Cause of Global Warming Disputed

The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee is currently debating issues concerning pending legislation on carbon emissions and, according to this story in the Washington Times, there is no common agreement on the cause of global warming.

"This research begs an obvious question: If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired power plants and SUVs, what role do man-made emissions play in influencing climate?" asked Chairman James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma.

"I think any person with a modicum of common sense would say, 'Not much,' " Mr. Inhofe said.

The contention of Senator Inhofe is that the proposed legislation is "politically driven" citing the fact that some of the sponsors are running for president and seeking support of environmental groups.

The Democrats stated that evidence for global warming is overwhelming:

"One would have to be madder than a March hare to fail to see the need to act," said Sen. James M. Jeffords, Vermont independent, who Democrats have tapped to be the ranking opposition member on the committee.

Both sides presented their experts who espoused polar opposite opinions. Mr. Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics stated that there is no evidence,

". . . to suggest that either the rate of increase or the duration of warming during the 20th century were greater than in the Medieval Warm Period."

Michael E. Mann, a professor at the University of Virginia, countered by stating that Mr. Soon's study was "unsound" and that global warming "cannot be explained by natural factors but, instead, requires significant ... human influences during the 20th century."

As Chairman and having the most significant individual influence on how the final legislation will look, Senator Inhofe said he is convinced by Mr. Soon's evidence. Therefore, curbs on carbon emissions will probably not be included in the final bill.

My take is twofold. One is that there continues to be a vigorous disagreement among the scientific community as to whether global warming is a natural or man-made phenomenon. Consider this for a moment, there is no scientific consensus. Then consider how many laws, taxes, and restrictions have been imposed when it's not clear that there is a problem that's correctable.

Now consider what these same Democrats have been saying about the President's decision to go to war with Iraq. Although the administration has repeatedly outlined the specific reasons the decision was made, the Democrats continually harp that there was insufficient justification, even implying that reasons were invented.

If one compares these two cases, they are similar in that both the global warming issue and the Iraq war issue require decisions to be made by the leadership. In each case, the decision is simple. Do we do something about it or do we not?

In the case of global warming, we collect all available information and expert opinion and use it to decide because, if we don't, we'll see dramatic negative effects within 50 to 100 years. Based upon no common agreement on publicly available information, the Democrats say we must act now.

In the case of the Iraq war, we collect all available information and expert opinion and use it to decide because, if we don't, we'll see dramatic negative effects within the next week, the next month, or the next year. Based upon public information and secret intelligence data, the Bush administration decided to go to war. The war is over now. The Democrats criticize the administration for acting imprudently and through malfeasance.

Other than politics, it doesn't make much sense to me why the Democrats want a decision to be made now based upon disputed projections of what will happen a hundred years from now, and they criticize President Bush for making a decision that provides immediate benefit to the security of the nation.

Throw in the fact that the environmentally based decisions that have been made have cost real jobs, caused real businesses to fold, and taken real freedoms away from Americans.

Of course, I could be wrong in my thinking and I'd appreciate feedback in that regard.

[Thanks to Curmudgeonly & Skeptical for pointing me to this piece.]