You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International
U.S. Rebuffs Europe at Climate Conference
2004-01-30
Early last month, several Republican senators, House members and aides traveled to Milan, Italy, for the ninth round of international global climate negotiations...
And then the fun began...
NET handed out fliers depicting Inhofe, Senators Larry Craig (R.-Idaho) and Craig Thomas (R.-Wyo.), who were also part of the U.S. delegation, as the "Three Blind Mice." NET accused the senators of doing the bidding of coal and mining interests while ignoring the scientific "consensus" on global warming. "I want to get this framed," Sen. Thomas joked.
C'mon, Senator! Don't take it so blasted seriously!
The senators, along with Representatives Chris Cannon (R.-Utah) and Fred Upton (R.-Mich.), met with several environmental groups, including NET, to discuss energy policy and global warming. Sen. Inhofe asked the groups to explain their energy policy. NET President Phil Clapp avoided the question, providing instead a rambling, confused exposition on U.S. energy policy over the last 30 years.
If you've got nothin', attack the guys who have somethin'...
Sen. Thomas asked, "So what is with you people? You don’t want coal, you don’t want natural gas, you don’t want oil, and now I see you don’t want wind power. How do you propose to fuel the American economy?" Clapp responded by saying that the American economy can be more efficient through greater use of renewable energy (though, apparently, not wind) and that, in fact, EU countries were four times more efficient than the United States. To which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.), another member of the delegation, responded: "You’re telling me that France and Germany, which have double-digit unemployment, and stagnating economies, are more efficient than the U.S.? That’s insanity. It’s just plain wrong. America is the world leader in energy technologies."
Did you ever notice the dearth of people who've ever actually worked for a power company in the environmental organizations who're telling the entire world how to generate power for the next few hundred years? Not knowing something about the subject, one can let one's mind roam through the stars, inventing ideal systems that do wondrous things never seen before. They're not bothered by mundane details like population density, growth patterns, line distances, average usage per hour, peak usage, maintenance requirements... I think of it as the Blavatsky school of technological planning.
The meeting with environmental groups was tame in comparison to a meeting the following day with the European delegation. As Sen. Inhofe explained the U.S. position on Kyoto, EU officials rudely snickered and laughed aloud. "You can laugh and smirk and continue to ignore scientific facts about global warming," Inhofe said, "but by regulating CO2, you’re putting heavy shackles on your economies. You’re hurting the poor in your own countries." To their obvious displeasure, Sen. Inhofe reminded the Europeans that, according to their own Environment Ministry, only two EU countries will meet their Kyoto targets. "So you’re burdening your economies, and for what?," he asked. "Sen. Inhofe, we’re not like the U.S.," said an official from the Netherlands. "We have a conscience about how we grow our economies. We realize there are limits."
"In fact, we're imposing them on ourselves!"
"Well, that certainly explains why I don’t see much growing over there," responded Sen. Thomas. "In America," Sen. Sessions said, "we have the ingenuity to both protect our environment and grow our economy." At one point, Sen. Inhofe asked the EU delegation if they were interested in discussing the latest science of global warming. He was rebuffed, as the official from the Netherlands, with a whiff of disdain, said that the science was settled—human beings, through fossil fuel emissions, are causing it. His evidence? "I can only skate on my pond three months out of the year. Years ago, it was 5 and 6 months."
Years from now it might be 8 or 9 months. Don't forget the prospect of nuclear winter...
"Excuse me, sir, but that’s not science," Inhofe said. "That’s an anecdote."
Yeah, but that's all he's got...
In a panel discussion titled "Beyond Kyoto," a French official said, "Don’t worry about precise emissions levels." It’s important, he said, to "just take into account our ambition to address this problem."
"Intentions are much more important than results!"
Perhaps the most interesting viewpoint came from a Swiss panelist, who at one point said global climate policy is really about "promoting social and economic equality."
"Think of it as a social engineering tool..."
According to a seminar held later in the day by the UN Development Programme, Kyoto, according to panelists, is really about promoting gender equality. A panelist from Sweden said that gender equality "is good for the environment because men and women have an equal footing in making environmental decisions."
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. And has nothing to do with the subject purportedly under discussion...
A gender specialist from the UN called for "paradigm shifts" in global warming policy, and by that she meant that energy policies and technologies "must be responsive to gender" and must be made "from a gender perspective." And further, she stated that gender equality must be "the core organizing principle for energy policy."
Likewise, if your garage door is stuck halfway down, you've got to be "responsive to gender" while trying to get it unstuck. And I long ago made sure that gender equality was the core organizing principle for broiling lamb chops.
Finally, after promoting social and economic equality and gender equity, conference participants meandered to the global climate fashion show, where proud members of the international community unveiled a new "climate symbol." As the emcee shouted into the microphone, "We want to make the climate symbol a fashion accessory!!"
Knock y'rself out, Bub.
After the conference, Sen. Inhofe said, "We need to look into this whole process. This is an industry of UN bureaucrats feeding off the American taxpayer. It’s outrageous."
As long as the money's flowing, there'll always be somebody standing there with a bucket.
Posted by:Super Hose

#29  Me too Shipman, can you believe it!? Rantburg U indeed.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-1-30 11:55:56 PM  

#28  SH, not much pointin posting further comments on this article, my dog can write better than that (she's very talented), and fyi, I'm not a compatriot. I was just pointing out that the article cannot be considered serious unbiased journalism, but rather a rant/opinion piece by someone who is not able to provide a critical analysis of the issues. In other words, it's crap.
Posted by: Igs   2004-1-30 11:39:20 PM  

#27  Hell Phil.... rant on I'm listening.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-30 7:20:30 PM  

#26  From the first link in post #25

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century.''

Increased?? I am astonished a reputable scientist would say this. I can only assume he said 'altered' and the journalist doctored it.

Here is another dubious quote:

But the AGU did suggest that continuing scientific research "provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences."

Any reputable scientist should know about the 'future knowledge problem' That is you can not make preictions about what future research will tell you. Future research may well conclude that we can mitigate the effects of climate change by 'increased human influences'.

I'll avoid a major rant on the subject but this stuff drives me nuts!!!!
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-30 7:08:10 PM  

#25  I've read The Skeptical Environmentalist and some of the others who poke holes in the science. Key problem is trying to use limited time-series data to validate models that have lots of assumptions about a natural system with lots of possible feedback loops and layering on top another set of assumptions about what the impacts are going to be of human societies a 100 years from now. Latest relatively non-partisan statement from some US scientists is that some warming is going on and that it is likely that at least some of it is human induced. Note that this is not the same thing as saying it is mostly due to CO2 or that the dooms day scenarios are likely. Also note that there are some opportunities to control the release of methane that are more likely to be a win-win rather than trying to control CO2. Here are some links if you are interested. Knock yourselves out.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=science

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen.pdf

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/castleshendersonresponse.pdf
Posted by: Larry   2004-1-30 5:29:36 PM  

#24  DPA is generally correct, but with one important correction - WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE NOW. and have been for well over a million years. The last 11.5k years have been what is called an inter-glacial where the ice-sheets temporarily recede and based on past data is due to end around now.

Chemist is also right that the last 150 years have been notable for a lack of climate change. and a resonable case can be made that CO2 emissions may have in fact delayed the end of the inter-glacial. And note that we have no real idea why ice ages and inter-glacials occur in the first place. If CO2 emissions have delayed the end of the inter-glacial then it would be a truly amazing piece of good fortune. A return to the ice age proper would cause deaths on a scale never seen before. Literally billions of people would die! The year without a summer that occured around 1880 gives a flavor of what would happen when many died of famine in northern countries.

The not inconsiderable irony about Kyoto is that global warming were it to happen would be generally beneficial.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-30 5:11:15 PM  

#23  DPA is generally correct, but with one important correction - WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE NOW. and have been for well over a million years. The last 11.5k years have been what is called an inter-glacial where the ice-sheets temporarily recede and based on past data is due to end around now.

Chemist is also right that the last 150 years have been notable for a lack of climate change. and a resonable case can be made that CO2 emissions may have in fact delayed the end of the inter-glacial. And note that we have no real idea why ice ages and inter-glacials occur in the first place. If CO2 emissions have delayed the end of the inter-glacial then it would be a truly amazing piece of good fortune. A return to the ice age proper would cause deaths on a scale never seen before. Literally billions of people would die! The year without a summer that occured around 1880 gives a flavor of what would happen when many died of famine in northern countries.

The not inconsiderable irony about Kyoto is that global warming were it to happen would be generally beneficial.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-30 5:11:14 PM  

#22  DPA, actually from all the data I have seen, the 20th century had a mostly flat change in temperature with a few statistically insignificant changes. It may be that we are headed for a new ice age unless humanity can unlock enough CO2 to prevent it. As someone once wrote (paraphrase) "It may turn out that humanity is not the Earth's equivalent of a virus, but that humanity IS Earth's equivalent of an immune system."
Posted by: Chemist   2004-1-30 4:10:54 PM  

#21  "I bet red-neck women know how to jump start a car or truck with a dead battery."

They drive straight shifts and park on a hill... it's in the bloodline. And yes the good ones are spoken for.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-30 4:02:09 PM  

#20  The environmentalists' search for political power is sickening.
1."Don’t worry about precise emissions levels.....just take into account our ambition to address this problem."
Same as the pilot who remarked, "I'm flying at Mach 1.5 and all my NAVAIDS are out so I don't know where I'm headed, but I'm not worried because I'm making great time." Do these people get paid for what they do?

2....energy policies and technologies must be made "from a gender perspective."
A friend from Florida just told me how he had helped two ladies get a car started, then remarked, "I bet red-neck women know how to jump start a car or truck with a dead battery." See? Redneck husbands already have a gender based energy policy--'Let the old lady start her own damn truck'.
Posted by: Gasse Katze   2004-1-30 3:23:25 PM  

#19  I am IMPRESSED. Let's get rid of the State Dept. and simply send a few Republican (no Boniors or McDurmots, please) Congressmen.
Posted by: Jackal   2004-1-30 2:10:01 PM  

#18  I thought it was cow farts (or is that burps) that was doing it.

I think it's the sheep in New Zealand.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-1-30 1:52:18 PM  

#17  Appreciate the feedback y'all. Good info.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-1-30 1:29:57 PM  

#16  And Sweden's pushing gender equality is kind of suspect after the animal sex article yesterday.

EEEWWWWWW!
Posted by: Anonymous2U   2004-1-30 1:19:20 PM  

#15  --"We want to make the climate symbol a fashion accessory!!"--

And use up more of the earth's precious resources (which I want to protect) so I can make MONEY!
Posted by: Anonymous2U   2004-1-30 1:17:58 PM  

#14  As much as I'd like to post a "thumbs up" for Inhofe, Thomas and Craig, I find the source dubious. It really IS written like an opinion piece.

I find it hard to believe that the LLLs would expose their true motives so loudly during such a conference; another reason to doubt this article.

Oh, and for those of you wanting good, rational analysis of the environmental question, try "The State of Humanity" by the late great Julian Simon.
Posted by: Unmutual   2004-1-30 1:11:48 PM  

#13  Jarhead, actually we're LONG overdue for our next ice age. Ice ages last 1 hundred thousand years and then go into periods of relative warmth (like now) that last a few thousand years. The normal state of the planet over the last 500,000 years has been ice age with a few short periods of warmth. We have been out of the ice age for 11,000 years... 8,000 years overdue for the next one... based on the last 4 that all had warm periods of about 3,000 years. It has been hypothesized that organized farming by civilization that started about 9,500 years released CO2 and modified our cycle to allow for an extension of the warm period. In other words... it might be that by cutting back on green house gases we could force ourselves into another ice age. The point is that no one knows and anyone who says they do and tries to preach what should be done is completely full of sh-t.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-1-30 12:09:48 PM  

#12  Here's a link to one critical review of the underlying science behind Kyoto. The website supports a paper that was published last year which essentially says that errors in the seminal paper underlying Kyoto (Mann, et al) were directly responsible for its conclusions. It's especially interesting (to me, anyway) because it reveals the process underlying the science -- including communications between the authors and Mann himself.
Posted by: snellenr   2004-1-30 12:04:31 PM  

#11  Jarhead, we are in the process of getting our environment "un-fucked". Levels of every airborne pollutant measured by the EPA have dropped in the past 30 years. Example: Ambient levels of airborne lead have dropped by 99% since 1970. In some parts of the country, the air is cleaner today than at any other time in the past century. Ditto for the streams, rivers and lakes in the US (just ask old-timers in Cleveland about the Cuyahoga river).

Part of the reason for your wife being unable to eat tuna is not because there is more mercury in the tuna, but because we are more aware of the negative effects of low levels of mercury. Our instruments are much better at detecting low levels of chemicals in food, and we have much greater understanding of the risks of those low levels. In reality, you and your wife live in a far cleaner environment today than your parents did some 40 years ago.
Posted by: Captain Holly   2004-1-30 11:34:28 AM  

#10  Sorry for mispelling Kyoto. I tried to search using my own spelling. My search proved fruitless. The point of the search was to provide a link to the posting on Australia's Animal Fart Tax from back in June. It's worth a read for those having a bad day.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-30 11:31:58 AM  

#9  Jarhead, there is a physicist at GMU that has lead the call for independent confirmation of the science behind global warming. I have his name at home but am drawing a blank here at work. He has pointed out that at the convention where Koyoto was drafted, there were several hundred experts in hard science that offered input. Many disagreements were had, and a compromise draft was prepared agreeing to areas for further study. After the majority of the scientists left the compromise was redrafted and signed by 80 or so participants in the conference (not a standard procedure for scienctific conferences).

Unfortunately, the remaining 80 had a specific agenda that they were pushing and few of the 80 had expertice inhard scientists. Many of the signatories are, in fact, doctors but hold their doctorates in political science and economics. They were, basically, a collection of Social Engineers who saw global warming as a way to level the playing field between the 1st and 3rd worlds.
The JMU physicist is actually an enviromentalist who drives a Prius and everything. His belief that we are neglecting other important ecological problems like damage to the ocean and improper solid waste disposal as we chase the Global Warming specter. He points out that if man made emmisions are causing Global Warming, then we need to take effective action to curtail emmissions throughout the world not just in the 1st world. For example, uncontrolled emmisions in industrializing Indonesia are much more dangerous than carefully controlled emmissions in the US or UK.
I share his beliefs, due to a bunch of mumbo jumbo that I won't list here. Like you I would like to see available research cash used to make tuna safe to eat, because, damn it, I like to have a tuna steak now and again.

Here is a link to another example of UN Social Engineering that doesn't address the root cause. Kofi Anan wants European countries to open their borders to people fleeing poor economic conditions in Africa. Like our problems with Mexico, the resolution never addresses fixing the socialist or other form of kleptocracy that the folks are fleeing. For instance, if I wanted to found an economically prosperous country from scratch, I would locate it in Mexico before founding a country in the US. Annan attacks forterss Europe over migrants.


I now reliquish the digital microphone to our compatriot IGS, who, no doubt intends to do some ranting of his own - all of which will be based on solid facts. Take it away IGS. ZZZzzzz
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-30 11:23:36 AM  

#8  How'd a buncha post-modernist idjits get into the conference in the first place?

Oh, wait...
Posted by: mojo   2004-1-30 11:01:37 AM  

#7  First: attaboy, Senators! Finally we got a day's work for their day's pay.

a French official said, "Don’t worry about precise emissions levels." It’s important, he said, to "just take into account our ambition to address this problem."

Translation: as long as our hearts are in the right place, who cares what happened to our brains?

mjh: I have read The Skeptical Environmentalist and he makes a good case. Not perfect but a welcome balance to the argument. By the way, could you embed links in the future? Just pasting them throws Fred's formatting off. Thanx.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-1-30 10:18:47 AM  

#6  Is this article a joke? Whoever wrote this must still be in primary school. I'm not saying that there aren't some feral green organisations pushing their own agenda however this is written in a away that alludes at these saintly senators far away from home being confronted by some ogres. It's pathetic jurnalism. I'm sure the point could have been made in a rather more professional manner. While I don't buy leftwing propaganda bullshit, this is a perfect example of the other extreme.
Posted by: Igs   2004-1-30 10:13:34 AM  

#5  C'mon... this is really Scrappleface, isn't it? I mean, real humans with any self respect wouldn't really say things like, she meant that energy policies and technologies "must be responsive to gender" and must be made "from a gender perspective", would they (But if so, I'm sure American male pollution is much more offensive than the average female pollution)??

Just in case this actually happened, a BIG SHOUT OUT to the good U.S. Senators for resisting Eurobabble and telling it like it is...

"Don’t worry about precise emissions levels. "It’s important, he said, to "just take into account our ambition to address this problem."

Pathetic, yet strangely entertaining!

CF: I am a good global citizen because I have installed a cattlitic converter on my cow's orifices:)
Posted by: Hyper   2004-1-30 9:58:11 AM  

#4  human beings, through fossil fuel emissions, are causing it.
I thought it was cow farts (or is that burps) that was doing it.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-1-30 9:15:19 AM  

#3  I recommend The Skeptical Environmentalist as a good read on this. Note: I have not read it myself. But, it' interesting because the Danish (?) scientist who wrote it set out in his research to prove that global warming was a result of greenhouse gas, but he was surprised to find that the data did not support that conclusion. Of course, because there are so many foundations and research budgets riding on the tautology that emissions are bad and must be cut, that his book was roundly criticized by the mainstream scientific community.

Link
Posted by: mjh   2004-1-30 8:56:39 AM  

#2  Someone should tell Hans Brinker that if the global warming kooks are right he'll soon be able to strap on his silver skates and and fly down the salt water canals just like his greatgreatgrand dad did. (In the so called little ice age)
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-30 8:14:46 AM  

#1  Interesting article SH. Many of the articles I read dealing w/global warming seem to suggest that the earth is going to warm up to a degree by the mere fact that we're still coming out of an ice age. I would say that this warming prolly has been exacerbated somewhat by fossil fuel emissions. It would be helpful to get a truly independent non-partisan scientific group together to do more studies. I don't know enough about the Kyoto fine print to say whether or not we're doing the right thing for the USA. I will say though, being an avid outdoorsmen and a staunch conservationist we need to get our own water systems, wetlands, and air un-fucked. When my wife can't eat tuna more then once a week when she's pregnant because the mercury levels are too high, I'd say there's a definite problem we need to fix.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-1-30 7:10:58 AM  

00:00