Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three second graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2008 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
NCPPR's Almasi Comments on CAFE in National Review
In the May 5 print edition of National Review, Fred Schwarz described how the catalytic converter was perfected just as automakers faced potentially crippling federal emissions requirements. Liberals cite this as proof that all that is needed to make technological breakthroughs happen is to give industry a swift regulatory kick in the pants, but this particular development was a happy coincidence. Had a breakthrough - discovered after many frustrating failures - not come when it did, the auto industry could very well have been devastated.
Schwarz sees the development of the catalytic converter as another step in the march of science that will, in time, bring about the changes some people hastily want to mandate.
Schwarz’s article is great but for the one line. Schwarz calls newly-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards "feasible." Hardly. They are most likely to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and subsequently more dangerous in the short-term before (in the minds of the regulatory crowd) the long-hidden formula to fuel cars with water is unveiled.
National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi explained one of the problems with increased CAFE standards in a letter to the editor that now has been printed in the May 19 National Review (print edition). David's letter is reprinted in its entirety below:
Fred Schwarz is right to predict that science will achieve regulatory goals at its own pace ("Machina ex Machina," May 5).
He also says that "[current] CAFE standards are quite feasible, and while opponents have criticized them on economic grounds, at least no engineering miracles will be required." True - but the biggest problem with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system concerns safety, not economics or engineering. By historical precedent the easiest way for automakers to meet higher fuel-efficiency requirements is to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and inherently less safe. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated between 1,300 and 2,600 accident-related deaths each year can be attributed to CAFE standards.
It’s also the case that these new CAFE standards will raise the price of new vehicles large enough for family use by thousands of dollars. If you don’t like paying an extra buck a gallon for gasoline, just wait until you have to spend an extra ten grand for the car.
Congressional Energy Diet Also Reduces Waistlines and Pocketbooks (Don't Even Ask About Global Warming!)
From David Almasi:
The liberal leadership in Congress came to power in 2006 saying they had a solution to rising gas prices. Did that solution involve prices continuing to go up and taking the cost of food with them?
When Americans decided to clean up the environment in the 1950s, there was a lot of trust in the American people. There were regulations to clean things up, of course, but voluntary action, anti-littering campaigns and appeals to our better nature went a long way.
But the trust factor has been eviscerated, and it's to no one's benefit.
As National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso points out in a Townhall column:
Congress doesn't trust consumers to make the right decision when it comes to selecting the right source of energy. Congress knows better. That's why legislation out of Capitol Hill is all about weaning us off oil and putting us directly on a "renewable energy" diet.
Witness the energy tax bill the House passed in February that slaps $18 billion in taxes on oil production to fund wind, solar, biofuels, and other "alternative" sources. Witness the new energy law passed in December mandating that Americans increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels at the pump to 36 billion gallons by 2022, up from 7 billion gallons required now. And witness the new farm bill that gives corn growers $10.5 billion in subsidies over the next five years, no matter how fast the price of corn rises - which, incidentally, has gone from $3.50 a bushel to a record $5.50 over the past three months.
Commenting directly on mismatched concerns over abundance and price when it comes to food and energy, Dana writes:
Even with oil topping $109 a barrel [on April 15], it is still relatively abundant. As the U.S. Geological Survey reports, there are 3 trillion billion barrels of oil reserves still available globally. For perspective, since the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, we've consumed only one trillion barrels.
Conversely, ethanol and other biofuels are extremely limited resources requiring enormous amounts of water, energy, and land otherwise used for growing food. The new energy law's requirement that Americans use 15 billion gallons of corn for fuel by 2015 - that doesn't include the other 21 billion gallons to come from non-food sources like switchgrass and corn husks - will consume an astounding 30 million acres of cropland. That means unless the mandates are repealed, more than a third of our corn crops will be diverted from food to fuel in just seven years.
U.S. policies forcing biofuel usage already are creating food shortages in third world countries, elevating food prices to historic levels.
It's worth it to combat global warming, right? Wrong.
Two independent studies in the journal Science report that the clearing of forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems throughout the world to grow corn, soybean, and other food-for-fuels will double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years. Because plants and soil hold enormous quantities of carbon, destroying existing plants and tilling the soil releases the stored carbon.
Still in a mood to celebrate Earth Day this coming Tuesday?
To read Dana's commentary in its entirety, click here.
Washington Post Treats Insipid Barbara Boxer Comment as News; Ignores Bigger Story Behind Bush's Global Warming Speec
I already knew Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:
The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.
What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?
Why, no difference at all.
Even more amusingly, this was probably a prepared quote taken from a statement issued by her office rather than something she said off the top of her head.
Speaking of this Washington Post article, by Juliet Eilperin: It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go. An acknowledgment is made that "senior GOP lawmakers... continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions," but that's it. No reason why is given. Nor is a reader told that not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be.
There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story.
A insipid statement by Barbara Boxer was a higher priority. ____
National Wildlife Federation's Global Warming Expert Calls for Voluntary Action
By David Ridenour:
Laura Hickey, senior director of global warming education at the National Wildlife Federation said, "If people participate in a voluntary system, then I don't see the need for a legislative strategy," according to an article in the March 19 Washington Post.
Okay, to be fair, Hickey wasn't referring to regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
She was referring to Catalogue Choice, a project set up by the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups to combat efforts to create a federal "do not mail" registry designed to stop junk mail. Catalogue Choice encourages retailers to voluntarily stop sending materials to people who sign up on Catalogue Choice's own "do not mail" registry.
All this is a bit confusing: The National Wildlife Federation supports voluntary action in this case, but also supports the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would impose an involuntary cap on carbon emissions.
It's not as though people don't already "participate in a voluntary system" to reduce carbon emissions. There is, for example, the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Why does NWF support voluntary action and see "no need for a legislative strategy" in one case, but not the other?
Perhaps because NWF would have to pay a price in one case, but not the other. The NWF derives a significant portion of its revenue through the mail and a federal "do not mail" list could cost it dearly. Lest we forget, junk mail can not only be annoying, but is transported by carbon-spewing planes and trucks -- something NWF is supposed to be against.
Say what one will about global warming skeptics: At least skeptics aren't hypocrites.
If Animals Ran Political Ads, What Would They Look Like?
To draw a bit of fun attention to the polar bear question (should they or should they not be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to "global warming"), The National Center for Public Policy Research, in conjunction with Citizens United, has released a parody political ad that reveals a few facts about the polar bear situation while having some fun.
The video has had over 5,000 YouTube views since its release four days ago, and has just been posted on the Media Research Center's new video sharing website Eyeblast.tv (worth checking out!).
For those who like a few more facts than a one-minute parody of a political commercial can deliver, we also offer a 5,000-word policy paper on polar bears. Or you can read our press release, reprinted below:
Parody Ad Takes Up Cause of Ringed Seals, Says Polar Bear Populations are Prosperous and Growing
Listing the Polar Bear as "Threatened" Under the ESA Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike; Says New Study Released with the Ad
In light of environmentalist campaigns pressuring the Administration to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the National Center for Public Policy Research, joined by Citizens United, has released for the Internet a lighthearted parody political ad to remind the public that the polar bears' situation isn't as dire as some environmental organizations are leading the public to believe.
The ad, a parody of the wild charges and breathless style of many political campaign ads, lets the public know what is not always clear from environmentalist lobbying campaigns: The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago.
"Many people will be surprised to learn there are 22,000 polar bears and their population has doubled," said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "While obviously many aspects of our parody ad - such as the polar bears in suits, lobbying Congress - are complete fiction, the steady growth in the global polar bear population is real. We hope that people who view our parody ad seeking a laugh will remember that fact, and perhaps be inspired to look a little more deeply into the basis of environmentalist claims regarding the polar bear."
The ad is being released in conjunction with a National Center for Public Policy Research policy paper, "Listing the Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act Because of Projected Future Global Warming Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike," by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour.
The paper questions the wisdom of listing the polar bear as threatened based on environmentalist organizations' projections of future global warming because:
* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.
* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.
* The anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.
* Listing the polar bear as threatened on the basis of projected future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.
* Listing the polar bear based on projected global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.
* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.
"Having failed despite spending tens of millions of dollars to convince the public, or even a Democratic Congress, that drastic and very expensive greenhouse gas emission reductions are warranted to deter theorized global warming, environmental organizations are now hijacking the Endangered Species Act to do an end-run around our democratic institutions," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research and co-author of the paper. "The formal petition to the government seeking 'threatened' status for the polar bear makes it very clear: The environmental groups behind this scheme are trying to use the polar bear to force the government to impose a -- in their words -- 'drastic' reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They want policies like those in the Kyoto global warming treaty forced upon Congress and the American public. The tragedy is that, if the environmentalists succeed, Americans -- especially lower-income Americans -- will be harmed, and so will the polar bears."
"Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act could harm bear conservation efforts by eliminating revenues from the carefully-regulated sport hunting of polar bears by Americans and the importation of polar bear meat and trophies into the U.S. As hunting by non-Americans would replace hunting by Americans, nothing would be accomplished in terms of reducing the number of polar bears killed, but the revenue currently generated by American sport hunters for conservation and research efforts would be eliminated," added Amy Ridenour. "And what's more, global warming -- if the global warming theory turns out to be accurate -- would still occur, because greenhouse gas emissions in China, India, Europe and elsewhere are still growing by leaps and bounds."
Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll
Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
LISTEN LIVE to David Ridenour Discuss Gas Tax Poll on WBAL in Baltimore
From David Almasi:
National Center vice president David Ridenour will be a guest of talk show host Ron Smith on WBAL in Baltimore this afternoon (March 20) at approximately 3:45pm Eastern. David and Ron will discuss the National Center's new poll that indicates most people do not want to pay 50 cents or more extra for a gallon of gas in order to pay for the cost of proposed greenhouse gas emissions. The full press release on this poll can be read by clicking here.
You can listen to the interview live by going to the WBAL web site. Look for the "Listen Live" button on the left-hand side of the home page, just below the station logo.
Americans Cool to Action Against Global Warming, New Poll Finds
Today the National Center for Public Policy Research will release the results of its new nationwide poll asking Americans how much more they would be willing to pay in gasoline taxes to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.
Our press release follows; you can go straight to the poll results here (pdf):
Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds Nearly Half Wouldn't Be Willing to Pay Even a Penny More for Gasoline; Opposition to Taxes Especially Strong Among Minorities
Washington, D.C.: Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for 33% of the U.S.'s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Over 60% of these emissions - or about 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions - result from burning gasoline in personal automobiles.
"With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."
Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities, with 53% of African-Americans indicating they are unwilling to pay higher gas taxes in any amount. Eighty-four percent of blacks and 78% of Hispanics opposed paying an additional 50 cents or more for their gasoline.
"It's not surprising that minorities oppose higher gas taxes in large numbers, as such taxes are sharply regressive, harming the economically-disadvantaged disproportionately," said Ridenour. "An extra $300 per year in taxes means little to someone making $100,000 annually. When you're just getting by, it can mean not having enough for food, rent or utility bills."
Voters were told: "Congress is currently considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline in an attempt to motivate Americans to conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." They were asked to indicate how much more they'd be willing to pay on top of what they already pay in gasoline taxes. They were given seven choices: nothing, less than 50 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, two dollars, five dollars, eight dollars or more.
Eighteen percent indicated they are willing to pay an additional 50 cents per gallon of gas or more; eight percent indicated they're willing to spend a dollar or more and just 2% said they're willing to spend $2 or more.
"Congressman Dingell's proposal to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon appears to be dead-on-arrival as far as the public is concerned. Even if it wasn't, Dingell's proposal is too modest to encourage any meaningful fuel conservation," said Ridenour. "Europeans routinely pay between $4 and $5 per gallon of gas in taxes and their fuel appetite continues to grow nevertheless. Just 1% of Americans are willing to spend an additional $5 dollars or more. Republicans are willing to do so by a 3 to 1 margin over Democrats."
Opposition to any gas tax hike was strongest in the Great Lakes, home of the automakers and Congressman John Dingell, at 56%, followed by New England (51%) and the Farm Belt (50%).
Opposition grew once respondents were informed that eliminating passenger cars in the United States altogether would only reduce world emissions by a fraction.
Among those who indicated they are willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 58% indicated that they are less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.
"Many global warming polls ask the wrong questions," said Ridenour. "We shouldn't ask Americans if action is needed on global warming, but how much more they’re willing to pay for that action. We need to also ask whether people would still be willing to pay more, given the almost certain futility of it."
The poll was conducted February 24-26 by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 800 registered voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation established in 1982 that supports commonsense, market-based solutions to environmental problems.
CNN's O'Brien Telepathic - Or Conspiring to Mislead?
From David Ridenour:
CNN's Miles O'Brien recently asserted that the Heartland Institute "desperately wants us to believe" there's a conspiracy to distort information about global warming.
O'Brien said so in his Tuesday story about the Chicago-based group's March 2-4 international global warming conference held in New York.
The trouble is, no one from the Heartland Institute said anything about a conspiracy. Without the power of telepathy, O'Brien would have no way of knowing what Heartland Institute wants.
So why did O'Brien have conspiracy on his mind?
Perhaps because O'Brien was busy distorting the global warming debate at the very time he was mocking this straw man of his own creation.
For example, O'Brien cited a Yale University poll showing that an overwhelming number of Americans - 83% -- are concerned about global warming.
To find the poll, O'Brien had to be pretty creative.
For one thing, he had to track down a poll more than a year old while skipping over other more recent ones, including another Yale poll just last September, showing less concern over global warming. Yale's September poll found 62% of respondents believe urgent action on global warming is needed and only 48% believe that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring.
O'Brien also had to be creative in finding a global warming poll that wasn't weighted to reflect the actual composition of the population. Respondents were screened for age to ensure they were 18 years of age, but nothing else.
O'Brien didn't mention that 71% of those polled also indicated that they are "often interested in theories," that 67% "like to lead others," that 26% have already purchased a vehicles getting 35 mpg or more (yet the average fleet mpg is miraculously still 20.2 mpg); and that 66% had a negative view of the overall state of the environment.
Little wonder than 83% of those polled were concerned about global warming!
Seventy-one percent of those respondents, by the way, self-ided themselves as "intellectual."
Must have been an interesting list they polled.
Finally, O'Brien fails to note that those expressing concern about global warming included people concerned about natural global warming, too. At issue is not all global warming, but anthropogenic - human influenced - global warming.
The poll isn't the only place where O'Brien misled.
He cites Dan Fagin, a journalism teacher at New York University, saying that "skeptics have changed their tune as evidence started stacking up against them" - as though changing ones views as new evidence emerges is an indication of a character flaw.
It is, in fact, an indication of integrity.
Scientists on both sides of the global warming debate - although not enough - have refined their projections and analyses as data has improved and their understanding of the climate increased. That's part of the scientific method.
O'Brien then cited Fagin again, saying, "A decade ago they denied global warming even existed."
Absurd. No one suggested anything of the kind as everyone recognizes that global warming is what makes all life on our planet possible.
The Heartland Institute showed no sign of being "desperate" to prove a conspiracy to misrepresent global warming information.
But after seeing O'Brien's report, perhaps it should be.
Listing the Polar Bear Under the ESA Could Spell Disaster
From Peyton Knight:
In reaction to the Bush Administration's deliberation over whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act the Natural Resources Defense Council's Andrew Wetzler claims: "There's no reason for them not to finalize that decision now."
There are big reasons, one of which may explain the NRDC's zeal for a rush to judgment.
The polar bear population has doubled since 1965, from 10,000 to 20,000-25,000 today. Even the World Wildlife Fund, which advocates listing the bear, in 2006 said there are "at least 22,000 polar bears worldwide" and "the general status of polar bears is currently stable."
Further, listing the bear could spawn lawsuits and impose economy-crippling restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. Because the ESA makes it a crime to "harm" a listed animal or its habitat, environmentalists could sue any public or private entity that emits CO2, which, they claim, causes global warming and harms the bear. NRDC and others already have successfully sued under the ESA to stop everything from military training to cattle ranching.
Listing the polar bear would benefit environmental activists, but would raise energy costs for consumers and harm our economy, while providing few if any benefits to the bears.
David's op-ed on the many problems with ethanol continues to be picked up by newspapers (since the nine newspapers I mentioned Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Oakland Tribune, the Alameda Times-Star and the Argus in California have run it), and is generating an unsually high amount of comment emails -- all opposed to ethanol subsidies -- to the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Here's a sample of the letters we're getting:
My husband has been on this bandwagon for years. Ethanol makes no sense in any way.
Our ultra liberal daughter acted as if everybody knew how stupid this whole ethanol aberration was.
We were shocked to find one issue we could agree on.
Yet our congress rolls on mightily filling ADM's pockets and others with cash for destroying food crops and further increasing the worlds hunger problem.
As a right wing Jesus freak, I would like to add it is a sin to burn food when people are starving.
Sharon Milton Norphlet, Ar
Public interest in ethanol -- or, more precisely, public interest in ending ethanol subsidies and mandates -- appears to be greater than I had at first supposed. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps this is an issue on which we can win.
P.S. A bunch more have run it now, but I'll stop listing them all. _____
Congressional Love Affair with Ethanol Leaves Others Cold
The red-hot Congressional love affair with the alternative fuel ethanol isn't shared by conservative groups, and a new op-ed by husband David Ridenour shows some environmentalists are skeptical as well.
David's piece says, in part:
..."We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history," said Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of a new report on ethanol and its effect on food prices.
The increased amount of acreage devoted to growing corn for ethanol, he observed, means the U.S. will ultimately export less grain - further harming poor nations that rely heavily on food imports for their basic sustenance.
Brown projected that the 800-million human beings current living in hunger will rise to 1.2 billion by 2025.
"The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before," he said.
"As a result, the world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs," Brown said, noting that wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th pushed past the $10 per bushel for the first time ever, while a bushel of soybeans traded at a historic high of $13.42 on January 11.
The rising commodity prices are driven by hefty federal subsidies for U.S. produced ethanol and huge tariffs of some $1.50 per gallon on cheaper ethanol imports from Brazil.
The subsidies and tariffs have triggered a rush to invest in America's new biofuel industry. Dozens of new ethanol plants are popping up across the agricultural states of the Midwest like mushrooms after a spring rain.
A region that once produced much of American's food and sent its surpluses to feed the world's hungry now is producing grain for automotive fuel - the beneficiary of earmarks from the Capitol Hill friends of prairie farmers...
Senior Fellow Tom Borelli has had a new op-ed published in which he looks at the benefits "enjoyed" by major corporations after they join left-wing environmental coalitions.
A hint: They end up being hurt by the very policies they help the lefties aadvocate.
In a sense, there's justice in that, but it is not at all fair to stockholders. It is even less fair to Mom & Pop customers, who pay the price for corporate folly in price increases. In one example Tom provides, projected price increases of 53 percent. _____
Global Warming Alarmists Question the Value of Liberal Democracy
Ms Borelli
I thought your article "Global Warming Statists Threaten Our Liberty" was a satire, at first. I chuckled at the insistent defense of your unalienable right to CHOOSE an SUV rather than think of the welfare of the world. Risable, really, as was the rest of the article. Alas, it is an earnest, albeit astonishingly misguided, attempt to justify continued selfishness. I've come across much contentious material online, but never felt compelled to respond to any author's opinions. It's crushingly disappointing to know that since you are part of a bigger "project", there are others who think similarly and come to the same absurd conclusions. Enjoy your Expedition whilst you can.
An Appalled Scientist, E Casner
Critics of Deneen Borelli's New Visions Commentary (which said "critics of the global warming agenda are motivated... by a love of freedom and civil liberties") like the writer above remind me of a Prometheus blog post I saw last week about a new environmentalist call for a replacement of our liberal democratic form of government with a more authoritarian one.
Writes Roger Pielke, Jr. on Prometheus, in part:
Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.
In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens...
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties...
We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.
On their book page they write:
[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.
(Read the rest of Roger Pielke's post and comments to it here.)
Do global warming statists threaten our liberty, as Deneen believes?
Apparently they not only do, some of them are saying so in plain English. ____
Critics of Global Warming Agenda are Motivated by a Love of Freedom, Borelli Says
From David Almasi:
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli recently wrote a New Visions Commentary on global warming politics that has been re-posted all over the Internet, including Townhall.com, GOPUSA.com and ChronWatch, to name just a few.
Here is a sample of Deneen's commentary:
Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don't care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.
Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.
New Vision Commentary op-eds by Deneen and other Project 21 members are available online at the National Center for Public Policy Research website here. _____
100 Prominent Scientists Disagree with UN Secretary General on Global Warming
From Peyton Knight:
On the theory of human-caused global warming, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon claims "the time for doubt has passed." Yet 100 prominent scientists, some of whom are current or former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, disagree.
The scientists sent an open letter to Ban, warming:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation...
In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it...
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future...
Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Meets Clinton Health Care Plan
Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) has mapped out the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007.
He calls it "Rube Goldberg meets carbon caps."
I say Kit Bond's Liberman-Warner climate bill chart looks a lot like the complex chart Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)'s office put together in 1994 to show America what Bill and Hillary Clinton's doomed health care plan looked like.
On Cap and Trade, Senators Advised to Learn from 'Europe's Dirty Secret'
A contribution from Peyton Knight:
As the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee prepares to vote this week on the Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 2191), which would strap the U.S. with mandatory carbon dioxide restrictions and establish a cap-and-trade system whereby industries could buy and sell so-called emissions credits, Senators are advised to examine Europe's failure with a similar system, lest they follow in kind.
According to O'Brien, some U.S. policymakers have not learned the lessons from Europe's failed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - despite their claims to the contrary.
O'Brien noted that Europe's market for emissions credits has effectively collapsed. "It's a Soviet-style system," he said, "that is open to all kinds of abuses." He explained that big energy companies, industries and special interests have made windfall profits selling excess emissions credits. Meanwhile, in the first year of the ETS (2005-2006) emissions rose 3.6 percent in the United Kingdom and rose 0.8 percent across the European Union as a whole.
O'Brien also warned that the way the Lieberman/Warner bill distributes emissions credits - namely, giving a good portion of them away - makes it more likely that the bill will resemble a pork-barrel boondoggle along the lines of current U.S. agriculture spending bills, or worse, Europe's ETS. Because of this, O'Brien said he does not get a sense that U.S. lawmakers understand "the disaster they're signing on for."
Although the EU is trying to mend its ETS, claiming to have learned its lessons, O'Brien and Open Europe still see future failure. In order for the ETS to work, he says, there must be a good degree of certainty in the long-term cost of carbon. Without that certainty, companies will not invest in the system. In the initial phase of the ETS, the EU put way too many emissions credits into the system - hence the collapse of the market and the rise of emissions. However, "fixing" this by allowing fewer credits in the future, or adjusting the amount of carbon dioxide that companies are allowed to emit, would only contribute to the underlying problem of uncertainty, O'Brien said.
Click here to download Open Europe's recent report: "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working."
For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Cap and Trade, Anyone?
Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 1.5 percent in 2006. The total reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions was 1.8 percent.
By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions by participants in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe's version of "cap and trade," an emissions-regulation system now under consideration by the U.S. Congress) increased by 0.3 percent in 2006.
The EU's cap and trade program didn't perform as well as its environmentalist proponents hoped it would. The European Union screwed up its cap and trade system's first trading period by handing out too many emissions permits. As a result, emitters had scant financial incentive to make reductions. This was not predictable, as no one familiar with the history of the Twentieth Century could have expected a large intergovernmental bureaucracy to make an economic planning error.
For a succinct report on the 2006 decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, read the U.S. Department of Energy's press release here. For a more detailed look at the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions picture, including prior years, go here. For a fuller picture on how well the European Union and its member states are meeting their Kyoto targets, I recommend the European Environment Agency publication "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2007," available in English here. _____
Hurricane Season Ends with Egg on NOAA's Proverbial - and Politicized - Face
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been inflating the number of named storms. This aids political efforts for the imposition of costly caps on energy use by helping to fuel the unproven belief that human activities are causing more frequent, and more intense, hurricanes and named storms:
NOAA Inflating Storm Numbers and Aiding Political Campaign for Carbon Restrictions, Group Says; End of 2007 Hurricane Season Shows NOAA Forecasts Wrong for Second Year in a Row
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is inflating the count of tropical storms and aiding a political campaign to regulate energy use in the process, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Today marks the official end of the 2007 hurricane season, and for the second year in a row the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's forecast for the season was wrong. NOAA had predicted there would be seven to nine hurricanes, three to five major hurricanes and 13-17 "named storms." The season ended with just five hurricanes, two of which were major (category three or above) and 14 named storms.
"NOAA correctly predicted the number of named storms, but it's not clear this statistic has any meaning, as the agency is inflating today's storm numbers relative to storms in the past," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research and author of a forthcoming new report on this year's hurricane season. "NOAA is doing so both by changing the criteria for naming storms and by failing to account for changes in technology that make detection of storms much easier."
In its annual hurricane season forecast and subsequent tropical cyclone reports, for example, NOAA makes no mention that it started naming subtropical storms for the first time in 2002. This year, one storm - equal to 7% of named storms - was a subtropical storm.
State-of-the art equipment is also enabling observers to detect cyclones they would have missed in the past. The QuikScat, an orbiting satellite that measures the ocean's surface winds, produces more than 200 times the amount of ocean wind information that had been available from ships.
"Unfortunately, NOAA's forecasts and cyclone reports suggesting increased activity are being seized upon by activists to support their campaign government take-over of energy," said Ridenour. "There's no truth to the claim that global warming is putting cyclones on steroids, unless we're talking about one of the side-effects of long-term steroid use - impotency."
The National Center's observations mirror the findings of Neil Frank, former director of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, who says that as many as six of this year's named storms wouldn't have been named in past decades.
Bill Read, deputy director of the National Hurricane Center, disputed this in published reports saying, "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named."
"The National Hurricane Center started naming subtropical storms for the first time just five years ago," said Ridenour. "To suggest that the criteria for naming storms hasn't changed is simply dishonest."
Australia's John Howard a Global Warming Victim? No.
A post by Joseph Romm published by the Climate Progress Blog (a project of the Center for American Progress) and the environmentalist Grist Blog is claiming Australian Prime Minister John Howard lost his re-election bid because of his stand on global warming:
Australian denier bites the dust — literally
Global warming takes down its first major political victim:
“Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.”
Why the stunning loss? A key reason was Howard’s “head in the sand dust” response to the country’s brutal once-in-a-thousand year drought. As the UK’s Independent reported in April:
… few scientists dispute the part played by climate change, which is making Australia hotter and drier….. Until a few months ago, Mr Howard and his ministers pooh-poohed the climate-change doomsayers....
Not for the first time, climate alarmists see things as they wish they were, and not as they are.
Howard lost for many reasons far more "key" than Howard's skepticism about the need for the environmental movement's prescriptions for fighting climate change. These reasons include:
Howard had already been prime minister 11 1/2 years (he was running for his fifth term), and is 68 years old to his opponent's more youthful 50.
Many voters took Australia's strong economy -- possibly Howard's greatest achievement -- for granted, as Australia has enjoyed 17 straight years of economic growth.
The Labor Party candidate, Kevin Rudd, campaigned as a strong fiscal conservative, and endorsed very many of Howard's economic policies, leading voters to believe Rudd as new prime minister would continue Howard's economic policy achievements.
Despite a good economic record overall, Howard's Liberal Party was blamed for a recent unpopular rise in interest rates.
The Labor Party ran a celebrity against Howard in his local parliamentary race in New South Wales, forcing him to campaign there frequently, taking his time away from campaigning in marginal districts.
A 2005 industrial relations reform called "Work Choices" was unpopular in some quarters, particularly among organized labor.
A late-breaking scandal took place, in which Liberal Party activists were caught handing out fake Labor Party brochures supporting Islamic terrorists.
The war in Iraq, in which Howard was a steadfast American ally.
[Georgia's] drought was a natural event transformed into a natural disaster by human folly. And while it's still hard to say whether global warming caused any particular drought or flood or fire, it's going to cause more of all of them.
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims... Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
The story, and a related post on the Reuters blog, implied that a noteworthy number of so-called global warming skeptics had been fooled by a fake "study" purporting to disprove the manmade global warming theory.
Said Reuters:
A hoax scientific study pointing to ocean bacteria as the overwhelming cause of global warming fooled some skeptics on Thursday who doubt growing evidence that human activities are to blame.
Laden with scientific jargon and published online in the previously unknown "Journal of Geoclimatic Studies" based in Japan, the report suggested the findings could be "the death of manmade global warming theory."
Skeptics jumped on the report. A British scientist e-mailed the report to 2,000 colleagues before spotting it was a spoof. Another from the U.S. called it a "blockbuster."
Blogger skeptic Neil Craig wrote: "This could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory ... I somehow doubt if this is going to be on the BBC news."
It was not clear who was behind the report, which said bacteria in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans emitted at least 300 times more carbon dioxide than industrial activity -- a finding that, if true, would overturn the widely held view of scientists that burning fossil fuels are the main cause of warming...
"Skeptics jumped on the report" implies that a noteworthy number of skeptics -- at least noteworthy enough to warrant a wire story -- reprinted, referenced or endorsed the hoax study. But how many did?
The anti-skepticism website DeSmogBlog catalogued those who fell for the hoax, coming up with this list:
Benny Peiser, who forwards copies of news articles and studies on climate matters to his "CCNet" e-mail list several times each day. Peiser sent a copy of the hoax study to his list Wednesday without comment and sent out a hoax warning to the list about an hour later.
A Scottish blogger (the Neil Craig quoted by Reuters) whose Sitemeter stats shows his blog receives an average of 175 visitors a day.
A North Carolina think-tank (allegedly; the post was swiftly removed and I have not seen it).
Blogger Angry Steve (allegedly; the post is gone), who describes himself as "an angry, violent man, trapped in a lazy, pacifist's body," and whose blog averages 5 visitors a day.
A post by "Mr. G" in a blog called PEER Review FL, which bills itself as "Florida's Premier Conservative blog."
Something called "Test Blog," which doesn't appear to be a real blog.
In addition, I know of one skeptic who forwarded the hoax study without comment to his e-mail list, then sent out a hoax warning 30 minutes later.
How many skeptics, then, fell for the hoax?
Of the eight individuals and blogs cited above, three don't appear to be skeptics.
Ron Bailey, who posted the study at Reason's Hit & Run, says he is not a skeptic. I could find no evidence on Angry Steve's blog that he is a skeptic. Mr. G seems to be undecided about global warming. The "Test Blog" doesn't appear to be real. So that leaves Benny Peiser, the North Carolina think-tank, the Scottish blogger with 175 daily readers and the individual I know as the four skeptics who were fooled by the hoax. Three of the four were fooled only briefly.
Reuters ran with the headline "Hoax Bacteria Study Tricks Climate Skeptics." I suppose the headline, "Four Climate Skeptics Fooled by Elaborate Hoax Attempt; Three Briefly" didn't appeal to them. No point in wasting good Reuters ink covering the fact that the vast majority of the skeptics who received copies of the hoax study didn't fall for it. (Look at the obviously fake graphs on the study and you'll see one reason why.)
It's amazing how little it takes to warrant a wire story on Reuters these days.
Note: Radio host Rush Limbaugh apparently also briefly believed the hoax was genuine, though apparently in his case it was because he misread a hoax warning from a prominent "skeptic" scientist. Because Rush mistakenly believed he was receiving an endorsed study from a source who was actually trying to warn him against it, I have not included Rush in my comments above.
Addendum: The hoax architect, David Thorpe, posted here about his handiwork ("Within a few hours, the blogosphere was ablaze with the news, and a number of bloggers fell for the scam."). I draw attention to this because Thorpe used as partial proof that his scam had "smoked out" skeptics that "Reason Magazine’ posted the story and then tore it down..."
As the person at Reason who posted it is open about his belief in the man-made global warming theory, he's no skeptic. So an alarmist runs a scam intended to catch skeptics, catches an alarmist, and call that proof he succeeded.
With reasoning power like that, it is no wonder some of these guys believe in the man-made global warming theory...
Think Progress Slams Conservative Bloggers for Citing a Mere Weatherman on Climate Issues, Yet It Cites a Politician Over a Climatologist
The ridiculous Think Progress is slamming John Coleman for expressing his opinion on climate change because -- get this -- Coleman is a just a weatherman:
The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman’s junk science today. Matt Drudge links to NewsBusters’ “marvelous” take on Coleman this morning. Red State [sic], Qando [sic], Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman’s piece.
The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”
Think Progress doesn't believe a mere "weatherman" should speak his mind on climate, but...
...as recently as November 5, Think Progress promoted the climate views of a politician over those of a bona fide climatologist:
This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”
When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...
As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming.
Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.
If conservative bloggers are foolish for citing a mere weatherman on climate issues, what does that make a website that cites a politician?
The headline for the Think Progress piece, by the way, is "Right Wing Trumpets Global Warming Denial Of Discredited ‘TV Weatherman.'" When was Coleman "discredited"?
I'm wondering if the Think Progress staff just made that part up.
Full Disclosure: I cited meterologist John Coleman's remarks yesterday, and would do it again. _____
PepsiCo's political activism is helping to cause elected officials and government bodies (such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors) to call on people not to buy PepsiCo's Aquafina -- America's bestselling brand of bottled water.
DeSmogBlog is attempting to undercut a petition drive by Art Robinson's Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine by reporting that Dr. Frederick Seitz, lead signatory on the petition and a man in his 90s, allegedly was "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational" in 1989, so -- Richard implies -- he couldn't possibly be rational enough 18 years later to sign a letter.
As Richard put it:
18 years ago, Seitz was 'not sufficiently rational' to meet the lenient scientific standards of the tobacco industry, but today, Art Robinson still feels it's ethical to send out a petition over Seitz's signature on one of the most pressing current scientific issues of the day.
Clearly, shame is a concept still unexplored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
The producers of the PBS documentary series Frontline interviewed Dr. Seitz just last year. They not only failed to notice that Dr. Seitz is -- according to Richard -- too senile to even sign a letter, but they had their hands full interviewing him. When Frontline asked Dr. Seitz leading questions, he turned the interview into a debate, and beat them hands down.
Not bad for a guy who can't sign a letter.
As Dr. Seitz told Frontline:
You know, one-third of the public questioned believes that the lunar landing was faked by Hollywood in the Arizona desert. When you have to deal with a population that is at that level, you can expect almost anything, including confusion.
What is Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize based upon? Peyton Knight takes a look:
Al Gore's receipt of the increasingly politicized Nobel Peace Prize comes at a somewhat inconvenient time for the former vice president.
British High Court Judge Michael Burton just scrutinized Mr. Gore's opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," and ruled that it contains multiple scientific errors - errors that make it unsuitable to be presented to school children in England, unless teachers make certain to put Gore's more alarmist claims in their proper political context for students.
According to Judge Burton, "[S]ome of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT [An Inconvenient Truth] in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."
Judge Burton's findings, which he classifies as "The Errors" in the film, are presented below and taken directly from his ruling:
1. 'Error': Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:
"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.
2. 'Error': Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand".
There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.
3. 'Error': Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".
In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor ... At the end of the last ice age ... that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]".
According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.
