"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
President-elect Barack Obama delivered a videotaped message this morning to a climate change summit convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and declared that, "Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
Really?
With our economy on the brink, our dollar weak and getting weaker, with the violence on our Southern Borders out of control and worsening, with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our free markets and civil liberties under fire. How does Climate Change make the top of the list?
Oh, right. The science is "settled" and we're all going to die if we don't act now.
At least that is what we are being told, over and over again by President Elect Obama and the leaders of the "green" movement.
But, is it true?
Considering the enormously unprecedented financial commitments being pushed by the Alarmist crowd and promised by our newly elected leaders in Washington, I think that that question demands an answer BEFORE we "act". Don't you?
I mean, obviously there are changes happening in our environment. But, do we really know why its happening or what is causing the changes?
Do we really fully know what, if anything, we can do about it?
Why is the soon-to-be 'leader of the free world' jumping the gun, declaring the science "beyond dispute" when science is NEVER "beyond dispute". Through-out history the scientific community has proven itself to be at best an imperfect practice that is constantly changing and altering its opinion based on new information?
I give you, Exhibit A:
During the 1970's, the scientific community, as well as the international media, frantically warned of the impending doom over the 'global Cooling' trend and the likelihood of another Ice Age. Many in the scientific community urged Congress to act quickly to avoid disaster with proposed solutions such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot, or diverting the arctic rivers. (Both of which would have proven to be catastrophic.)
In 1975, an article printed in Newsweek concerning the Cooling "crisis" stated:
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.
Sound Familiar?
Before I go any further let me make myself clear. I am not, in any way, saying that we should ignore scientific discovery, nor that we should negate the information those discoveries bring us. On the contrary. I am merely pointing out the painfully obvious truth that "Scientific fact" is subject to human error and evolution. This is why I believe that in order to find the most accurate Scientific conclusions, we must employ a patient observation of ALL points of fact. Every legitimate, factually based opinion must be considered and taken into account, and fear must NOT be a factor when forming a solution. History demonstrates this as well.
Unfortunately, this has not been the formula applied to form the current "consensus" concerning Climate Change.
In our current politically charged and agenda driven public arena's, anyone who challenges the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the most venomous insults and character assassinations. This form of retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming among the consensus crowd. Many reputable scientists and professionals have been bullied, harassed, and intimidated into submission or even black-listed into exile for "getting out of line".
Thankfully however, some are willing to weather the storm of vicious attacks to speak out concerning the many discrepancies, missing pieces, and flat out falsehoods in the "consensus" data.
One such brave soul is Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. In an interview for ABC National Radio, Marohasy was asked, "Is the earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years." Pointing out that those facts are not even in controversy, she went on to say, "The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
I know, I know. She is just one person against the entire Scientific community, right?
Wrong.
In March of this year more than 500 leading scientists, economists, and other experts on global warming gathered in New York for the International Conference on Climate Change. A conference devoted to finding "answers for the questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
The 2008 conference featured presentations by more than 100 prominent scientists and economists from the U.S. and around the world, including Dr. Robert Balling (Arizona State University), Dr. Stanley Goldenberg (NOAA), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University), Dr. Yuri Izrael (IPCC), Dr. Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr. Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris), Dr. S. Fred Singer (Science and Environmental Policy Project), Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), and Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA).
During the opening remarks of the conference, Joseph L. Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based industry-funded think tank, said, "We’re asking questions such as: how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend? How much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?" "How reliable" he continued, "are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? And is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change? Obviously, these are important questions. Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them."
Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream?
Not quite.
A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans vonStorch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found that 82% said global warming is happening, but only 56% said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only 35% said models can accurately predict future climate conditions. Of those surveyed, only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.”
That’s a long ways from “consensus.”
More damning still is that there isn’t even consensus among the IPCC. While it is true that there are about 2,500 scientists in the IPCC as a whole, only about 600 of those scientists are part of Working Group I (WG I), the sub-committee that actually comments on the causes and severity of climate change. Of those 600, only 62 reviewed and commented on the critical chapter that attributes climate change to so-called “greenhouse gases” generated by human activity. Norrowing it down even further, 55 of those 62 had a vested interest (by organizational or research ties) in producing the “right” answer.
A few of the scientists originally listed on the IPCC report went as far as having their name removed after reading the final report and finding it to be misleading.
Global warming is often presented as a liberal-conservative issue. It’s not. It’s a science vs. propaganda issue and, despite what a bunch of radicals with an agenda preach, the real scientists have real doubts that mankind has much to do with the changes in climate at all.
Most skeptics do not dismiss greenhouse gases as a possible cause of global warming outright. Nor should they. But their objective approach is a far cry from the sheer panic one finds in the IPCC report's Summary for Policymakers that Al Gore and his disciples quote so frequently. There is a big difference between continued attention to a theory, and a mad rush to alter the world’s energy supply before we are swept away by a wall of water or devoured by homeless polar bears.
Listen, I am an advocate for clean air, clean water, and protecting this beautiful planet that we've been given. I strongly support conservation and developing clean and efficient forms of renewable energy. But the transitions must be thoughtfully planned, carefully implemented, and our motivations must in the right place.
If we carelessly rush to pass massive new legislation that would impose major financial burdens to this already weakened economy by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem we know very little about, it would be more than fool-hearty. It would reek of ulterior motives.
With that said, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the corporations and individuals who are pushing the hardest for the Kyoto protocol, Cap and Trade (which turns Carbon, a naturally occurring gas, into a commodity to be capped, bought and sold), and immediate reduction in fossil fuels among other proposed "solutions", those same folks stand to profit the most from the transitions. A perfect example of this is Mr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore. Though he has never had to prove one word of the dooms day rhetoric he espouses (most of which has been debunked by ACTUAL scientists as false or misleading), Al Gore has made over $100 million dollars since the 2006 release of his "documentary", 'An Inconvenient Truth'. This a man who is a lawyer, a business man, and a Politician (I didn't see Scientist or Meteorologist in there, did you?) leading the charge for global warming alarmism, yet he stands to potentially make billions through an ownership stake in Generation Investment Management, a corporation he co-founded in 2004. GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming.
Can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen, make that penthouse.
Roger Pielke Jr., an associate professor of environmental studies and the former director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, commented concerning Mr. Gore: "As I have said on many occasions, I am neither surprised nor too concerned that a politician would stretch the facts to advance his political agenda. What concerns me is that many scientists have been complicit in advancing such mischaracterizations and remain selectively mute when they are made. In this manner, a large portion of the mainstream climate science community has taken on the unfortunate characteristics of politicians like Mr. Gore, deciding to uphold scientific standards only when politically convenient. This is one way how science becomes pathologically politicized."
So when I hear my newly elected President, Barack Obama, declare that "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." When he confidently warns that, "Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season." When he arrogantly proclaims that, "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious." I can't help but wonder.
Who is on the fringe? The skeptics or the Alarmists?
Transition: Odds are improving that President Obama will name Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. It's an unexpected move and not without risk. But she brings significant strengths and might just be a solid choice
During the primary campaign, Sen. Clinton was the first candidate to call attention to the naivete of Obama's foreign policy approach. When asked at a debate if they would negotiate with dictators without precondition in the first year of administration, Obama said he would, and Clinton said she wouldn't.
Then she pointed out the pitfalls: "I think it is not that you promise a meeting at a high level before you know what the intentions are," she said. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a bad situation even worse." Dictators would get no teas at the White House "until we know better what the way forward would be," the former first lady said.
Such prudent thinking not only won over her audience that night, it may have won over Obama too. As the campaign wore on, he moved his position closer to hers. Now, he may be asking her to be in charge of foreign policy.
Clinton's pragmatic toughness could be a significant asset to the Obama administration. There are other good candidates for the top diplomatic spot, including Sen. Richard Lugar and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But Clinton's no lightweight.
She is an experienced politician, and as first lady had a close advisory role to her husband in the 1990s. Her experience on the Senate Committee on Armed Services is another plus. She's no area expert, to be sure, but she's traveled to 80 countries on assorted junkets over the years, and definitely knows the players, an asset of comparable value.
What's more, her trips to seldom-visited places in India, Africa, the Balkans and Latin America have created goodwill in large swaths of the world, including the U.S. Witness the support she got from Latino voters during the primaries.
For all of the gaffes and prevarications associated with her travels at various times, the broad reality is that Mrs. Clinton is well-known and popular abroad, and that's an obvious advantage in diplomacy.
Last but not least, a Secretary of State Clinton would represent continuity, which, in the midst of Obama's change agenda, would be especially valuable in foreign affairs. U.S. policy is inherently bipartisan and turns slowly, like an ocean liner. Friendly allies like the assurances of continuity. Enemies take notice that the window to pull a fast one is not open. That clarity serves U.S. interests abroad.
It's also fair to say, however, that the choice of Clinton for State carries some risk. Her husband now runs a $300 million foundation that supposedly focuses on philanthropy. But its most visible activity is schmoozing with world leaders, through the Clinton Global Initiative, amounting to basically a private diplomacy that promises access to the real kind.
The former president isn't disclosing his big-money donors, some of whom have been named in the press as oppressive Gulf sheikhs and businessmen who seem to have benefited from his connections to corrupt satrapies.
He is within his rights. But the connection to power is as obvious as it is questionable. To his donors, the prospect of Bill Clinton's wife in the foreign policy chair could be like the pop of a can opener at a cat farm. Perhaps a moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, on donations to the foundation would create a partial firewall against influence-peddling.
The Obama team will need something along these lines to inspire confidence. The Clintons are not known for self-restraint in their foreign connections, whether Saudi or Chinese. Another soap opera of Clintonian scandals in foreign affairs would ill serve Obama and the country.
Mrs. Clinton also remains ambitious and could be a bit of a self-dealer. There's speculation in political circles about how her appointment would affect her positioning for the next election, making her more or less likely to run.
But on the whole, if she focuses solely on the job, she has real potential to do good work for the next president. She's tough. She knows the players, she grasps national security and she's popular. If she is named, let's hope that her strengths will shine through, and the country will be served first.
Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of "change," but one change the president-elect may be planning on - not deploying a US missile defense in Eastern Europe - would be a big mistake.
Indeed, it's exactly the type of about-face that nations like Russia, Iran and North Korea hope for from the incoming administration.
Worse, it will likely be seen abroad as knuckling to Russian bullying.
Two weeks ago, just a day after the US elections, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a virulently anti-American speech - his first major address since taking office this spring and arguably the first foreign "test" of the president-elect.
Amid other ranting, Medvedev demanded that the United States back off on its planned missile-defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.
If the deployment goes ahead, Medvedev warned, Moscow will place short-range missiles in Kaliningrad - a Russian enclave nestled between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.
A few days after the Medvedev speech, a senior Obama aide came out after a phone call between the president-elect and Polish President Lech Kaczynski saying that Obama had "made no commitment on" missile defense.
Ugh. That's not a certain retreat by Washington in the face of Moscow's threats, but it's a very troubling start for the Obama team on a key national-security issue.
Going wobbly caused heartburn in Warsaw and Prague, where both governments went to the mat to get approval for the missile-defense deal - and glee in Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang. What rogue doesn't love a whiff of wobbliness?
And the stakes rose just days later, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia is now in talks to deploy missiles in Belarus, which could be bore-sighted on targets across Europe.
(Belarus' motive? It's probably looking for Russian help on energy supplies and financial credits - or, if Europe wants to bribe it to reject the missiles, for an easing of EU economic sanctions imposed over human-rights issues.)
The next step in this ongoing lesson for the president-elect came Friday - when French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a halt to European missile defense until more talks can be held.
Sarkozy's words, at a European Union-Russia summit, were a clear sop to fellow attendee Medvedev - at the expense of the United States and the president-elect. (Shamefully, the EU is re-engaging Russia despite Moscow's failure to meet the EU six-point peace plan for Georgia.)
But the issue isn't just bullying - there's the policy, too. This system is designed to defend against the Iranian missile and nuclear threat - which is growing fast.
Just last week, Tehran tested a two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile - whose 1,200-mile range would let it hit all of the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe.
If reports of the Iranian test are true, this would be Tehran's first successful test of a multistage rocket - which would put it on track for launching missiles to ever-increasing ranges, including intercontinental distances. The test also showed advances in Iran's basic rocketry science, moving beyond liquid fuels to a more reliable solid-fuel rocket motor.
The last thing we need is to look "soft" on Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
North Korea's leadership, meanwhile, would also be tickled pink over the demise of a missile-defense initiative - which can only add to the value of their nuclear and missile programs.
Let's be clear: We're talking about missile defense here - systems meant to protect our homeland, our allies and friends and US troops against offensive threats.
The Bush administration decided that leaving us deliberately vulnerable was foolish - and has moved to deploy systems against an array of missile threats.
And rightly so: In a dog-eat-dog world, any power that seems weak invites provocation, blackmail, coercion or even aggression.
Missile defense gives policy makers choices beyond massive retaliation - and is one of our few reasonable options to protect ourselves and our interests against the growing threat of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
For Obama to give in to Russian threats wouldn't just make him look weak in the eyes of our enemies and friends; it would weaken America's security, too.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The United States government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy, President-elect Barack Obama said in a television interview that aired on Sunday.
Obama, a Democrat who takes over from President George W. Bush, a Republican, on January 20, said consensus had emerged between economists in both major U.S. political parties that expensive measures were necessary to avoid a deep recession.
"The consensus is this, that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we have to -- we're going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy," he told the CBS television network's 60 Minutes news program.
"And (consensus is) that we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after; that short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession."
During his presidential campaign Obama pledged to fund all of his policy proposals, but the severity of the economic downturn has made balancing the budget a low priority as the government takes measures to stimulate economic growth.
Obama said the $700 billion bailout bill passed by the U.S. Congress had helped stem the financial crisis, even though the $300 billion already spent may not have had visibly positive effects.
"I think ... part of the way to think about it is things could be worse. I mean, we could have seen a lot more bank failures over the last several months," he said.
"We could have seen an even more rapid deterioration of the economy-- even a bigger drop in the stock market. So part of what we have to measure against is what didn't happen and not just what has happened."
Obama, who has made revamping U.S. energy policy a key goal once he's in the White House, said falling gasoline prices did not make the issue any less critical.
"Gas prices at the pump go up, everybody -- goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly -- we act like it's not important," he said.
"As a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it."
