Global Warming and US Politics
Remarks by S. Fred Singer at the Emerging Issues Forum of the Heartland Institute, Chicago, Sept. 23, 2004 http://www.heartland.org

This morning, I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal that talks about how industry is "combating global warming." Those words "combating global warming" certainly make it sound like global warming is some sort of clear threat. It is not.

But there are certainly people who feel this way, and they get plenty of attention. I am reminded that earlier this year when, believe it or not, the chief scientific advisor to the British government called global warming a greater threat to humanity than terrorism. I don't know how silly one can get, but this probably took the cake ... until last summer, when the film The Day After Tomorrow came out. Have you seen it? Well I did. In my case, the audience started to laugh during some of the "scientific" parts of the film, which were just too funny for words. Films like The Day After Tomorrow are leaving the public thoroughly confused about global warming. They say: "Global warming is supposed to cause a freeze? We don't understand that. We don't think these scientists know what they're talking about." Now they may have a point there. There are certainly some scientists who don't know what they're talking about, and the fact is there's tremendous scientific disagreement about global warming.

My view is very simple: We have a split in this scientific community, of those who believe in the observational evidence, which is against any significant global warming, and those who believe in theoretical climate models, which indicate major global warming. So you have a choice - you either believe in the atmosphere or you believe in computers. It is not a difficult choice to make, believe me.

We have data from satellites and weather balloons that show no appreciable warming in the last 25 years, completely contrary to climate models. Climate models predict that warming should be greater in the atmosphere than at the surface - we see the opposite. Climate models predict that the warming in the Polar Regions should be many times greater than at the equator - we don't see such warming in the Polar Regions; the Antarctic has even been cooling. So everywhere you look, you find that the models are not verified by actual observations. My recommendation is to just ignore the models for predicting future climate change.

Global warming is really a non-problem - at least compared to many other societal problems. And it's tragic that so many people believe we have to "do something" to "combat" global warming. The chief tool of those advocates is called the Kyoto Protocol: It is a monstrosity that would essentially ration energy, if it were put into effect, and would raise the prices of fuels and energy to everyone. This would, of course, hit people in low-income groups the hardest, but surprisingly few people rise to speak in their defense. The ultimate irony: Kyoto would be completely ineffective, producing a reduction in (calculated) temperature of just 0.05 degC, essentially undetectable. When you point out this incontrovertible fact to Kyoto advocates, they respond: "Kyoto is just the first step."

You may remember that in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted unanimously against any such thing as a Kyoto Protocol. That vote was probably the reason why Bill Clinton never submitted the Protocol for ratification, even though he had three years to do it. It's strange, or maybe not so strange, that George Bush is being bashed for speaking against the Kyoto Protocol, or for not supporting it. Bush never "withdrew" from Kyoto -- as is so often misreported. But it is understandable that Senator John Kerry hasn't even mentioned it: Let's remember that he also voted against it in 1997. Although, if he is elected I'm not sure what will happen. It probably would be submitted for ratification, and we don't know how the Senate will vote nowadays, as opposed to in 1997.

[Note: After Nov. 2 , it would appear that the US Senate is "Kyoto-proof." Bush could safely submit it for ratification and let the Senate reject it.]

We have a bill making its way up through the Congress now, the McCain-Lieberman bill in the Senate, which would institute something like the Kyoto Protocol on a unilateral basis. No matter what the rest of the world does, we would cut energy use, fossil fuel use, and such, and endure whatever economic damage follows. So "McLieberman," as we call it, is something you need to watch and really find the answer to. It's interesting that both McCain and Lieberman voted against the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Various state legislatures are also considering -- and in some cases passing -- legislation that, in effect, would institute a state-level Kyoto Protocol. I don't know if this is constitutional, this is something I will leave to the lawyers, but the lawyers are not to be trusted these days, if ever they were. Eight attorneys-general have filed a lawsuit against five major utilities accusing them of burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide. Imagine that, accusing them of generating electricity that people want! I've written about this in the Wall Street Journal, and hope this lawsuit does go to trial. I'd like to see the whole global-warming issue receive a judicial test in the courts, where the data can be brought forth and given a thorough test, and where scientists can be cross-examined. That might finally bring some sense to what has increasingly become a silly national preoccupation.