Kyoto Negotiations


The Cooler Heads Coalition




The George C. Marshall Institute


invite you to

a Congressional and media briefing on



The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond


A Roundtable Discussion on the Future of International and U. S. Climate Policy




2:304 PM

Thursday, February 10th

406, Senate Dirksen Office Building


Light refreshments

Please RSVP by calling Elle Collver at 202-296-9655
or e-mail




 The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force internationally on February 16th without the participation of the United States or Australia.  Senator James M. Inhofe, State Department Senior Climate Negotiator Harlan L. Watson, and other experts will discuss the prospects for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, what new international agreements and efforts may follow Kyoto, what this means for future U. S. climate policies and international involvement, and where we should be going on climate policies.    


Panelists include:


       Senator James M. Inhofe (R- Oklahoma), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

       Dr. Harlan L. Watson, Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative at the U.S. Department of State

       William O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute

       Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

       Christopher C. Horner, Counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition

       Jeff Kueter, Moderator, President of the George C. Marshall Institute


Now that Russia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Australia is the only industrialized country besides the United States to reject the U.N.-sponsored climate treaty. However, a report commissioned by Australian affiliates of World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace denies that Australia has any choice in the matter.


The report, prepared by the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law, contends that the World Heritage Convention, a treaty administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), obligates Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, thus, limit its emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fuel combustion. Indeed, according to the report, Australia is obligated to make “deep cuts” in GHG emissions far beyond the reductions required of any nation by Kyoto.


Unsurprisingly, the report’s reasoning applies with equal plausibility to the United States. In fact, if the Sydney Centre’s argument is correct, then all Parties to the Convention, including China, India, and numerous other developing countries, must implement Kyoto-like controlseven though Kyoto exempts such nations from emission limitations.


The Sydney Centre is not the first advocacy group to claim that existing law prohibits a nation’s voters and their elected representatives from rejecting Kyoto-style curbs on energy use. To mention just the leading example, a dozen state attorneys general (AGs), 14 environmental groups, and three cities are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act for refusing to regulate GHG emissions from automobiles. The suit is without merit. Congress rejected regulatory climate policies when it last amended the Clean Air Act, and a Senate proposal to establish CO2 emission standards for automobiles never made it into the Senate’s version of the bill, much less the final Act. But it’s a safe bet that when the AGs’ lawsuit goes down in flames, the Aspiring Governors will cast about for another pro-Kyoto litigation strategy. Will they look to the Sydney Centre for inspiration?


Litigation Logic


The Centre’s report, Global Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: Australia’s Obligations under the World Heritage Convention, contains much detail, but the basic argument may be summarized as follows:


(1)     “The IPCC [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] predicts that the globally averaged surface temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius over the period 1990 to 2100.  “Increases in sea temperature of as little as 1 degree Celsius may lead to coral bleaching and the eventual death of corals.  Warmer-than-usual sea temperatures in 1998 and 2002 produced mass bleaching events at the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) [pp. 1, 9, 10].

(2)     Australia is a Party to the World Heritage Convention, and since 1981 the GBR has been a World Heritage Area.

(3)     Under Article 4 of the Convention, each Party “recognizes the duty” to protect, conserve, and transmit to posterity all natural Heritage sites within its territory, and “will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, withinternational assistance and co-operation.”

(4)     Under Article 5, each Party “shall endeavor, in so far as possibleto take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary” to protect, conserve, and rehabilitate Heritage sites within its territory.

(5)     Under Article 6, each Party “undertakes not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly” any Heritage areas, at home or abroad.

(6)     A “significant reduction in global emissions of greenhouse gases, well in excess of those set by the Kyoto Protocol (‘deep cuts’), is necessary in order to stabilize global temperatures and thereby reduce and reverse the impact upon the Great Barrier Reef.  Such measures include “setting a national target of a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” [p. 13].

(7)     The Kyoto Protocol is the “only international instrument incorporating binding country targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” and “offers the only mechanism through which the international community may reach agreement on binding targets for achieving deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions” [pp. 22, 23].

(8)     Australia‘s decision not to ratify Kyoto conflicts with Australia‘s Article 4 obligation to “do all it can,” “to the utmost of its own resources,” including efforts involving “internationalco-operation,” to protect the GBR.

(9)     Australia‘s decision also conflicts with the Article 5 obligation to “endeavor, in so far as possible” to take “appropriate” “legal” and “administrative” measures to protect the GBR.

(10) Finally, Australia‘s decision conflicts with the Article 6 obligation to avoid taking “deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly” any World Heritage Area.  Australia‘s refusal to join Kyoto “has been a factor delaying” the treaty’s entry into force, and jeopardizes the “conclusion of an effective international legal framework to address climate change” and the consequent threat to the GBR [pp. 24, 28].


Full article available here:

David Henderson
Westminster Business School

Dr. David Henderson is currently a Visiting Professor at the Westminster Business School. He is a former chief economist of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Before this he had worked both as an academic and as a national and international civil servant, and since leaving the OECD he has been an independent author and consultant and has held visiting appointments in several countries.

In 2003, Prof. Henderson, with co-author Ian Castles, issued a scathing critique of the future emissions scenarios propogated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  His book on so-called “corporate social responsibility,” The Role of Business in the Modern World, was recently published in America by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The chat will begin at 2pm EST on Thursday, January 7.  You can send your questions now to .  Questions and answers will be posted as Dr. Henderson answers, beginning at 2pm.  Refresh your screen regularly to see questions and answers.

Moderator: Welcome, everyone, and please keep the questions coming.  We’re having a slight technical delay getting started.

Moderator:  Thanks so much for joining us, Dr. Henderson.  I’d like to start things off with a kind of general question.  Could you tell us how you came to be interested in greenhouse emissions; and what, in a nutshell, you found to be the primary problem with the IPCC emissions scenarios?

Henderson:  I became involved with IPCC-related issues through an Australian friend Ian Castles, formerly Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We became joint authors of a critique of the IPCCs treatment of economic issues. Our critique focused on, though it went beyond, the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), prepared for the IPCC, and published in 2000.

Two aspects of our critique of the SRES are:

        For the base year of 1990 it compares output across countries on the basis of market exchange rates (MERs). These comparisons greatly overstate the differences in GDP per head between developing regions and OECD member countries.

        It builds in, for reasons that are open to question, rapid convergence in GDP per head between developing regions and OECD member countries. By thus assuming the substantial closure of a greatly overstated initial gap, it arrives at projections of output and GDP per head for developing regions which are higher than they would have been if the 1990 starting point had been correct, and high by comparison with other projections


Our critique covers not only the results of the exercise, in the form of specific projections of emissions, but also the approach, the analytical basis of parts of the Report.

Moderator Tom in Texas has a series of detailed questions:

Has the panel actually modeled the impacts of 5%, 10% and 20% industrial and utility greenhouse gas emission reductions by developed countries on the perceived problem? This would imply for each 2 separate cases; one where developing countries’ emissions are held constant and one where they increase at at least the rate of the last 5 years.  If so, what are the impacts and how much time is likely to elapse before the impacts
become observable, if at all?


Henderson:  Sorry, but I don’t know the answer.


Moderator:  Fred in DC wants to know:
Do you expect the UK Conference that PM Blair will hold this February to address economic issues?


Henderson:  I have not seen any agenda, but I would be surprised. The conference is dealing with scientific issues, and I think this does not include economics.


Moderator:  Barb in Maryland:
 I have read that even some financial institutions such as Citibank and HSBC are “reducing” their CO2 emissions by supporting projects that reduce greenhouse gases.  Who benefits from those projects? Are they connected to environmental groups that pressure companies to give money or are they generally independent projects?


Henderson Your information is correct. The benefits that are counted on are to the environment – through reducing CO2 emissions, which are viewed as a pollutant, preserving rain  forests, etc. I think the banks are in part responding to pressure from NGOs, but I believe that they genuinely believe that they will be doing good (as well as earning a reputation for doing good, while keeping out of trouble).


Moderator: Kevin wants to know:
 Do you think the crtiques put forth by yourself and other economists have had or will have an impact on the way IPCC draws its scenarios?  Why or why not?


Henderson:  Along with our critique, our suggestions for change have been rejected by the IPCC. The main proposals that we have made are three:

     That the SRES,  because it is open to serious criticisms, should not be taken as the basis and starting point of AR4: an alternative and firmer basis should be sought, through less elaborate and more short-cut procedures than those of the SRES.

     That in assessing possible future developments in the world economy, and ways of projecting them, the involvement of economic historians and historically-minded economists should now be ensured for the first time.

    That more generally, and going well beyond scenario-building, the IPCC process should be broadened, in particular through the active involvement, first, of national statistical offices in member countries, and second, of ministries of finance and economics.

The IPCC has not accepted these suggestions.

        It has determined that the SRES scenarios provide a credible and sound set of projections, appropriate for use in the AR4.

        It and its member governments appear as fully content with the present established procedures and arrangements for participation. An IPCC official statement that you might be interested to see says of the Panel, in its opening paragraph,that


It mobilises the best experts from all over the world, who work diligently on bringing out the various reports The Third Assessment Review of the IPCC was released in 2001 through the collective efforts of around 2000 experts from a diverse range of countries and disciplines. All of IPCCs reports go  through a careful two stage review process by governments and experts and acceptance by the member governments composing the Panel.

Moderator: John wants some data:
 Until last year, the DOE furnished in October the list of the emissions from the United States for the previous year.  I did not find any such list last year which would have covered the year 2003.  Is this information available anywhere?

Henderson:  Emissions data are prepared and published by the CDIAC, based in the US. You can get the numbers from their website. However, the last published data that I have seen don’t go beyond 2000.

Moderator: I’d like to follow up on the reader’s earlier question about Citibank et al. myself.  Where do you see “global warming” issues headed vis-a-vis “corporate social responsibilty”?  Will US-based multinationals succumb to NGO and EU pressure and “voluntarily”  reduce or “trade” emissions, passing costs on to consumers?

Henderson:  The pressures are on all companies, especially the big multinationals, and not just on American corporations. They come from a variety of sources, official and unoffcial, not just from NGOs. It is true that the EU has embraced the cause of emissions reductions more wholeheartedly than other governments, but there are no climate-sceptical governments. Don’t forget that the US (and Australia) signed up to the UNFCCC, along with all the rest (including developing countries). Both of them are taking action accordingly.

Moderator:  We’re up on the end of the hour, here.  So this should be the last question…    Christina in DC wants to know:
 Has the IPCC done a thorough economic analysis of what the economic and social costs would be of reducing CO2 to a level that would make a real temperature impact according to their climate models? (My understanding is that the Kyoto protocol levels wouldn’t have much of an effect on the temperature)

Henderson:  You are right about the effects of Kyoto. I don’t think the IPCC has done work of the kind you refer to, but various people and government agencies have. Best to ask the Energy Information Administration (in DC)?

Moderator: Thanks so much for joining us, Dr. Henderson.  Any final remarks? Where is this all heading?

Henderson: What should now be done? Here is my answer.

 A way forward
The economic content of AR4 can be strengthened only if new participants are brought into the process, and this can be achieved only if and in so far as member governments act accordingly: the IPCC milieu appears impervious to unofficial criticism. In this context, it is the central economic departments of state treasuries, ministries of finance or economics, and organisations such as the US Council of Economic Advisers that have a potentially key role. Up to now, and despite the large amounts that are at stake, they have been content to leave the handling of economic issues within the IPCC process to the departments and agencies directly concerned. The questionable treatment of these issues by the IPCC and its sponsoring organisations, which Castles and I have drawn attention to as independent outsiders, has apparently not been noticed by a single official in a single finance or economics ministry in a single country. It is high time for this situation to change, and for these latter departments to become involved.

 Fortunately, a straightforward route to their participation exists for the taking. For the economic departments and agencies in OECD member countries, an instrument is to hand for their prompt collective involvement: it is the OECD itself. They should act now to ensure that IPCC-related economic issues are placed on the agenda of the OECDs Economic Policy Committee.

PS The IPCC press release dismissing our work makes a good read: it’s on their website

Moderator: Very interesting.  Thanks again, Prof.

Henderson: Over and out… Regards to all. 

Moderator:  And our apologies to anyone who’s question didn’t get through.  Keep checking for our next live chat with the experts.

The chairman of the US Senate’s environment committee, Senator James Inhofe, warned the EU against pursuing its climate change agendastalled to date in the international negotiating processthrough backdoor means such as the World Trade Organization.

 Specifically, Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) took to the floor of the Senate on the opening day of the 109th Congress to address recent scientific evidence debunking alarmist claims of catastrophic man-made global warming, and warn of various attempts that may be in the worksgiven that even Italy has now sworn off a second round of cuts in the floundering Kyoto Protocol treaty.

  Inhofe said: “As [COP-10] talks in Buenos Aires revealed, if alarmists can’t get what they want at the negotiating table, they will try other means. I was told by reliable sources that some delegation members of the European Union subtly hinted that America‘s rejection of Kyoto could be grounds for a challenge under the WTO [World Trade Organization]. I surely hope this was just a hypothetical suggestion and not something our European friends are actively and seriously considering. Such a move, I predict, would be devastating to US-EU relations, not to mention the WTO itself.”

 The possible WTO challenge, long hinted at by EU policymakers past and present, would amount to one of two claims. First, by refusing to adopt Europe’s steep (and soon be increase further) energy taxes, the US is impermissibly subsidizing its energy-intensive industries by failing to fully incorporate the full societal cost of minimizing governmental interference in the availability and affordability of energy. 

 Alternately, the challenge would be on the grounds that the US is eco-dumping, again by its refusal to adopt the EU’s energy tax schemes.

 Similar logic is thought to be behind comments made the following day by the head of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Sir Digby Jones, that a global sense of unity of purpose displayed in the wake of the tsunami disaster in Asia should be used to address issues such as environmental protection, for which India and China should take the initiative by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

 The CBI chief was guilty of an error, as China and India have already ratified Kyoto but, like most of the world, they are exempt (although the two have now joined with Italy in saying they will not continue with Kyoto post 2012). Joneswidely seen as being reasonably sound on resisting extra burdens on British firmsis thought to be annoyed with the freedom of Chinese and Indian firms, competing with British industry, from dealing with the associated environmental taxes that Kyoto will bring to an already heavily taxed European industrial base.

 Inhofe’s comments were directed at discouraging the EU from acting before the WTO on such frustration that can in fact be viewed as to some extent self-inflicted. This issue will face challenges almost immediately, beginning with a Tony Blair-led climate change conference in February and carrying through the induction of a new head of the WTOpossibly  the former European trade commissioner Pascal Lamytowards the end of the year.

The following is the text of a speech given by Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.) today:

As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.

For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it’s more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. Therefore contending that its central tenets are flawed is, to them, heresy of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked, sometimes personally, for blindly ignoring the so-called “scientific consensus.” But that’s not all: because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuously dismissed for being “out of the mainstream.” This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren’t scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it’s not hard to read between the lines: “skeptic” and “out of the mainstream” are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data–and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard.

Since my detailed climate change speech in 2003, the so-called “skeptics” continue to speak out. What they are saying, and what they are showing, is devastating to the alarmists. They have amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly refuting the alarmists’ most cherished assumptions and beliefs. New evidence has emerged that further undermines their conclusions, most notably those of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–one of the major pillars of authority cited by extremists and climate alarmists.

This evidence has come to light in very interesting times. Just last month, the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP-10) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change convened in Buenos Aires to discuss Kyoto’s implementation and measures to pursue beyond Kyoto. As some of my colleagues know, Kyoto goes into effect on February 16th. I think, with the exception of Russia, an exception that I will explain later, the nations that ratified Kyoto and agreed to submit to its mandates are making a very serious mistake.

In addition, last month, popular author Dr. Michael Crichton, who has questioned the wisdom of those who trumpet a “scientific consensus,” released a new book called “State of Fear,” which is premised on the global warming debate. I’m happy to report that Dr. Crichton’s new book reached #3 on the New York Times bestseller list.

I highly recommend the book to all of my colleagues. Dr. Crichton, a medical doctor and scientist, very cleverly weaves a compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change–with ample footnotes and documentation throughout–into a gripping plot. From what I can gather, Dr. Crichton’s book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. In the “Author’s Message” at the end of the book, he refreshingly states what scientists have suspected for years: “We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age.” Dr. Crichton states that, “Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,” and, “Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made.” And for those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton urges calm: “I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.”

For those who do worry, or induce such worry in others, “State of Fear” has a very simple message: stop worrying and stop spreading fear. Throughout the book, “fictional” environmental organizations are more focused on raising money, principally by scaring potential contributors with bogus scientific claims and predictions of a global apocalypse, than with “saving the environment.” Here we have, as the saying goes, art imitating life.

As my colleagues will remember from a floor speech I gave last year, this is part and parcel of what these organizations peddle to the general public. Their fear mongering knows no bounds. Just consider the debate over mercury emissions. President Bush proposed the first-ever cap to reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 70 percent. True to form, these groups said he was allowing more mercury into the air. Go figure.


As I mentioned earlier, several nations, including the United States, met in Buenos Aires in December for the 10th round of international climate change negotiations. I’m happy to report that the U.S. delegation held firm both in its categorical rejection of Kyoto and the questionable science behind it. Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for global affairs, and the leader of the U.S. delegation, put it well when she told the conference, ”Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.”

Ms. Dobriansky and her team also rebuffed attempts by the European Union to drag the U.S. into discussions concerning post-Kyoto climate change commitments. With the ink barely dry on Kyoto ratification, not to mention what the science of climate change is telling us, Ms. Dobriansky was right in dubbing post-2012 talks “premature.”

It was clear from discussions in Buenos Aires that Kyoto supporters desperately want the U.S. to impose on itself mandatory greenhouse emission controls. Moreover, there was considerable discussion, but no apparent resolution, over how to address emissions from developing countries, such as India and especially China, which over the coming decades will be the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases. But developing nations, most notably China, remained adamant in Buenos Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, now or in the future. Securing this commitment, remember, was a necessary component for U.S. ratification of Kyoto, as reflected in the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which the Senate passed 95 to 0. Without that commitment, Kyoto, at least in the U.S., is dead.

Kyoto goes into force on February 16th. According to the EU Environment Ministry, most EU member states won’t meet their Kyoto targets. They may do so only on paper due to Russia’s ratification of the treaty. Russia, of course, ratified Kyoto not because its government believes in catastrophic global warming–it doesn’t–but because ratification was Russia’s key to joining the World Trade Organization. Also, under Kyoto, Russia can profit from selling emissions credits to the EU and continue business as usual, without undertaking economically harmful emissions reductions.

As talks in Buenos Aires revealed, if alarmists can’t get what they want at the negotiating table, they will try other means. I was told by reliable sources that some delegation members of the European Union subtly hinted that America’s rejection of Kyoto could be grounds for a challenge under the WTO. I surely hope this was just a hypothetical suggestion and not something our European friends are actively and seriously considering. Such a move, I predict, would be devastating to US-EU relations, not to mention the WTO itself.

But I suspect it’s not just hypothetical. The lawsuit is the stock in trade of environmental activists, and we are witnessing a new crop of global warming lawsuits now being leveled at individual U.S. companies and the U.S. itself.

In Buenos Aires, Earth Justice, a San Francisco-based environmental group, and the Center for International Law, announced plans to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S., because of its supposed contribution to global warming, is causing environmental degradation in the Arctic, and therefore violating the human rights of Alaska’s Inuits, or Eskimos. As the New York Times wrote, “The commission, an investigative arm of the Organization of American States, has no enforcement powers. But a declaration that the United States has violated the Inuits’ rights could create the foundation for an eventual lawsuit, either against the United States in an international court or against American companies in a U.S. court, said a number of legal experts, including some aligned with industry.”

The Times didn’t mention that such lawsuits already have been filed in the U.S. Eliot Spitzer, New York’s state attorney general, along with 8 other state attorneys general, mainly from the Northeast, last year sued 5 coal-burning electric utilities in the Midwest. The reason? “Given that these are among the largest carbon dioxide polluters in the world,” Mr. Spitzer wrote, “it is essential that the court direct them to reduce their emissions.”

To me, this is a clear-cut sign of desperation by the alarmists, but I’m not surprised. President Bush has rejected Kyoto, the United States Senate rejected Kyoto 95 to 0, the United States Senate rejected the McCain-Lieberman bill 55 to 43, and there is little hope that Congress will pass mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, at least not in the near future. So resorting to the courts is their last, best hope.

I hope the courts have enough sense and moderation to reject these lawsuits out of hand. I am interested, for one, to see how Mr. Spitzer quantifies with scientific precision just how these particular companies have contributed to climate change. How is it, one might ask, that emissions, specifically from American Electric Power, are causing rising sea levels, droughts, and hurricanes?


Such efforts fly in the face of compelling new scientific evidence that makes a mockery of these lawsuits. By now, most everyone familiar with the climate change debate knows about the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues, which shows that temperature in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th Century. The hockey-stick graph was featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. The conclusion inferred from the hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my 2003 speech. Because Mann effectively erased the well-known phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period–when, by the way, it was warmer than it is today–and the Little Ice Age, I didn’t find it very credible. I find it even less credible now.

But don’t take my word for it. Just ask Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a devastating finding in the Sept. 30, 2004 issue of the journal Science. As the authors wrote: “We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.”

Dr. von Storch and colleagues discovered that the Mann hockey stick had severely underestimated past climate variability. In a commentary on Dr. von Storch’s paper, T. J. Osborn and K. R. Briffa, prominent paleo-climatologists from the University of East Anglia, stressed the importance of the findings. As they wrote, “The message of the study by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH [northern hemisphere] temperature of recent centuries may systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of climate” and, “If the true natural variability of NH [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as ‘unusual’ would need to be reassessed.” In other words, in obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann’s hockey stick just doesn’t pass muster.

Dr. von Storch is one of many critics of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. To recount just one example, three geophysicists from the University of Utah, in the April 7, 2004 edition of Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that Mann’s methods used to create his temperature reconstruction were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher than that. As they wrote, Mann’s results are “based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series” and are ” just bad science.” I repeat: “just bad science.”


These findings come alongside a spate of new reports that, at least in the eyes of the media, supposedly confirm the “consensus” on global warming. “The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,” released last fall, perfectly fits that mold. “Arctic Perils Seen in Warming,” blared a headline in the New York Times. As the Times wrote, “The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.”

What do we really know about temperatures in the Arctic? Let’s take a closer look. As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. [Chart #1] As Dr. Taylor has explained, it’s all relative–in other words, it depends on the specific time period chosen in making temperature comparisons. “The [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment],” Dr. Taylor wrote, “appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s–cool decades in much of the world–and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, ‘if present trends continue,’ is that massive warming will occur in the next century.”

Dr. Taylor concluded: “Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?”

This is pretty convincing stuff. But, one might say, this is only one scientist, while nearly 300 scientists from several countries, including the United States, signed onto the Arctic report. Mr. President, I want to submit for the record a list of scientists, compiled by the Center for Science and Public Policy, from several countries, including the United States, whose published work shows current Arctic temperature is no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s. For example, according to a group of 7 scientists in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Climate: “In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.” Or how about this excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of Climatology, by Dr. Rajmund Przybylak, of Nicholas Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland: “The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.”


Despite this evidence, alarmism is alive and well. [Chart #2] As you can see behind me, the Washington Post today ran an editorial cartoon that actually blames the Indian Ocean tsunami on global warming. Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes? The tsunami, of course, was caused by an earthquake off Sumatra’s coast, deep beneath the sea floor, completely disconnected from whatever the climate was doing at the surface. Regrettably, the tsunami-warming connection is yet another facet of the “State of Fear” alarmists have concocted. As Terence Corcoran of Canada’s Financial Post wrote, “The urge to capitalize on the horror in Asia is just too great for some to resist if it might help their causeGreen Web sites are already filling up with references to tsunami risks associated with global warming.”

To address this, let’s ask some simple questions: Is global warming causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity, and is it causing sea levels to rise? The answer to both is an emphatic ‘no’.
[Chart #3] Just look at this chart behind me. It’s titled “Climate Related Disasters in Asia: 1900 to 1990s.” What does it show? It shows the number of such disasters in Asia, and the deaths attributed to them, declining fairly sharply over the last 30 years.

Or let’s take hurricanes. Alarmists linked last year’s hurricanes that devastated parts of Florida to global warming. Nonsense. Credible meteorologists quickly dismissed such claims. Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University stated plainly: “This isn’t a global-warming sort of thing…. It’s a natural cycle.” A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Dr. Christopher Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense land-falling hurricanes is either non-existent or very weak. In this chart [chart #4], you can see that the overall number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the 1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms has declined somewhat.

What about sea level rise? Alarmists have claimed for years that sea level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising, with ominous consequences. Based on modeling, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 1.8 millimeters annually, or about one-fourteenth of an inch.

[Chart #5] But in a study published this year in Global and Planetary Change, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria is overblown. In his study, which relied not only on observational records, but also on satellites, he concluded: “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.” Yet we still hear of a future world overwhelmed by floods due to global warming. Such claims are completely out of touch with science. As Sweden’s Morner puts it, “there is no fear of massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”


What I have outlined today won’t appear in the New York Times. Instead you’ll read much about “consensus” and Kyoto and hand wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You’ll read nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real purpose behind Kyoto, as Margot Wallstrom, the EU’s environment minister, said in a revealing moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about “leveling the playing field” for businesses worldwide–in other words, we can’t compete, so let’s use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science, fear, and alarmism, and which will have no perceptible impact on the environment (Chart #6), to restrict America’s economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto’s staunchest advocates, America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about–to some, such as French President Jacques Chirac, it’s about forming “an authentic global governance”–it’s the wrong policy and it won’t work, as many participants in Buenos Aires grudgingly conceded.

Despite the bias, omissions, and distortions by the media and extremist groups, the real story about global warming is being told, and, judging by the welcome success of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear,” it’s now being told to the American public.

Sen. Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Where’s the party?
World Climate Report, Dec 16, 2004
Preliminary data indicate 2004 likely will register as the fourth-warmest year in the world’s surface temperature record. Yet despite all the gloom-and-doom scenarios, we haven’t experienced an all-time record-setter since the big El Nio back in 1998. Our planet may be warming, but not at a torrid clip.

CO2 No Pollutant  
Financial Times, Dec 29 2004
While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of “political correctness” (“The price of carbon emissions,” December 27).

Media linking killer tsunami to global warming, Dec 28 2004
With the world’s attention focused on the earthquake/tsunami that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in at least ten countries that surround the Indian Ocean, media organizations like Reuters are pinning part of the blame for the catastrophe on “global warming.”

Russia may cash in $1 billion to $3 billion selling Kyoto protocol quotas
Interfax, Dec 27 2004
Russia may net $1 billion to $3 billion by selling quotas of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere allowed to it by the Kyoto protocol, Vsevolod Gavrilov, deputy director of the Economic Development Ministry’s Material and Land Relations and Nature Use Economics Department, told Interfax on Monday.

Nature lays an(other) egg
World Climate Report, Dec 30 2004
Well grant the editorial staff at Nature this: They never are shy about printing really loosey-goosey stuff whenever the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) needs a boost or on the eve of another glitzy UN confab to discuss global climate change.

Where’s My Present?, Dec 27 2004

Global warming took a big hit this weekend in the United States as wintry weather stranded travelers, knocked out electricity and caused Christmas presents to be delayed.

Turning the page on fear, fiction of global warming
Houston Chronicle, Dec 22 2004
(George Will) — Crichton’s subject is today’s fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data. Crichton’s subject is also how conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched society.

Conservatives should make time to read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear
Human Events, Dec 29 2004
This year’s most politically incorrect book–and also the one likely to have the biggest impact on public opinion–is not by HUMAN EVENTS’ Ann Coulter. Nor, surprisingly, is it by any other prominent conservative writer or talker. It’s Michael Crichton’s new novel, State of Fear.

Scientist decries moral audacity of environmentalists linking tsunami and global warming
Dr. Pat Michaels / PRNewswire, Dec 28 2004
Anyone who has the moral audacity to blame thousands of deaths caused by the Indian Ocean tsunamis on global warming is in grave contravention of well- known facts about changes in sea level in that region.

Insuring climate change — high risk business
Tech Central Station, Dec 27 2004
Alarmism over climate change has created many bandwagons. One is Europe‘s insurance industry. It is an official “business partner” of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the UN’s official climate change booster. Many businesses seek a Green afterglow as global warming fellow travelers. The insurance companies claim a higher tone. They are in it to contribute. They may be taking a bigger risk than they realize.

Living in sunny times 
American Scientist, Dec 25 2004
A publication in Nature last October by solar physicist Sami K. Solanki of the Max-Planck-Institut fr Sonnensystemforschung and four of his colleagues is bound to intensify the arguments. Solanki and coworkers attempted to estimate “sunspot numbers,” a general barometer of solar activity, for times long before the beginning of the observational record, which starts four centuries ago. Their main result is expressed in the title of their paper: “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.”

Evidence for sun-climate link reported by UMaine scientists
University of Maine, Dec 22 2004
A team led by University of Maine scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth’s climate. In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine’s Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun’s output.

Michael Crichton takes a novel approach to global warming alarmism
CEI / National Review Online, Dec 21 2004
Michael Crichton’s new blockbuster novel, State of Fear, begins with sex, violence, and oceanography. It’s that sort of book all the way through, mixing the usual adventure novel clichs of beautiful young heroes, indestructible secret agents, and a plot to kill millions alongside hard science, including graphs, footnotes, and words like “aminostratigraphy.”

The new global warming lawsuit industry
WEBCommentary, Dec 21 2004
(Paul Driessen)The Kyoto climate treaty took a beating in Buenos Aires last week. Angry but undeterred, the ideological environmentalists are taking a new tack a wave of lawsuits against corporations that they and their acolytes claim are responsible for every observed or imaginable weather anomaly.

Australia alters stance on climate change pact
The Melbourne Age, Dec 20 2004
“The difference between the US and Australia is that we are prepared to engage in a new agreement (after Kyoto) as long as it is comprehensive. But a new agreement will have to include the US and the developing world.”

Pollution politics: Detroit and California feud over air rules
U.S. News & World Report, Dec 27 2004
If California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Hummer gets regulated out of existence, he’ll have his own administration to thank.


Climate change meeting ends with goal to cut emissions
U.S. State Dept. / UN Framework Convention, Dec 19 2004
The tenth Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ended an 11-day session in Buenos Aires, Argentina on December 18, with the Kyoto Protocol’s signatory nations looking forward to its implementation in February, 2005.

Green groups unhappy with climate change talks
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Dec 18 2004
A last-ditch compromise between the United States and the European Union resulted in a seminar next May to exchange information.

Argentina signs agreements on green-house gas reduction
Xinhuanet, Dec 18 2004
The documents were signed under the Mechanism for Clean Development within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, which will become effective in February 2005 and expire in 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol is dead
Reason online, Dec 17 2004
Buenos AiresThe Kyoto Protocol is dead. There will be no further global treaties that set binding limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) after Kyoto runs out in 2012.

Greens concede Kyoto will not impact ‘global warming’, Dec 17 2004
Buenos Aires – After a relentless attack on the United States for opposing the Kyoto Protocol, environmental groups concede the international treaty will have no impact on what they believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.

MSU1278-1104.gif (29171 bytes) “Global Warming” at a glance: November 2004, Dec 10 2004
As determined by NOAA Satellite-mounted MSUs


Buenos Aires: Kyoto’s Waterloo 
Tech Central Station, Dec 17 2004
Since the refusal by the G-77, China and India to accept any commitment to reduce emissions on from 2012, when Kyoto Mark I expires, and — more surprisingly — the announcement by Italy that it will withdraw from the Kyoto process in the same year, we have entered a totally different ball game.

COP 10: Inuit all along
Tech Central Station, Dec 17 2004
(Christopher Horner) — On Wednesday the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a hard green legal group, convened the press to detail a pending human rights complaint. The forum for the complaint is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). The aggrieved are Arctic Inuit peoples; the defendant is the U.S.; the allegation against the U.S. is “for causing global warming and its devastating impacts”.

Eskimo filing against US just tip of legal iceberg, Dec 17 2004
“The Kyoto Protocol is dead for all intents and purposes, so environmentalists now go to Plan B: What they couldn’t obtain through the open democratic process, they are now desperately trying to seek through the courts,” said Chris Horner of the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute who attended the U.N. conference here.

Kyoto controversy continues
FoxNews, Dec 17 2004
The international global warming worry-wart community is meeting in Buenos Aires this week to figure out how to get the U.S. to participate in the global economic suicide pact known as the Kyoto Protocol.

COP 10: Who’s the greatest?
Tech Central Station, Dec 16 2004
(Christopher Horner) — British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Science Advisor Sir David King regularly calls climate change “the greatest threat facing mankind” and “worse than terrorism.” A local paper here, the Buenos Aires Herald, echoed this sentiment in an editorial this week. Blair himself more modestly calls climate change “the greatest environmental threat”.

More from COP 10, Dec 16 2004
(Ivan Osorio) — As in all other climate conferences, the major environmental pressure groups are making their presence felt here. Friends of the Earth International (FoE) is pushing bans on genetically modified trees, promotion of hydroelectric projects by international bodies like the U.N., and climate change litigation against business and governments.

UN conference shuts up reporter; calls global warming science questions ‘silly’, Dec 16 2004
During her original presentation, Watt-Cloutier held up a
article on Arctic melting that was published earlier this week. She ridiculed a passage quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market environmental group. Watt-Cloutier was incensed by Ebell’s comment that potentially rising temperatures in the Arctic region may have some benefits.

COP 10: The EU is no longer united
Tech Central Station, Dec 16 2004
Italy has put it clear that it will not follow Brussels on the path of a perennial struggle to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Inside the Beltway: Eskimo dunk
Washington Times, Dec 16 2004
“Apparently their snowmobiles are falling through the ice,” relays Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is attending this week’s global-warming negotiations in Buenos Aires.

Polar bear scare: Now I get it!, Dec 16 2004
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, then, was really all about laying the groundwork for the Inuits to sue the U.S. and U.S. companies! Moreover, U.S. taxpayers paid for the report, which will now be used as a basis to sue us!

Exclusive COP 10 report, Dec 15 2004
Ironically the meeting is being held at the Argentine Rural Society (La Rural, for short), an agriculture promotion body. Next to the convention hall is an amphitheater that looks like it could be used for equestrian or cattle shows.

Eskimos seek to recast global warming as a rights issue
New York Times, Dec 15 2004
Christopher C. Horner, a lawyer for the Cooler Heads Coalition, an industry-financed group opposed to cutting the emissions, said the chances of success of such lawsuits had risen lately.  From his standpoint, he said, “The planets are aligned very poorly.”

COP 10: Our low-carbon future?
Tech Central Station, Dec 15 2004
“To stop further damage to the climate we need a worldwide 60% reduction in emissions by 2050,” declared British Prime Minister Tony Blair in February 2003. Setting aside the question of whether or not catastrophic climate change due to adding extra greenhouse gases (GHG) to the atmosphere is really likely, is Blair’s goal feasible? 

Blood for Kyoto?
Washington Times, Dec 14 2004
Kyoto global-warming negotiations have resumed in Buenos Aires, where yesterday it was 85 degrees and sunny (being that the start of summer is a week away in the Southern Hemisphere).

There is NO man-made global warming
American Policy Center, Dec 14 2004
Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Penn State expert says global climate change likely to benefit Pennsylvania agriculture
Pennsylvania State University, Dec 14 2004
The effects for Pennsylvania won’t be all bad, according to research done by Shortle and his colleagues. “Climate change is likely to benefit our state’s agriculture,” he explains. “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should stimulate photosynthesis and raise crop yields, while crops may also benefit from additional spring and summer rainfall and warmer temperatures.”

Study claiming rapid Arctic ice melt refuted at climate summit, Dec 14 2004
“The temperature graph [of the Arctic used in the ACIA study] does not agree with any of the known [temperature] data sets for the Arctic. In other words, who knows where they got this data from,” Ebell told

COP 10: Premature congratulation
Tech Central Station, Dec 14 2004
Albert Einstein once said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting a different outcome.” As such, the stubborn Kyoto negotiators seem in need of help.

UN climate conference called ‘meeting about nothing’, Dec 13 2004
Buenos Aires, Argentina – “The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty about nothing. It’s the Seinfeld (TV sitcom) conference,” declared Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Extremists on the run
Scripps-Howard, Dec 13 2004
While a superficial glance indicates the extremists are winning, they are, in fact, on the run. They’ve failed – largely because opponents like MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, who has called warming theory a “religious belief” rather than sound science, haven’t been intimidated.

Only 21 EU countries to start pollution trading
Agence France-Presse, Dec 13 2004
Only 21 of the 25 European Union nations will join the start of a carbon dioxide emissions trading market aimed at reducing gases which cause global warming, the European Commission announced here Monday.

Global warming negotiations heat up
Tech Central Station, Dec 13 2004
Last week, 5,400 delegates from 189 countries convened in Buenos Aires for further climate change treaty negotiations at the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10). Environment ministers from 90 countries are expected to attend the final three days of negotiations beginning on Wednesday. The COP10 of negotiations will conclude on Friday, December 17.

CEI experts to monitor U.N. global warming conference in Buenos Aires, Dec. 13-17
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dec 13, 2004
Ebell and Osorio will be available for interviews live from Argentina (Osorio in Spanish and English) and will report breaking news and eye-witness accounts on:

A chilling tale
Wall Street Journal, Dec 10 2004
“State of Fear” is, in a sense, the novelization of a speech that Mr. Crichton delivered in September 2003 at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club. He argued there that environmentalism is essentially a religion, a belief-system based on faith, not fact. To make this point, the novel weaves real scientific data and all too real political machinations into the twists and turns of its gripping story.

Viewpoints: Tackling climate change
BBC, Dec 9 2004
Global warming alarmism is an implausible theory
Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Global Temperature Report: November 2004
University of Alabama-Huntsville, Dec 08, 2004
Global composite temp.: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for November.

Britain’s secret plan for new global climate pact
London Times, Dec 9 2004
TONY BLAIR is seeking to secure George Bushs backing for a new international treaty that would end Americas isolation on global warming, The Times has learnt.[…] The deal, described by one source as Kyoto-lite, would involve scientific agreement on the scale and nature of the threat, as well as an international programme to develop the technology needed for renewable energy and the reduction of carbon emissions.

Carbon sink or carbon source? Aerosols play significant role in shifts
North Carolina State University, Dec 8 2004
Researchers at North Carolina State University have shown that the amount of aerosols dust particles, soot from automobile emissions and factories, and other airborne particles in the atmosphere has a significant impact on whether the surface area below either absorbs or emits more carbon dioxide (CO2).

New report undermines climate change claims
Marshall Institute, Dec 7 2004
Key scientific questions remain unanswered.

U.S. has three-pronged climate change strategy, envoy says
U.S. Department of State, Dec 07, 2004
Climate change negotiator briefs at Buenos Aires meeting.

Schwarzenegger vows to defend emissions law
New York Times, Dec 8 2004
Toyota, General Motors and seven other automakers filed suit on Tuesday to block California’s new greenhouse gas regulation, which was approved by the state in its final form in September.

Essay claiming ‘scientific consensus’ for global warming ridiculed, Dec 7 2004
A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a “scientific consensus” about human-caused “global warming” was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a “consensus” to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.

Let’s be honest about the real consensus
Tech Central Station, Dec 7 2004
The arguments for anthropogenic climate change often take the form of “we know it is happening, therefore we need to do something about it now”. While appealing to the uncritical thinker, it implies two important but unstated assumptions: 1) human induced climate change of any amount is very bad, and 2) public policy should be changed to fix it, regardless of the cost.

U.S. automakers challenge Calif. emission rules
Reuters, Dec 7 2004
U.S. automakers on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s new vehicle emission rules.

Climate conference delegates wrestle with strategies
Associated Press, Dec 7 2004
New strategies to confront global warming took center stage in Buenos Aires on Monday, where thousands of environmentalists and government policy-makers gathered for an international conference on climate change.

Climate alarmism and the poor
Tech Central Station, Dec 6 2004
We are already exposed to nearly all the alleged negative impacts of climate change, and although any man-made climate change may make these dangers worse, there are policies that can be followed that reduce today’s harm.

Australia to Meet Kyoto Target But Refuses to Sign
Reuters, Dec 5 2004
Australia is on track to meet targets set by the global Kyoto Treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions but will still not sign the pact because it ignores key areas of the fight against global warming in developing nations.

In face of global warming, White House opts for tech fixes
Washington Post, Dec 5 2004
Rather than endorsing mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions linked to warming, the course embraced by most of America’s allies, the White House is focusing on technological fixes: developing energy sources that burn cleaner or finding ways to extract excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 

U.S. officials brief foreign press on climate change policy
U.S. State Dept., Dec 3 2004
U.S. State Department and Department of Energy (DOE) officials gave international reporters an overview of U.S. global climate change policy December 2, in advance of the December 6-17 10th Conference of the Parties (COP-10) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Global warming: Satellite saga continues 
Tech Central Station, Dec 3 2004
The results of two research studies announced this week address the infamous discrepancy between satellite and surface thermometer trends over the last 25 years.

UN talks to review where ‘dangerous’ warming starts
Reuters, Dec 3 2004
The Dec. 6-17 U.N. talks in Buenos Aires will also seek ways to persuade the United States to rejoin a U.N.-led fight against climate change and also try to involve developing nations like China, India or Brazil.

On creeping collectivization
Tech Central Station, Dec 3 2004
It is often argued that CO2 emission trading is in conformity with market principles. However, if we take a closer look, it is not. It requires a prior act of creating and distributing (property) rights (to emit), where no rights existed before. Only governments can do so.

Tighter vehicle emission standards proposed for Washington state
The Seattle Times, Dec 2 2004
Washington state would follow California’s lead in establishing tough new automotive standards to slash emissions of greenhouse gases under a proposed new bill.

US says no plans to sign new climate change pacts
Reuters, Dec 2 2004
The United States, which backed out of the Kyoto agreement, feels it is too early to assign post 2012 targets, senior U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson told reporters.

Geologys long-term perspective, Dec 2 2004
This response to the contents of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) concerns alarmist and highly questionable conclusions about Arctic climate and its variability.ACIAs gloom and doom perspective on Arctic climate and changes we might anticipate over the next century cannot be justified. The best available scientific evidence does not support such claims.

NASA study links wind, current changes to Indian Ocean warming
NASA, Dec 2 2004
A NASA study suggests changing winds and currents in the Indian Ocean during the 1990s contributed to the observed warming of the ocean during that period. The findings, published in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters, have potential implications for long- term regional climate variability.

Meteorologist likens fear of global warming to ‘religious belief’, Dec 2 2004
An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than ‘religious beliefs.’  “Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen.

Climate alarm: Where does it come from?
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dec 1 2004
Politicization of the global warming issue has rendered real communication almost impossible. First, it leads to a meaningless polarization associated with meaningless questions: Do you believe in global warming? Are you a skeptic or a believer?

Northeastern researcher finds missing atmospheric carbon dioxide
Northeastern University, Nov 30 2004
A Northeastern University researcher today announced that he has found that the soil below oak trees exposed to elevated levels of carbon dioxide had significantly higher carbon levels than those exposed to ambient carbon levels. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that elevated carbon dioxide levels are increasing carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems and slowing the build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Of grapes and hockeysticks, Dec 1 2004

The most important aspect of the 633-year temperature history, in our estimation, is the fact that it looks nothing at all like the infamous “hockeystick” temperature history of Mann et al. (1998, 1999), which underpins the climate-alarmist claim that 20th century warming is without precedent over the past thousand years.

City of London set to become carbon market world centre
UK Dept. for the Environment, Dec 1 2004
City of London is well-placed to become one of the world centres for the emerging carbon market, Environment Minister Elliot Morley said today.

Trash tax increase to fight global warming
Rocky Mountain News, Dec 1 2004
BOULDER – The City Council on Tuesday voted to nearly triple the tax on trash collection for homeowners, mostly to fund programs aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Kyoto a mixed bag for Russia
UPI, Nov 30 2004
Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s economic adviser, was quoted last September by the Russian Interfax news agency as saying Kyoto ratification could mean the country’s GDP could lose a total of $1 trillion by 2012.

Nigeria ratifies Kyoto Protocol on climate change
This Day [Lagos], Nov 29 2004
Nigeria has joined the over 120 parties that have so far ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Empty oil wells get a fill-up to reduce greenhouse gas
New Zealand Herald, Dec 1 2004
A short distance from Spindletop oil field, site of the gusher that triggered the Texas oil rush more than a century ago, scientists have found a purpose for the long-disused underground reservoirs – as storage for the pollution emitted by burning fossil fuels.

Urban heat islands of South Korea, Dec 1 2004
“Rural climatological normals should be used instead of the conventional normals to simulate ecosystem responses to climatic change, because the urban area is still much smaller than natural and agricultural ecosystems in Korea.”  Their advice should be heeded by everyone, including the IPCC.

November 2004 global warming news

The international global warming worry-wart community is meeting in Buenos Aires this week to figure out how to get the U.S. to participate in the global economic suicide pact known as the Kyoto Protocol.

Russias recent ratification of the Protocol allows the treaty become effective in February 2005 though it’s pretty widely known that Russia only signed on in exchange for European support of Russias admission to the World Trade Organization, not because President Putin frets about a less frigid Siberia.

The treaty will nevertheless be a meaningless gesture without U.S. participation not only is the U.S. the largest energy consumer, but the real purpose of the treaty is to hamper the U.S. economy, to Europes advantage, by rationing American energy use.

Although the U.S. Senate, in 1997, and President Bush, in 2001, wisely rejected U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, there are worrisome efforts in the Senate and White House to do something on global warming.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.both dyed-in-the-wool global warming worriers have introduced legislation to impose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

While President Bushs recent public statements seem to indicate that he may also be falling for global warming junk science so far, hes only for voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as technology-based solutions.

President Bush is also being pressured by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to do something on climate. As Mr. Blair has been a major supporter of President Bushs effort in Iraq, its possible that Blair may have chits to call in.

Peruvian Plants Debunk Kyoto

Despite the anxiety-fest in Buenos Aires, the real global warming news this week comes from the Peruvian glaciers.

Ohio State University glaciologist Lonnie Thompson reported at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union that he found two prehistoric plant beds dating back 5,000 and 50,000 years, respectively, near a high Andean glacier. The plants’ ages were pinpointed through carbon dating; until recently, the plants had been covered by ice.

Climate clamor-ers, upon hearing such news, will likely jump to the conclusion that the receding glaciers, which revealed the plants after covering them for thousands of years, are simply more evidence of manmade global warming.

But a more thoughtful person might point out the plant find is a strong indication that, thousands of years ago, the high Andean climate must have been warm enough to cause the glacier to be recessed and to allow for the plants to grow in the first place a time frame that obviously predates oil and gas companies, the internal combustion engine, the industrial revolution, and recorded history.

So neither the warm climate that sustained high Andean plant growth 5,000 years ago, nor the subsequent frigid climate that caused the glacierization, could possibly have been caused by human activity.

So if natural forces caused those climate changes, isnt it reasonable to conclude that perhaps natural forces might also be largely responsible for whatever climate changes may be occurring now?

Any prudent person would agree that we dont yet understand the complexities with the climate system, said Thompson. Its too bad he didnt deliver that message in Buenos Aires.

Last night, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Center for International Environmental Law announced a complaint on behalf of Arctic Inuit peoples against the United States “for causing global warming and its devastating impacts.” 

    And what are the devastating impacts? 

    “Apparently their snowmobiles are falling through the ice,” relays Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is attending this week’s global-warming negotiations in Buenos Aires. 

    “Leaving aside for the moment this action’s legal merits (there are none), a remarkable approach to oral argument on this case was tried at a Monday night event publicizing a report underpinning this complaint,” Mr. Horner tells this column. 

    The speaker was Dr. Robert Corell, “most famous for his steady hand guiding the conveniently timed November 2000 ‘National Assessment on Climate Change,’ a compendium of scary climate stories released by the Clinton-Gore administration,” he says. 

    “According to Dr. Corell, it seems that the Inuits, who he boasts have lived a subsistence lifestyle just as their ancestors have done for 9,000 years, now have that cold, hand-to-mouth bliss threatened by global warming.”

As in all other climate conferences, the major environmental pressure groups are making their presence felt here. Friends of the Earth International (FoE) is pushing bans on genetically modified trees, promotion of hydroelectric projects by international bodies like the U.N., and climate change litigation against business and governments.

FoE are pursuing these efforts through various coalitions. It is pushing the GM tree ban alongside the World Rainforest Movement. Especially significant for the United States, however, is FoEs efforts on behalf of climate change litigation, which it is promoting in conjunction with fellow environmentalist giants Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace. The three groups are sponsoring an event–to occur minutes from now–featuring Ken Alex from the California State Attorney Generals office. The event announcement states that the speakers, “will explain the recent legal actions around the world against governments and companies, highlighting their scientific backing, and warning that there will be more to come unless deep cuts are made in emissions are victims are compensated.”

Tonight, WWF also co-hosts a reception on “Bringing Climate Change Home – How People Witness Climate Change,” at which “WWF will thank our Climate Witnesses from Nepal, India, Fiji, and Argentina, for their willingness to come to COP 10 and for their hard work in testifying about the impacts of climate change on their communities.” The event will feature “cultural perfomances,” which “will be supported with films and statements.”

So global warming is now a crime for which there are culprits and victims and that occurs within a short period of time with immediately observable effects?

 Wednesday, December 15, and Im finally at the COP–though its been much busier outside of the convention center.

Ironically the meeting is being held at the Argentine Rural Society (La Rural, for short), an agriculture promotion body. Next to the convention hall is an amphitheater that looks like it could be used for equestrian or cattle shows.

Myron and I arrived in Buenos Aires on Sunday, December 12, nearly 5 hours late after we were bumped from our flight and rerouted through Sao Paulo. Our luggage did not arrive, but, luckily, I did have one carry-on bag with some clothes.

I contacted Armando Ribas, the host of a live weekly  political commentary TV show on which I was set to appear. We made it to the studio, and I appeared for about eight minutes near the end of the show. I focused on the fact that many of the biggest country supporters of Kyoto–mainly Europe–are projected to decline in population, while developing countries population is projected to expand. Greater population means greater energy demand. Thus, Kyoto, by leading to energy rationing, would be a disaster for the developing world.

I spent much of Monday trying to track down our luggage whlile Myron was at the COP. The bags finally arrived that evening, and I had to leave Bjorn Lomborgs  Copenhagen Consensus event early to meet the delivery driver. I made it to the convention center once that day. When we found La Rural, which is quite huge, I asked a police officer where we could find the entrance. He directd us to look for “the arc that says Greenpeace.” Word had it that Myron was being denounced at various events by leftist environmentalists.

Tuesday I prepared all day for the evening event at Fundacion Atlas, who were kind enough to lend me office space for the day. The event, a forum featuing six speakers, was largely successful. We got a large crowd, most of whom stayed through what turned out to be a fairly long event. Myron made a concise presentation on the bad science beind Kyoto, while I concluded with the economic argument against it, once again citing population. The event was in Spanish; and I translated for Myron. After the event, a few people told me that theyd seen me on TV on Sunday night.

On Wednesday, we participated in a lunch discussion with local media, academic, and business leaders, also arranged by Fundacion Atlas, to whom we owe a great deal of thanks. We made some very valuable contacts at these events. We hope to collaborate with them in the future in our fight for freedom.