climate change — VOICES for REASON

I promised I would report back from the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC.

The highlight of the conference, for me, was the keynote address by Dr. Richard Lindzen, a leading M.I.T. climate scientist who has long been the most prominent scientific critic of global warming alarmism. (The full text of his talk is available here, along with the rest of the conference proceedings.)

At one point, Lindzen dissected the central argument that the proponents of climate alarm use in attributing the global temperature changes over the past few decades to human activities:

Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I mentioned I was heading to the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC. (I’ll report on the conference soon.)

I had noted the timeliness of the event, given that Congress was working on a bill imposing a cap-and-trade system in the United States (along with a host of other disastrous government interventions), and I expressed hope that the event might “inject a measure of reason into the Congressional debate before the bill comes up for a vote.”

Well, even a measure of reason is probably too much to expect of today’s political bodies. The bill passed in the House last Friday. The bill’s Congressional opponents (some of whom spoke at the Heartland conference) put up a determined fight, and it passed by an extremely narrow margin, 219 to 212, but it passed nevertheless.  

This moves us one step closer to total government control over our production and use of energy, which fuels every aspect of our economy and makes possible the unprecedented quality of life we enjoy today. Even if it were provably true that human activity was causing large-scale changes to the earth’s climate (which it’s not), how is that a justification for undermining industrial civilization by an assault on economic freedom and on the continued development of industrial-scale energy?

With “solutions” like this, who needs problems?

Next week, the Heartland Institute will host its Third International Conference on Climate Change; June 2nd in Washington, DC. The Ayn Rand Institute is a co-sponsor.

The event follows closely on the heels of a previous conference, which took place in New York City in March (see here and here)–but the new conference couldn’t be more timely. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce just approved a comprehensive climate and energy bill, the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” which would impose energy impoverishment in a variety of ways: forced energy conservation programs, a cap-and-trade system rationing U.S. carbon emissions, a renewable energy mandate forcing us to use expensive, impractical forms of energy, and more.

The event is intended to acquaint Congressional staff with the views of scientists and economists who oppose green climate and energy policies. Hopefully, it will help inject a measure of reason into the Congressional debate before the bill comes up for a vote.

In any event, I will be there and will have lots to report after the conference. Stay tuned.

We’re constantly told that one of the “catastrophic” impacts of global warming will be a rising sea level. But geology can be rather complex. Here is a story about sea levels actually falling around Juneau, Alaska. Apparently, the loss of “billions of tons” of ice that have melted away from retreating glaciers is causing the land to rise faster than the sea.

So is this good news? At least this region will be spared the supposedly catastrophic impacts we hear so much about–flooding, increased coastal erosion, salt water infiltration, and so on–right?

Read the rest of this entry »

For years, scientists critical of the claims of catastrophic, man-made climate change have pointed out that even if the earth were warming–whether from human causes or not–there would be many positive benefits. For instance, warmer climate conditions combined with higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide–a.k.a. plant food–would dramatically promote plant growth. (See here for evidence this has already occurred, due to today’s CO2 levels and the slight temperature increase since the ’80s.)

The response from climate change alarmists has been either to completely ignore or dismiss such evidence–or, more recently, to trot out all manner of studies asserting that higher CO2 levels would primarily benefit harmful, pollen-spewing villains such as ragweed. And the media, of course, dutifully chimes in with gloomy headlines such as “Allergies Getting Worse Due to Global Warming” or “Climate Change: Something to Sneeze At.”

Well, here are some other “inconvenient truths” you won’t hear from Al Gore.

Read the rest of this entry »

What is the biggest danger to Americans’ health and welfare? No, it’s not global warming — but it may well be global warming policy. In the name of fighting off hypothetical rises in average global temperature, our government has given itself draconian power to throttle energy sources that emits CO2 — which means, well over 80% of American production.

The first step was the Supreme Court’s decision last year that carbon dioxide, which every human breath produces and every green plant eats for breakfast, is a “pollutant” — and therefore subject to potentially unlimited control by the EPA. Now, the Obama EPA has announced that it plans to use its newfound power to the fullest.

Read the rest of this entry »

My speaking event with Willie Soon went off well. This is the third panel event we have done together and I expect we’ll continue to do them as opportunities arise.

Willie gave an excellent presentation that focused on debunking the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the dominant driver of changes to the Earth’s climate.

I argued that the real threat we face is not the threat of becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate disasters, but the threat of coercive political policies aimed at cutting off our access to cheap, abundant energy. I also presented some basic facts concerning current energy consumption and the inadequacies of so-called green energy sources to supply our energy needs.

During the Q&A, I was challenged on the latter point by a student claiming that by covering the land area adjacent to American’s freeways with solar cells, one could produce enough electricity to meet America’s current demand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Next Monday I will be speaking about the destructiveness of policies aimed at cutting off fossil fuels and promoting “green energy.” I will be on a panel discussion at UCLA with Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Here is the description:

 It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent climate change. But what does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Are governmental economic intervention and restrictions on emissions an appropriate policy response? Drs. Keith Lockitch and Willie Soon will address these critical issues in a lively panel discussion and afterward take your questions.

I’ve had the pleasure of appearing on several panels with Dr. Soon over the last year. He has excellent knowledge of the science at the center of the climate change debate. If you’re in Southern California, come check it out!

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Yaron Brook and I were invited to speak at the International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute. I, unfortunately, had to cancel at the last minute, but Yaron was there and gave an outstanding presentation.

Free recordings of the conference proceedings are now available online. If you’re interested in educating yourself on the facts of the climate change debate, you’ll find a lot worth listening to (and there’s much more on the Heartland website).

Here’s a direct link to Yaron’s talk, in which he discusses the moral factors that explain why environmentalism continues to grow in power despite its record of failure and destructiveness.

There has been a lot of commentary recently on the relevance of Atlas Shrugged to our economic woes and our government’s response. But the novel’s relevance to current issues extends far beyond the financial crisis.

Consider the phenomenon of Earth Hour, which takes place this Saturday (March 28), and which I criticized in a recent op-ed. During Earth Hour, participating cities turn off the lights of major skylines and landmarks to signal a commitment to fighting climate change. In my article I discuss why I think this is a travesty.

So how does this relate to Atlas Shrugged?

Read the rest of this entry »