On Sunday, October 25, Interfaith Voices, a public radio show hosted by Maureen Fiedler, interviewed Caroline Kenner, an ordained pagan clergyperson, about Halloween and how it fits into Wicca. Not particularly noteworthy, except for the following exchange. Fiedler asked, “What do witches do anyway?” After talking a bit about how witches have been unfairly maligned in history books, Kenner said this.
Kenner: It’s a healing path for many of us and it’s Earth based. And this is one of the reasons many people are drawn to it [paganism] these days. The environmental angle is extremely important to many many people in paganism and wicca. We believe the Earth is a living being and that our responsibility towards her includes good stewardship. And if we don’t take more notice of the effect on the environment and stop chasing the almighty dollar down the pike so quickly, we are going to end up exactly like exactly where we are going and it’s not going to be good.
Fiedler: So you would be very involved in things like issues of climate change?
Kenner: Well, for those of us who have had apocalyptic visions of the environmental destruction yet to come for 20 years, Vice President Gore’s film wasn’t a big surprise to some of us.
If Gore ever decides to run for President, at least he’ll have the apocalyptic pagan vote tied up.
Evidence suggests that much of our concern about global climate change – and calls for government action – may be misplaced. No matter what we do, climate will continue to change, as it always has, warming and cooling periodically for various reasons. We are not in the midst of a crisis.
READ my lips: economic growth and jobs equals energy use equals carbon emissions.
KEVIN Rudd has said it is "absolutely fundamental" that developing nations sign up to Kyoto emissions targets as he tries to limit the fallout after forcing Peter Garrett into an embarrassing backflip on Labor's policy.
Blame California's mega-fires on global warming. Or at least that's what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week in the Hill.
Global warming affords endless opportunities to test glib hypotheses by politicians who have no training whatsoever in fields of which they claim pontifical knowledge. And Reid's statement is easy to test.
Just last week conservatives cheered obvious progress in derailing the bipartisan push to quietly adopt the sovereignty-eroding Law of the Sea Treaty or “LOST” that would collectivize the world’s seabed resources (covering 70% of the earth’s surface), among other undesirable things. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined a rump group of pro-sovereignty Senators led by Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to tell the White House that this is one “legacy” item that they should give up on. Their message was echoed by Republican presidential candidates Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
Is it any wonder people who rely on sound bites and mainstream news account think global warming is sending us to hell in a handbasket? Even when the story shoots down the premise, it’s couched in language that implies otherwise.
This item from the L.A. Times starts off straight enough:
“Are the massive fires burning across Southern California a product of global warming? Scientists said it would be difficult to make that case, given the dangerous mix of drought and wind that has plagued the region for centuries or more.”
Then the iffy languages begins. You know the type. The sentences laced with words like “suggest,” as in “Research suggests that rising temperatures are already increasing fire damage…” and like “could,” as in “But eventually global warming could make…”
“Suggests” means maybe. And maybe not.
“Could” means “could be,” or “could not be.”
Then there’s the double waffle: “The study suggested that the transformation may already be underway.” Which means “perhaps” it “may be.” Any length to keep the possibility alive.
But when do you ever see the converse language in print? Only the “may be” and “could.” Never the “on the other hand, maybe not” or “could not be.”
Do you ever wonder why?
Senator James Inhofe spoke before the US Senate for almost two hours about the human consequences of climate change mitigation policy last Friday, October 26. Here’s a sample:
Both the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates analyzed the costs of Kyoto when it was signed, and the costs were staggering. For instance, EIA found the annual cost would be up to $283 billion a year, and that's in 1992 constant dollars. Wharton put the cost even higher, at more than $300 billion annually, or more than $2,700 per family of four each year.
The estimated costs to comply with carbon legislative proposals in the U.S. would also be unreasonable. The NCEP approach would do nothing to lessen global warming even according to the alarmists, but according to EIA, it would still cost more than 118,000 American jobs simply to make a symbolic gesture.
And according to an MIT study, the Sanders-Boxer bill would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found the Lieberman-McCain bill would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. Similarly, EIA found that it would have cost 1.3 million jobs. A new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman – McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050.
Read the rest by clicking here, which will take you to Marc Morano’s invaluable EPW Web Log.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org