Government delegations are meeting in Bonn to discuss how to implement the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. This 1992 treaty calls for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases in order to stave off "dangerous" human interference with the climate. So far no one — neither scientists nor politicians — has come up with a defensible definition of "dangerous" interference.

Worse, there is still no evidence for man-made global warming and, as scientists are increasingly pointing out, the feared consequences of warming are contrived. Regardless — the delegates to Bonn have now declared the climate science as "settled" and plan to argue about various national proposals to cut emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning — essentially, ideological schemes to control energy consumption and curtail economic growth.

The proposals range from a 20% cut in emissions by 2010, put forth by small island nations, to a "modest" cut of 5%-10% proposed by Britain (with ultimate cuts of 60% below the 1990 base level) — all the way to outright opposition to cuts by Australia, tile world's leading coal exporter.

U.S. planners, after promising Congress they would stick to the current White House plan of voluntary energy conservation, now favor a global scheme of energy rationing — allocation of national emission "budgets." The U.S. proposal also includes energy taxes as an alternative to penalties for ex-ceeding assigned quotas. "Emissions trading" — the purchase of all or part of a pollution quota from another country — would be permitted.

This concept of flexibility, posing as a "market-based solution," has endeared the plan to economists. But John Gummer, Britain's environment minister, labels the U.S. proposal a "scheme by which a rich country thinks it can get out of its responsibilities." Others view it simply as a transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries.

The State Department claims that the 1992 Global Climate Treaty was negotiated "largely fit the urging of scientists." But the "Heidelberg Appeal," signed by several hundred scientists at Rio de Janeiro — and more than 4,000 by now — warned against concluding such a treaty without a proper scientific base. Recently, nearly 100 climate scientists and meteorologists signed the "Leipzig Declaration," pointing to the absence of good scientific reasons for a climate treaty.

The estimates of a rising sea level are being revised, with new evidence showing that a warming of the ocean, by increasing evaporation and transferring water to the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, might actually lower sea level instead of raising it. Global agriculture would thrive in a greenhouse warming regime. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more "food" for growing plants. More rain and warmer nights, fewer frosts and a longer growing season, all provide additional benefits. The much-publicized spread of tropical diseases is largely a share. So whom should we believe? The computer calculations about climate changes or the empirical record of atmospheric observations? I think the atmosphere is more trustworthy, and that the theories skill need a lot of work.

There is conflict among the industrialized nations about how to control emissions. The European Union wants common procedures, while the United States wants flexibility for each nation within "mandatory targets and time frames." It avoids imposing European gasoline prices of $4 a gallon — definitely not acceptable to Congress, which ultimately must approve amendments to the treaty.

The 1995 "Berlin Mandate" does not permit putting emis-sion limits on developing countries. The U.S. Senate won't accept any control scheme that singles out the United States and other industrialized nations. And by all indications, developing countries are becoming aware of the heavy economic burden they would bear—even if they are not required to cut emissions — as the imposed con-trols slow global economic growth.

The control effort therefore is likely to fail when it comes to a vote in Kyoto in December — and well it should. The carbon dioxide problem is, after all, a temporary "blip," lasting perhaps another century or so, before the atmospheric excess is absorbed into the ocean. More effective than emission controls, therefore, would be speeding up the process of absorption by exe-cuting a scientifically proven scheme of "ocean fertilization." Its use was strongly endorsed by the late Roger Revelle, the "father" of greenhouse warming.

The underlying goals of those pushing for a mandatory implementation of the climate treaty appear to be global de-industrialization and redistribution of wealth at the expense of economic growth — and never mind the climate science!