Re: [asa] ESA: Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

From: Lynn Walker <>
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 01:36:13 EST

John Burgeson:* "But whether the IPCC is right -- or not -- we still have
an energy "situation" to challenge us."*
*Cooling Down
*IBD Tuesday, December 02, 2008

*Climate Change:* Policymakers and other busybodies trying to save the
planet will one day learn that, despite all the hype about global warming,
most people are focused on issues that for them are more meaningful.

During economic boom times, developed and developing nations have the luxury
to indulge in meaningless gestures, such as the trendy campaign to beat
global warming.

But when the economy slows and energy costs increase, the people in those
nations become a bit more focused and find that environmental issues might
not be as important as they thought. This evolution of thought can be
tracked by looking at how the public regards global warming now compared
with last year.

A recent survey of 12,000 people across 11 countries commissioned by
financial institution HSBC and environmental groups clearly confirms the

The poll found that only 47% say they are willing to change their lives to
cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, down from 58% last year.
A mere 37% say they are willing to increase the time or effort they put into
cutting carbon emissions. Last year, 45% said they would.

When it comes to finances, people are even more restrained. One in five say
this year that they would be willing to spend more money on the environment
while 28% said the same when the poll was taken in April 2007. Just four in
10 say they are more worried about global warming than they are about the
world economy.

Earthwatch, one of the environmental groups that commissioned the survey,
claims the answers show that consumers would rather governments lead on the
climate change issue. But given the weak support for the Kyoto global
warming protocol ? 27% want their countries to participate in international
emissions-cutting agreements ? and the fact that less than half (48%)
actually say that governments should take the lead role on climate change,
that seems like a shaky proposition.

A better interpretation of the results would be that a world that has been
hammered incessantly by a global warming fear campaign, but which has yet to
see any actual warming, has developed a healthy skepticism. That same world
has also had a good look at the reality of current economic difficulties and
found them more pressing than *speculative* disasters.

No doubt some of those surveyed see the current slump as a forerunner of the
environmentalists' economy, a state of affairs in which the steep cost of
curbing global warming is an economy that is permanently sluggish, and
decided that some misty climate threat is preferable to endless recession.

Consumers, particularly in the U.S., have also been traumatized by
shockingly expensive gasoline. While prices have mercifully receded, the
mark they left on wallets and the fear that they will be driven back up by a
carbon tax is real and legitimate.

Consumers also have been alarmed by Barack Obama's warnings that
environmental policy under his administration would bankrupt any energy
provider that tried to open a new coal-fired power plant, and his promise
that under his greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade plan "electricity
rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Nor are consumers unaware of the costs that a crackdown on carbon dioxide
emissions would have. They might not know the specifics ? millions of jobs
lost and a 1.5% to 4% GDP drop in the EU, 4.9 million jobs and a $400
billion hit on the economy each year in the U.S. to comply with the Kyoto
pact. But they understand that attempts to fight global warming will hit
them in the wallets.

The alarmists are busy this week at a United Nations climate conference in
Poland, making absurd claims that humanity will suffer from increased war,
hunger, disease, catastrophic weather and poverty if global warming is not
brought under control.

But it's clear the world, much like kids who eventually come to understand
that bedtime stories are generally fantasies, has grown wise to the
environmental propaganda.

Read More:* Global Warming *

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, John Burgeson (ASA member) <> wrote:

> On 11/29/08, Rich Blinne <> wrote:
> >
> I'm not sure the data you've shared so far is evidence for GW. Just as
> the data showing temperatures in the US falling is not evidence for
> being anti-GW.
> I keep studying. The issue seems to get more complex the deeper I dig!
> But whether the IPCC is right -- or not -- we still have an energy
> "situation" to challenge us. On that theme,
> is a link to a recent talk on a solution which makes sense to me. Does
> it to you? I think the speaker is somewhat optimistic as to the time
> fram, but not in the long term.
> Burgy
> (blind copies to some)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 3 01:36:53 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 01:36:53 EST