History undercuts fears of global warming / LJWorld.com

Opinion

By George Will - Washington Post Writers Group

November 9, 2009

Washington — Intelligent people agree that, absent immediate radical action regarding global warming, the human race is sunk. That is a tautology because those who do not agree are, definitionally, unintelligent. Britain’s intelligent Prime Minister Gordon Brown gives scary precision to the word “immediate.” By his reckoning, humanity now has about 30 days to save itself. He says that unless a decisive agreement is reached at the 192-nation summit on climate change that opens Dec. 7 in Copenhagen, all is lost.

So, all is lost. The chances of a comprehensive and binding treaty are approximately nil.

The fourth of five parlays preparing for Copenhagen occurred in Bangkok from Sept. 28 through Oct. 9, with delegates from about 180 nations participating. Remember diplomat George Kennan’s axiom that the unlikelihood of reaching an agreement is the square of the number of parties at the table? The meeting adjourned with, as usual, essentially no progress toward an agreement on reduced emissions by developed nations or on the money such nations should pay to finance developing nations’ efforts against global warming.

The New York Times reports that “the United Nations Adaptation Fund, which officially began operating in 2008 to help poor countries finance projects to blunt the effects of global warming, remains an empty shell, largely because rich nations have failed to come through with the donations they promised.” The fund has a risible $18 million, which might not cover the cost of Copenhagen conference.

There they will experience more futility because of, among other things, two stubborn facts — the two most populous nations. On Oct. 21, China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and India, which ranks fourth — together they account for 26 percent of emissions — jointly agreed: They, with their combined one-third of the world’s population, will not play in what increasingly resembles a global game of climate-change charades. Neither nation is interested in jeopardizing its economic growth with emission caps of a sort that never impeded the growth of the developed nations that now praise them.

But do not really embrace them. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives took time out from fending off the world and exempted large cattle, dairy and hog producing operations from an Environmental Protection Agency requirement for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. And 13 Great Lakes cargo ships were exempted from a proposed mandate requiring the use of low-sulfur fuel. When constituents’ interests conflict with global grandstanding, Congress’ rule is “act locally, think globally tomorrow, maybe.”

In their new book, “Super-Freakonomics,” Steven D. Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and Stephen J. Dubner, a journalist, worry about global warming but revive some inconvenient memories of 30 years ago. Then intelligent people agreed (see above) that global cooling threatened human survival. It had, Newsweek reported, “taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.” Some scientists proposed radical measures to cause global warming — for example, covering the arctic ice cap with black soot that would absorb heat and cause melting.

Levitt and Dubner also spoil some of the fun of the sort of the “think globally, act locally” gestures that are liturgically important in the church of climate change. For example, they say the “locavore” movement — people eating locally grown foods from small farms — actually increases greenhouse gas emissions. They cite research showing that only 11 percent of such emissions associated with food are in the transportation of it; 80 percent are in the production phase and, regarding emissions, big farms are much more efficient.

Although the political and media drumbeat of alarm is incessant, a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. Two reasons are:

They are worried about their wages, which will not be improved by clobbering a weak economy with the costs of a cap-and-trade carbon-reduction regime. And climate Cassandras are learning the wages of crying “Wolf!”

In 2005, global warming worriers warned, as they tend to do after all adverse or anomalous environmental events, that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming and foreshadowed an increase in the number and destructiveness of hurricanes. As this year’s Atlantic hurricane season ends, only three hurricanes have formed — half the average of the last 50 years — and none have hit the United States.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 November 2009
at 6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

” Intelligent people agree that, absent immediate radical action regarding global warming, the human race is sunk. That is a tautology because those who do not agree are, definitionally, unintelligent.”

Well, George, if that's all there was to it, then you'd be right. But it's not just a matter of your straw man “tautology.” It's a matter of data and science, not the insecurities of those unable or unwilling to grasp that fact.
9 November 2009
at 6:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…

Global whining.

I burn coal and wood to heat my home, I'm helping the rain forests by providing them vital CO2. I sometimes burn when it is not required because I'm doing my part.
9 November 2009
at 6:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cait48 (Anonymous) says…

If CO2 was all that was needed to “bring back the rain forests” there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is clear cutting the Amazon. The author of the article cites a study on “global cooling” that I never heard of. However the gong has been sounding on global warming for well over 15 years and the rampant effects are starting to be seen in alarming ways.
The polar ice caps are melting and shrinking. (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qth…)
The ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is shrinking and is set to disappear in the next few years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/wor…)
The author cites the hurricane season in his article. The hurricane season isn't over yet and Ida is heading for the Gulf Coast as we speak. However the author's centrist view is what gets to me. So the US has had relatively few hurricanes this year. No less than fifteen have hit the Philippines this season.
GWB fought and fought and fought global warming. Well go ahead and turn a blind eye people. But I have to tell ya it scares the heck out of me of what my grandchildren may have to face. War will be nothing compared to what this planet will do to us when she gets a notion. To quote George Carlin, “The earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.”
9 November 2009
at 8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

Don't bother to worry about what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to force on us anymore. They are going to do as they please and their goal is complete control of our lives, taxing and regulation the living daylights out of us and forcing their far-left liberal ideology down our throats. This is their sincere goal, and I am now convinced of it. They only way to stop this socialist cabal is to vote them all out. My neighbor emailed this to me this morning, called “The Difference”:
––––––––––––––––—
I don't think I've ever seen the differences explained any better….

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal
doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal
is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to
defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and
still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a
liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as
independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see
themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches
channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A
liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about
shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal
demands that his neighbors pay for his.

––––––––––––––––––-

How very true.
9 November 2009
at 9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Tom…

That just about sums it up.
9 November 2009
at 11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

avoice (Anonymous) says…

And if you are neither, but prefer balance, then you agree with half of the statements in Tom's list.
9 November 2009
at 11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

When a conservative can't make an intelligent argument, they make lists of straw men.

9 November 2009
at 11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

And then spam email it.
9 November 2009
at 11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

There are plenty of scientists out there who are global warming skepitcs. Considering we had an ice age with 4500 ppm of carbon dioxide in earth's geologic history, those spouting the need to keep it under 350 ppm really don't know what they are talking about.

All this is about control. The world putting a clamp on the United States, and the US government further controlling businesses. Considering there are REAL environmental issues to conquer such as cutting down the rain forests to plant soybeans (to make, guess what, biofuels!!!), global warming is a huge red herring.
9 November 2009
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Will references Levitt; Levitt is blatantly wrong. What does that make Will?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/…
9 November 2009
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guardian (Anonymous) says…

Al Gore is obviously the leading proponent of global warming and reducing our carbon footprints. His “An Inconvenient Truth” is apparently the definitive work on the issue. That must be the reason his utility bills are so much higher than anyone else's. $30,000 a year! Just another hypocritical elitist scare tactic scam.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Global…
9 November 2009
at 2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cait48 (Anonymous) says…

You know what? I don't give a peanut butter cracker what Al Gore's utility bills are.
Tom Shewmon's spew has nothing to do with the article. It's his usual vomitus.
Actual, empirical evidence is staring us in the face; shrinking ice caps, disappearing snow caps from mountains, hurricanes and typhoons from hell, and all you people can do is argue your far right politics. It's obvious you could care less about your own progeny. You've got it comfortable. Why should you care about your grandchildren or great grandchildren? Let them save their own lives!
Never let it be said the facts ever got in the way. Good show guys.
9 November 2009
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guardian (Anonymous) says…

cait48 (Anonymous) says…
“Actual, empirical evidence is staring us in the face; shrinking ice caps, disappearing snow caps from mountains, hurricanes and typhoons from hell, …”

And geological history tells us this has happened many times in the past without the uncaring and maniacle assistance of humankind.

Beware Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
9 November 2009
at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Moderate (George Lippencott) says…

See:

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal…

Mr Shewmon note above should be amended to end in each case with an exception for the liberal elites.
9 November 2009
at 10:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cait48 (Anonymous) says…

Yes, Guardian, geological evidence states that it has happened many times in the past. However, for example, there has never been an ice age in the historical memory of civilized man. Comparing “geological history” and “anthropological history is apples and oranges. Human beings are a relatively new species. However, to say we haven't had an impact on the earth and haven't influenced it's course of change is pretty ridiculous. But that's ok, I'll be a chicken. You can be an ostrich.