Collegiate Times

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary report for policymakers this past Friday which is being welcomed with much acclaim by the mainstream press. Gleefully, media outlets began running stories marking the report's release quoting Timothy E. Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, who stated: "The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over." Having discussed the science behind the debate last week, issues need to be addressed that play a profound role in the politicization of this debate including media coverage, research funding and sponsorship, the anti-United States, anti-capitalist agenda of radical environmentalists and United Nations bureaucrats, and the economic implications of the Kyoto Protocol on the United States economy should shrewd political calculation and global warming alarmism masquerading as science trounce moderate, reasoned analysis and policy response.

Before examining these respective issues, let us take a look at what the latest IPCC summary report actually said, and what it didn't say. To begin, the policymaker summary report is merely a preliminary report for politicians crafted by bureaucrats, not scientists. Before jumping to rash generalizations and dire predictions of catastrophic climate change, one would be well advised to wait for the release of the complete report later this year.

The report does declare that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and portends dramatic and seemingly inexorable climate change. Nowhere in the report, however, is any sort of causal relationship clearly established without ruling out contributing or primary factors, such as nature, nor is anything claimed established beyond a reasonable doubt. For those obsessed with melting ice, the IPCC summary states: "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."

An excellent independent summary of the IPCC report has been produced by a team of highly qualified scientists with the Fraser Institute that highlights, among other things that, "arguments for the hypothesis (man-made global warming) rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence," and accordingly, "there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing." The full text of the report, contributing scientists, and peer assessments can be found at http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/.

Obviously, global warming alarmists will pounce on any opposition to such dire conclusions, many not even substantiated by the IPCC report, as being the work of perverted, fringe elements—something akin to Holocaust deniers funded by ExxonMobil.

This brings up the issue of research funding. Given the atmosphere of hysteria surrounding the issue, it is fair to say a groupthink mentality has emerged in the scientific community. One reason is because research dollars are awarded to scientists who produce research of interest, i.e. not supporting good old normal climatic cycles and variations.

The other contributing factor to this groupthink mentality is the witch hunt carried out by those who have reduced global warming to a purely political issue. Researchers producing work calling man-made global warming into question not only see their research funding, but possibly their careers, dry up. For example, Ted Kulongoski, governor of Oregon is presently attempting to remove the title of state climatologist from George Taylor because he refuses to toe the line of "consensus."

Because there are still scientists intent on establishing something approximating scientific fact, they have to seek funding somewhere. Of course global warming alarmists and the media would have you believe, a study funded by energy companies is ideologically driven capitalist propaganda while studies funded by environmental organizations and governments are merely objective philosophical research. The fact is, no science is without bias and all should be examined on merit, not on the basis of policy stances and politicized myths.

Turning to the Kyoto Protocol, which is terribly ineffective when it comes to combating carbon dioxide emissions but incredibly efficient at ruining the U.S. economy and enslaving developing nations to continued poverty, instability, and economic dysfunction. Basically, U.N. bureaucrats and others nations see an incredible opportunity in Kyoto to impose economic disadvantages on the United States while allowing other nations to compete (something their socialist economies are currently preventing).

Continue Reading: 12 Next »