global warming debate is faring here in the United States. We did a Lexis-Nexis search of editorials and commentary in major publications, using June 1, 1998 as the starting point. We figured that beginning at this date would be a better measure of global warming’s sustainibility as an issue, and would also reflect any concerns raised by the Vice President’s many press briefings over the summer.

Our search, of course, did not include television, which has been largely pro-warming, nor radio, which has been largely against it. Both radio and television reach tens of millions of listeners. Very small newspapers were deliberately excluded, in part because they tend to be strongly conservative and would likely skew the results in the “No” column. News articles would have been too numerous to count, but we figured that editorials and commentary should reflect their impact.

A few of these commentary articles are clearly meant to be self-serving, i.e. industry representatives, Green activists, nuclear engineers promoting nuclear power. Only the editorials reflect the official position of the publications themselves, though all of the articles reveal what their readership has been seeing. We plan to keep a running tally through the end of the year, so if we’ve missed items, please bring them to our attention.

In reviewing this list, several things jumped out at us. First, 41 of the 66 articles appeared in August, a reflection of the Clinton administration’s–and particularly Mr. Gore’s–promotion of the issue. Second, there was a curious dearth of support on either the editorial or commentary pages at two major newspapers that strongly promote global warming on the news side: the New York Times and the Washington Post. Finally, there was a general failure of representatives of either industry or green activist organizations to attack this issue on the commentary pages. Of the industry-based articles that did appear, several were middle-of-the-roadish. The one Green group commentary piece, from Ozone Action, presented a shrill argument for an industry plot. Both industry and activists are working directly with the U.S. government. But it would be arrogant if either thinks that deals can be struck without convincing the American people that such policies are needed or in any way useful.

Over the next two months, perhaps we shall get a clearer picture of what Bill Richardson meant when he said the U.S. government is being “outgunned.”

For now, if it means losing the debate on the pages of major newspapers and magazines, Richardson appears to be right.

Editorials Opposing Kyoto Treaty: 25 publications — 13 editorials, 26 commentary articles

Charleston (SC) Post and Courier: Former government scientist Joseph McDowell in a column “Why is this debate still alive when no credible evidence has been found to support global warming theory?” (8/5/98)

Chattanooga (TN) Free Press: Free Press Editor and Publisher Lee Anderson in a column “there is still no proof of the wild global warming claims of the alarmists who ignore natural climate cycles (8/4/98)

Chicago (IL) Sun Times: Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner in a column says “global warming paranoia just a lot of hot air” (6/19/98)

Chicago (IL) Tribune: Column by Joan Beck says “global warming verdict still up in the air.” 7/9/98)

Detroit (MI) News: Editorial “It is regrettable that the National Council of Churches has embraced Mr. Gore’s line (on global warming).

Freelance writer Daniel Hager in a column “Many of us, taking a longer view of climate history, remain skeptics” (7/20/98)

Duluth (MN) News Tribune: Citizens Research Council President Clyde Nelson in a column “Must we rush into the unknown abyss of treaties that supersede our own Constitution in a mad rush to avert a disaster when even today large numbers of learned scientists cannot seem to agree on the cause, or the impact (of global warming) on the world’s population?” (8/1/98)

Electricity Daily: Editorial critical of “Hansen’s Global Warming Index” (7/27/98)

Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram: Knight-Ridder columnist John Carlisle asks “Is the sun to blame for global warming? Biggest factor on earth’s temperature is 93 million miles away” (7/6/98)

Investor’s Business Daily: Editorial “(The U.S. EPA) is committed to spending your money to persuade you to tell your senator to get on the global warming bandwagon…The EPA calls this educational outreach. It smells like lobbying” (8/4/98)

Junk Science Home Page Publisher Steve Milloy and Michael Gough of the Cato Institute in a column say scientist Frederick Seitz is the “prime target of a government smear campaign” as part of the “broader effort to squelch scientific debate on global warming” (8/7/98)

Journal of Commerce: Editorial notes evidence that the Earth’s climate from 1000-1200 A.D. was about 1 degree Celsius warmer than today, with no input from cars or power plants. (7/6/98)

Small Business Survival Committee chief economist Raymond Keating in a column blasts White House economist Janet Yellen’s view that the costs of Kyoto will be small (7/16/98)

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute “For farmers of the world, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy-expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides, and fertilizer.” (9/1/98)

Las Vegas (NV) Review-Journal: Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates VP Mary Novak, in a column “Instead of hobbling our economy with costly new regulations, we should pursue alternatives to the Kyoto Accord” (8/14/98)

Little Rock (AK) Democrat-Gazette: Editorial “No wonder (Gore) always seems so uncomfortable…He’s not a statesman. He’s a weatherman…The man really missed his calling” (7/13/98

Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal: Kentucky Farm Bureau President William Sprague “America’s most potent agricultural trading competitors…won’t have to shoulder the same cost increases that our producers have to bear (under Kyoto)” (8/29/98)

Montgomery (AL) Advertiser: Editorial “There remains much legitimate dispute about the extent of global warming and its impact on humankind.” (8/13/98)

Omaha World-Herald: Editorial “(Gore) seems to be seeking votes by crying out that the sky is falling” (8/14/98)

National Review: Cover story by Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says “global warming is not a threat to health or the economy. Plans to address it are” (8/17/98)

The Patriot-Ledger (Quincy, MA): Columnist D.A. Mittell, Jr. writes “let’s cut the alarmist claptrap on warm Earth.” (9/5/98)

Philadelphia Inquirer: Columnist David Boldt “We’d be idiots to lash ourselves to growth-slowing policies based on a very dubious, very long-range weather forecast.” (8/25/98)

Providence (RI) Journal-Bulletin: Mackubin Thomas Owens in a column complains about the ramifications of “global warming vs. U.S. security” (7/31/98)

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Editorial “Science is mostly irrelevant to Gore…What Gore is trying to do is drum up support for the Kyoto treaty” (7/21/98)

Editorial “Nothing in the natural world is static…Won’t someone please tell Al Gore?” (8/25/98)

UVA Prof Patrick Michaels in a column “(Americans) know when someone is yelling fire in a crowded greenhouse” (8/18/98)

Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO): Center for the New West President Philip Burgess in a column “Nearly every publicly available study estimating the true costs of Kyoto ends up with dramatically higher cost estimates than those used by Clinton-Gore true believers” (8/4/98)

Salt Lake (UT) Tribune: National Center for Public Policy Research VP David Ridenour in a column “The unusually hot air blowing this summer has come from the White House, not from global warming” (8/16/98)

Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review: Columnist John Webster “on the basis of this uncertainty and exaggeration, the United States would be crazy to don a regulatory straitjacket”: (8/14/98)

Tampa (FL) Tribune: Editorial says “Gore’s attempt to link Florida fires to global warming is pseudo-science” (7/12/98)

Washington (DC) Times: Editorial “Al Gore Warms Up: Is there any misfortune, disaster or otherwise unwelcome phenomenon out there that (Gore) can’t blame on alleged global warming?” (7/16/98)

Syndicated columnist Oliver North writes “…no matter what Kyoto says, businesses aren’t going to stop using fossil fuels. They will simply stop using them in the United States. And…that means fewer jobs” (7/18/98)

UVA Prof. Patrick Michaels writes about “false alarms in the greenhouse” (7/20/98)

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chief Economist J.T. Young in a column writes that the Administration has virtually no blueprint for action behind its proposal to spend $6.3 billion on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (8/4/98)

Cato Institute foreign policy analyst Gary Dempsey in a column says ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is “courting global disaster.” (8/4/98)

National Center for Public Policy Research VP David Ridenour writes about “cooler readings of the heatwave hype” (8/19/98)

Editorial “The Clinton Administration has created an industry of its own to sow fear of climate change worldwide.” (8/31/98);

UVA Prof. Patrick Michaels “Mr. Gore is not talking about the globe’s temperatures after all, and the science he’s peddling hasn’t even been peer reviewed” (8/31/98)

Editorial talks about foundation funding to promote global warming in “deep pockets, hot air.” (8/31/98)

Supporting Kyoto Treaty: 19 publications — 11 editorials, 8 commentary articles

Atlanta Constitution: Editorial “We can ignore these warnings if we choose. But our children and grandchildren may find it hard to ignore the legacy of our greed and selfishness” (8/19/98)

Baltimore Sun: Penn State Prof. of nuclear engineering Anthony J. Baratta promotes “using nuclear power to cool the planet” (6/17/98)

Boston Globe: Editorial “…stop heeding a few powerful but shortsighted interests and take the global threat seriously” (8/14/98)

Chicago Tribune: Editorial “prudence and common sense–and mounting scientific evidence–(suggest) that global warming must be taken seriously” (8/9/98)

Des Moines Register: Editorial “The environment we’re comfortable with simply can’t handle all the greenhouse gases” (8/17/98)

Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: Editorial “global warming is too serious to be used for partisan advantage” (8/12/98)

Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram: Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins “we continue to report global warming as though it were a debate among scientists. It is not.” (8/13/98)

Las Vegas Review-Journal: UNLV geology Prof. Stephen Rowland in a column writes “…our children and grandchildren will pay a far higher price and suffer serious consequences if we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence” (7/26/98)

Los Angeles Times: Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins writes “debate dries up on global warming” (8/16/98)

Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal: Editorial “…the warming trend is going to impose big costs on governments and business enterprises all over the world” (8/13/98)

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Editorial “This summer might be a harbinger of the calamity to come” (8/12/98)

Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger: Editorial “The long-range threat is going to continue–no matter what the forecast shows.” (8/24/98)

North Carolina News & Observer: NCSU nuclear engineering Prof. Donald Dudziak in a column “Mounting evidence that the planet may be warming…require(s) a larger role for nuclear power” (7/17/98)

Palm Beach Post: Editorial “these fluctuations are not normal…” (8/24/98)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Editorial “Americans are going to have to face the fact that fighting global warming and its consequences will cost some money” (8/12/98)

Salt Lake (UT) Tribune: Ozone Action Executive Director John Passacantando in a column “Go ahead and listen to the fossil fuel lobbyists bad-mouth the president and vice president for talking about what is increasingly the most obvious global threat we have ever faced” (8/16/98)

Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review: Columnist Carol MacPherson “global warming is a fact” (8/14/98)

Vancouver (WA) Columbian: Columnist Michael Zuzel writes “Taking action carries a cost, but as recent weather strongly suggests, so does not taking action” (7/19/98)

Washington Post: Editorial calls on Congress to remove riders to the EPA’s funding bill that would bar “contemplation of implementation” of the Kyoto Protocol” (7/21/98)

GLOBAL WARMING/KYOTO–MAYBE: 7 publications — 2 editorials, 6 commentary articles.

Boston Globe: Massachusetts Petroleum Council Executive Director Frank Tivan, in a column “No thoughtful observer would dismiss warming out of hand. But given the scientific debate over the problem, the economic pain is skewed way out of proportion.” (8/11/98)

The Economist: Editorial “…at the very least it seems sensible to invest in better thermometers” (8/15/98)

Insight magazine: Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in a column writes “By agreeing to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions and leaving the accord’s impact on military operations ambiguous, the administration effectively has hamstrung the Defense Department’s ability to protect U.S. national security…The Senate must demand a blanket exemption for all military operations” (6/15/98)

Journal of Commerce: American Petroleum Institute Executive VP William O’Keefe in a column writes that there are “sensible steps” that can be taken to address climate change: energy efficient technology, voluntary emissions reductions, including developing nations in any emissions reduction campaign (7/6/98)

Harvard Prof. Robert Stavins in a column “contrary to overly optimistic claims…it could cost the U.S. economy between 0.3 percent and 3 percent of the annual gross national product to meet the U.S. targets under the Kyoto Protocol….Such costs are not trivial, but neither do they represent national economic catastrophe.” 8/7/98)

Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch: Media General News Service White House Correspondent Marsha Mercer in a column “Gore evidently believes people may be ready for an environmentally aware president who can save us from climate doom” (8/16/98)

Tampa (FL) Tribune: Editorial “Gore’s half answer to global warming” (8/30/98)

Washington (DC) Times: NASA scientist Roy Spencer in a column writes “were it not for the standoff between the White House and Congress over the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the concern over recent high temperatures, this would be just another technical debate hashed out on the pages of scientific journals” (9/3/98)

Hottest August Ever?; Urban Heat Island Effect Still Skews Surface Data; National Ad Campaigns Defend Energy Use, Sound Science

by William Yeatman on September 19, 1998

in Science

Hottest August Ever?

With the passing of another month, Vice President Al Gore appeared to tell us that it was the hottest one ever. Figures provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration show that Augusts global average temperature was 61.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The previous August record was set in 1997 at 61.1 degrees F. As we noted in our last issue, these data are based upon a new, non-peer reviewed temperature index.

Things were not so dire in the United States, however. The 1998 January through August period has been the fifth-wettest on record the wettest occurring in 1979 and the fourth warmest the warmest occurring in 1934 (The Associated Press, September 11, 1998).

Urban Heat Island Effect Still Skews Surface Data

A lot of the hype over record setting temperatures may have more to do with the location of thermometers than the heating up of the planet. Sacramento, California, for example, experienced a record 16 days of 100-degree plus temperatures. It turns out, however, that Sacramento was probably a lot cooler than thermometer readings showed.

According to Channel 13 (KVOR) meteorologist Tom Loffman, “the National Weather Service has its thermometer on a roof where the sun hits and makes it too hot. Ive been pestering those people for years with little success.” The NWS is finally going to move the thermometer to a different location, leading Loffman to predict that “Next year there wont be any more record highs.”

Roger Papas, an NWS meteorologist agrees. The rooftop is “not a good place,” he said. “Its particularly bad because theres a tar roof, and where (the thermometer) sits theres like a penthouse structure near it.”

The NWS office is also going to move its gauges and thermometers in Washington, D.C. A similar move in San Francisco lowered temperature readings considerably.

“One thing I find a little suspicious is that in the seven years Ive been in Sacramento there have been maybe 30 record highs and no record lows,” said Mark Finan chief meteorologist at Channel 3 (KCRA). “It stays so much warmer in the downtown area, youre not going to get record lows. If we do get a cold snap this winter, we might set some records.”

How many more of NWSs thermometer locations are corrupted by hot urban locations (Sacramento Bee, September 12, 1998)?

Etc.

National Ad Campaigns Defend Energy Use, Sound Science

The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a national television and radio advertising campaign to oppose Kyoto-related energy use restrictions. The campaign, aired nationally and in Detroit and Washington DC, focuses on both the morality of energy use and on the growing scientific dissent about the global warming theory (CEI press release, September 16, 1998).

Frontiers of Freedom sponsored a separate radio advertisement campaign that questions the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol. “Uncertain Science, Certain Costs” points out that the global warming theory is highly speculative and has not been confirmed by scientific evidence (Frontiers of Freedom press release, September 10, 1998).

Efficiency Group Advocates Tougher Conservation Measures; Energy Efficiency Measures Will Raise Energy Use; “Mini-Kyoto” in Oreg

by William Yeatman on September 19, 1998

in Blog

Efficiency Group Advocates Tougher Conservation Measures

A new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) outlines “five major energy efficiency policy initiatives” to reach the targets set at Kyoto. These policies, they claim, will “stimulate widespread energy efficiency improvements in all key sectors of the economy,” and will “reduce greenhouse gas emissions at an economic benefit rather than cost to the nation.”

The first strategy involves “rapidly completing ongoing existing efficiency rulemakings” on selected appliances while establishing new standards for others. They also propose increasing the corporate average fuel economy standards on cars and light trucks to achieve a fleet average of 42 mpg by 2010 and 59 mpg by 2020. Incentives for purchasing fuel efficient cars as well as continued R&D on next-generation vehicle technologies are also supported. ACEEE claims that there is “a wide range of technologies that are already available for increasing fuel economy.”

ACEEE is concerned that increased competition will cause electric utilities to decrease their funding for energy efficiency programs, known as public benefit expenditures. Some states have established public benefit trust funds, through a small charge to electricity consumers, to ensure that these programs continue. ACEEE supports a national public benefits trust fund that would provide matching funds to states to encourage and expand public benefits activities.

The use of combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which convert as much as 90 percent of fuel into useful energy, should be encouraged through a variety of measures, according to ACEEE. They argue that many barriers, such as “environmental permitting, environmental regulations that do not recognize overall CHP impacts, utility policies that discourage CHP installation, and unfavorable tax treatment,” are preventing the implementation of CHP systems.

Finally, ACEEE favors a heat rate “cap and trade” system to induce fossil fuel power plants to become more efficient. “The trading system,” according to the report, “would provide credits to generators that are below the prevailing heat rate cap. The credits could be sold to less efficient generators, allowing the market to determine the most economically efficient way to meet the caps.” The cap would be progressively reduced over time.

These measures, claim ACEEE, would account for 61 percent of the emissions reductions needed to reach the target set at Kyoto. The executive summary of the report is available on the Internet at www.aceee.org/pubs/e981.htm.

Energy Efficiency Measures Will Raise Energy Use

Proponents of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are putting a lot of stock in energy efficiency measures. Indeed, energy efficiency is a major aspect of the Clinton Administrations global warming proposals. According to proponents, increased energy efficiency would allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at little cost. Some even believe that on net, it would be beneficial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that we could immediately reduce our energy use by 25 percent with existing technology, “without compromising comfort or performance.”

A leading green analyst, however, is now arguing that these claims are largely false. Horace Herring at the Energy and Environment Research Unit of Britains Open University, argues that though energy efficiency reduces energy use for a particular task, it generally leads to an overall increase in energy use. This results from two effects: the rebound effect and the macroeconomic effect.

Reducing the costs of refrigeration, for example, can lead to the purchase of larger refrigerators that consume more energy. Reducing the cost of heating leads consumers to turn up the thermostat, and so on. This rebound effect is real and substantial.

Lowering the costs of running appliances through increased energy efficiency leads to the macroeconomic effect of increased purchases of appliances. As it becomes cheaper to run air-conditioning units, for example, more people will buy them.

“Both economic theory and history support this view,” says Herring. Increasing energy efficiency and increased energy use have always gone hand in hand. “Policy makers dont want to confront this,” says Herring. “But unless they do, current European policies will be disastrous and there will be no hope of meeting targets for emissions reductions. There needs to be a lot more hard thinking, and much less mouthing of platitudes.” Herring favors carbon taxes and government spending on green investments (New Scientist, September 5, 1998).

“Mini-Kyoto” in Oregon

Under a new Oregon law, electricity utilities who wish to construct new power plants will be required to prove that they will offset a part of the carbon dioxide emissions.

Under this new plan, the Portland General Electric Company will pay $2.5 million to offset more than 4 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions if it builds phase two of its Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project in Boardman. PGE will be required to offset the carbon dioxide before it begins construction of the plant (Climate Business, September 3, 1998).

When Science Meets Politics on Global Warming

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1998

in Politics, Science

(This article first appeared in the Washington Times)

The political and scientific debate over whether the Earth is warming due to human activities was stirred up earlier this month when a research paper, published in the journal Nature by physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, claimed that the satellite temperature data were flawed. Satellite data are the only truly global temperature data scientists have. But contrary to surface readings, satellites have shown a slight cooling trend since readings began in 1979. Mr. Wentz and Dr. Schabel claimed that adjusting the data to account for gradual changes in the orbits of these satellites would result in a slight warming trend. As a result, newspaper headlines trumpeted “the satellite data finally support global warming.” This is quite misleading.

Wentz and Schabel of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research firm, did convincingly establish an effect that we had failed to account for in processing the satellite data. The very slow fall of the Earth-orbiting satellites (called “orbital decay”) changes the angle of the satellites’ view of the Earth’s surface, causing a very slight–and false–cooling in the global average temperature record. But even if Wentz and Schabel’s adjustment was correct, their estimated temperature trend, an increase of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade during 1979-1997 would still have been only one-third of the 0.24 degree Celsius increase per decade that computer climate models predict for the next century in the lower atmosphere.

Were it not for the standoff between the White House and Congress over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the concern over recent record high temperatures, this would be just another technical debate hashed out on the pages of the scientific journals. But for better or for worse, climate science has run headlong into politics and policy. Taxpayers, who have been footing the bill for all of this climate research, deserve to kept informed.

The precision satellite monitoring method, which I developed with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s Earth System Science Laboratory, began explicitly incorporating orbital decay (and other partially offsetting effects) into the data analysis in February. With those corrections made, our detailed review of the satellite data between 1979 and 1997 still shows a cooling but at a smaller rate–dropping at 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade. Given the measurement uncertainty, this is no temperature trend.

Also, though not mentioned in most news accounts, instruments aboard weather balloons provide an independent measure of global temperatures in the lower troposphere, the same layer where satellite readings are taken. Between 1979 and 1997, readings from thousands of weather balloons, and analyzed separately by teams of scientists in three countries–Great Britain, Russia, and the United States–actually show a stronger global cooling.

One problem has already cropped up in the Wentz/Schabel research. It appears that our processed satellite data already had unintended corrections for orbital drift, both in height and in time of day. Proper adjustments for these effects must be done on the raw satellite measurements, not on the processed datasets we provide to the research community. Unfortunately, it will likely take more than a year for our publication of such a complex analysis. This is in contrast to science news journals, such as Nature, that promise quick publication, but at the expense of much needed detail.

With the many statements from politicians and some scientists expressing certainty about global warming, what the public needs to realize is the small disparity in temperature trends being debated here: a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade, or less! Moreover, it is extremely difficult to measure human-induced global warming when the climate system is perfectly capable of going through wild fluctuations on its own. Warming over the last century, suggested by surface thermometer readings, is about 0.6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit). This is so small no one would have noticed it without a painstaking effort to patch together a wide variety of disparate measurements that were never intended to detect such a small signal over such a long period of time.

The 1997-98 El Nino, its effects still lingering, has contributed to record warmth in recent months. January through July of this year have shown the highest readings in the twenty-year satellite record, which now has a trend of +0.04 deg. C/decade. The surface thermometer data suggest most of the last year has been the warmest period since reliable surface measurements have been kept, about 100 years or so. But both thermometer and satellite readings will very likely drop in the coming months as conditions return to normal, or a period of even cooler temperatures, the so-called La Nina, sets in. Has global warming contributed to this recent record warmth? The vast majority of climate scientists would put the blame on El Nino, and I would add that they were blaming unusual weather on El Ninos long before it became fashionable to blame it on global warming.

It is curious that the thermometer data have not had to endure the level of intense scrutiny that the satellite data have undergone in recent years. Is this because the surface data support global warming? The surface data are less than perfect, to put it mildly. Unlike the satellites, which orbit the Earth, each taking some 40,000 readings every day, thermometers cover less than half of the Earth’s surface and are unevenly distributed, with more measurements being taken in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. On land, temperature readings have to be corrected for the “heat island” effect, a local warming that occurs over time as cities spread outward. Then there’s the difficulty in patching together records of measurements taken by different collection methods. Until the 1940s, ships would measure sea surface temperatures by dropping a thermometer into a bucket of sea water. Today, sea water temperatures are measured by thermometers affixed to buoys, or in the intake ports of ships.

Recently, the addition of ocean buoy measurements in the tropical east Pacific and their role in recording a possible false warming has come under investigation. There is also evidence that air temperatures taken just above the ocean surface have not risen nearly as fast as sea water temperatures, and it is sea water temperatures that have, up until now, been included in global temperature estimates. Finally, although land-based thermometer readings have had some correction for the “heat island” effect, there is reason to believe that these corrections have not been sufficient. Even small towns and rural thermometer sites, which are uncorrected, have in general experienced population growth. In short, thermometer estimates of global warming are not “truth” either, and will likely be revised.

Bias is widespread in the global warming debate. Scientists are human too, and have their own pet theories, political and world views, and heartfelt beliefs. Nobel Laureates that expound on the threat of global warming typically have no training in the atmospheric sciences. And while a majority of the climate community probably agrees that some amount of global warming is likely in the next century, there is no consensus on how much warming will occur. There are still too many uncertainties about how the climate system will respond to the gradual increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Ultimately, what the debate boils down to, is whether scientists believe the Earth to be fragile or resilient.

Many scientists involved in the process feel that the official U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s firm predictions of substantial warming were guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists. To some extent, this can be excused since it is often difficult to pin a scientist down to a definite answer. The American public is clearly divided on the issue, with the balance of opinion often depending upon how survey questions are phrased. The public’s confusion is justified, since nearly the same level of confusion exists in the climate science community.

Even though I am a global warming skeptic, if global warming is proven to be a dire threat, I hope that I am the one who proves it. But in today’s politically correct climate, I can guarantee you that no one will ever receive a Nobel Prize for proving that it was not a threat.

Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center analyzes global temperature data from weather satellites. Dr. Spencer is not expressing any official position of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These are his personal views.

Gore Clobbers Farmers

by William Yeatman on August 31, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

Vice President Al Gore has not yet presented the Senate with the global-warming treaty he negotiated last December in Kyoto, Japan, but it’s a ticking time bomb for farmers in the United States and the rest of the First World.

The Kyoto treaty would require ratifying countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 45 percent per capita by the year 2012. Such a drastic emissions reduction would probably cut First World economic output by at least 3 percent, eliminate millions of jobs and throw the affluent nations into a steep recession. (The treaty would put no constraints on the Third World.)

For farmers in the First World, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy- expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Natural gas, for example, is about 75 percent of the cost of anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer.

In addition, the treaty would mean ceilings on crop yields, to further discourage the use of fertilizer. It would mean limits on livestock production, especially cattle, to reduce the production of methane. And it would mean restrictions on food processing and transport, forcing food to be grown closer to the consumer, often at lower yields and often with more soil erosion.

Terry Francl, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profits by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans don’t take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profits would fall only about 20 percent.

The first world’s farm incomes would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the First World. Countries like Argentina and Brazil, not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise.

Environmentalists would be thrilled. Modern farmers would be forced out of their tractor cabs and dragooned into low-input, low-yield farming. Meanwhile, the world’s farm-export demand would shrink. Instead of importing food, Asia would try to produce four times as much food at home. There would be no Kyoto-treaty restrictions on its farmers.

Unfortunately, expanding farm output in Asia is exactly what the environment doesn’t need. Compared with the First World, Asia has six times as many people per acre of arable land, and its farmers already use perhaps six times as much nitrogen fertilizer per acre.

The only land on which Asian farming can logically expand is currently tropical forest, home to millions of wild species. The Kyoto treaty seems wonderfully designed to trigger the massive loss in wildlife that biologists fear. In other words, Mr. Gore is volunteering his own farmers for bankruptcy and a major percentage of the world’s wildlife for destruction.

The excuse is that he’s doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet – which drives us back to the key question: Is global warming real, and how bad will it be?

The vice president has been holding press conferences all summer long at which he declaims that our temperatures in the aftermath of El Nino have been “”the highest on record.” But the records only go back 100 years, and the 19th century was the coldest in 10 centuries.

Equally important, the big computer models of global weather patterns have cut their projections of warming from about 5 degrees Celsius to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine recently circulated a petition among scientists that says: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere.” More than 15,000 scientists have signed the institute’s petition.

Signers include more than 6,000 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, experts on plant life and animal life and others qualified to speak on global warming. The institute is independent and receives no funding from industry.

A competing petition circulated by Washington-based Ozone Action has gathered 2,600 signatures, and only about 250 of the signers are qualified to speak on global warming.

When global-warming activists are confronted with their lack of evidence and the weight of scientific opinion, their fallback position is: “”What if we’re right? What if catastrophic global warming is on the way, and you prevent us from stopping it?”

The mild global warming now projected by computer models that the environmentalists say we should believe would simply return us to the best weather in history. The projected warming of 2 degrees Celsius would recreate the Medieval Climate Optimum of A.D. 950-1300.

Farmers would get milder winters, fewer storms, only a slight increase in daytime summer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to fertilize crops and pastures.

The alternative laid out by the Kyoto treaty is so awful, for both people and the environment, that we should require a very high degree of proof from Mr. Gore and his global-warming activists.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →