When even the New York Times finally picks up the pungent aroma of a scandal, you’ve gotta figure that the stench is overwhelming. Recently, the Times decided this bit of news was finally fit to repeat: that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been playing fast and loose with scientific data regarding “climate change.” That story has only been buzzing about the blogosphere for weeks now, so hats off to the “newspaper of record” for taking notice of the situation with such alacrity.
This is a milestone of sorts. The Times has – finally – chosen to publish a story about global warming that did not primarily consist of Andrew Revkin’s fawning assurances that alarmists were the guardians of holy writ and skeptics are alchemists in the employ of Exxon-Mobil. Prior to this happy event, I thought the chances of the Senate passing a cap and trade bill were slim, but that the possibility still existed. Now that the New York Times has finally acknowledged that global warming skeptics may have a point or two after all, we may administer last rites to Waxman-Markey. Good riddance.
But how did we get here? Al Gore’s hucksterism and that silly movie of his, which any legitimate scientist – even among the alarmist crowd – has to laugh at, deserve a lot of the blame. But the biggest problem was the way that the old media and policy makers embraced the collectivist agenda of the IPCC. This shameful episode has been an object lesson of what happens when we follow Obama’s doctrine of following the lead of the would-be global government crowd, rather than letting America and her allies lead the globe toward a bright future.
The catch phrase “2,500 scientists agree” (or whatever number you choose) became the mantra that supposedly proved how universal global warming consensus was, based on IPCC’s reports. But that consensus never actually existed. Of the scientists who participate in the IPCC, only a fraction are part of the committee that actually studies mankind’s effect on the climate. Of that fraction, only another fraction actually contributes to writing the portion of the IPCC’s report that deals with this issue. And, once that section of the report is completed, the IPCC prepares an Executive Summary of its findings, which is what the old media uses to prepare its stories on the IPCC’s work. The Executive Summary is largely the work of politicians and public relations professionals, and is thus further disconnected from whatever flawed science that may have been left behind, far upstream.
How bad have the IPCC’s Executive Summaries been? This post from Bishop Hill tells the story. Dr. Andrew Lacis, a colleague of NASA chief alarmist Dr. James Hansen, has no dog in this hunt in the global warming debate, but he found the IPCC’s Executive Summary woefully lacking in any scientific credulity:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.IPCC’s official response? Ignore the man behind the curtain:
“Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.”That’s it.
Celebration is in order, now that IPCC’s fraudulent attempts to pervert science have been exposed. But, though national cap and trade may be dead, the bad news is this: there is still a whole lot of global-warming regulation that has been, or soon will be, put in place that will do substantial damage to America’s economy. The next challenge is to roll back the multi-faceted regulatory infrastructure that has quietly been developed in order to address a non-existent problem.
Several east coast states have implemented the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional cap and trade program, in 2009. Midwestern and western states are planning their own regional cap and trade programs as well: the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative, respectively. (The latter was originally called the Western Greenhouse Gas Initiative, until somebody figured out that the acronym “WGGI” would inevitably be pronounced “wedgie,” which came a too uncomfortably close to describing the effect that the program would have on the economies of those regulated.)
In addition, more than half of the United States have implemented “Renewable Portfolio Standards” that require power providers to rely more and more on renewable sources of energy and, therefore, less and less on more affordable, reliable power generated through the combustion of fossil fuels.
Perhaps most damaging of all, environmental law currently grants radical environmental groups the “right” to hold up big new power projects, simply by filing an appeal with the Environmental Appeals Board, whether such an appeal has actual merit or not. Extremist groups like the Sierra Club have used this power to obstruct energy project after energy project that would have otherwise pumped new life into our economy.
Cap and trade may be dead, but there is much yet to be done. If you want to do your part, write your state and federal legislators and – assuming you agree with me – tell them that you don’t see any need for your state to be part of a regional cap and trade program or to adopt renewable portfolio standards. Tell them that you don’t have a problem with organizations like the Sierra Club commenting on permits, but you don’t think that these groups should have the power to tie up new power plant permits for years based on flawed science. America’s future is at stake. Let’s take it back.
Big Journalism
