Wow! Climate issue civilly debated

Amazingly enough there was an actual debate on global warming the other night. True, Al Gore and his followers in “The Church Of Global Warming” are loath to debate the subject. But some of us yearning for knowledge, so that we might make up our own minds, were able to listen to actual dialogue at a Centennial Institute forum sponsored by Colorado Christian University on April 8. On one side, there was the esteemed Professor James White of the University of Colorado in Boulder. He believes that man has grown to the point where we actually have the ability to change most anything on the planet: That does include the climate. He showed us some very impressive charts, most of which we have seen. He did include the warming that has occurred since the 1970s, but did not really address the cooling that has occurred in the last 10 years. He did do a very good job of explaining the science behind “Greenhouse Gases.”

The most notable part of White's presentation was his acknowledgement that while he does believe mankind has contributed to Global Warming, he is not sure it is wise to actually change the climate or to make major economic dislocations to mitigate “the problem.”

On the other side, we listened to the fast-talking and self entertained Mr. Christopher Horner. He is a noted author and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. Mr. Horner spent much of his time noting the past occurrences of Global Climate Change, that occurred before humankind had any influence. He accurately noted how there have been times in the past where Carbon Dioxide levels were much higher than today.

A great deal of time was spent on how there has actually been cooling for the past ten years. I felt Horner could have spent more time on the fact that NONE of the climate change models predicted this, and how convenient it is that no one is talking about this issue. To his credit, he did address the issue of how much of the discussion about “Global Warming” is political.

Overall, the fact that two people willing to have a rational, open discussion entertained us made it a very enjoyable and informative evening. However, I would like to tackle two of the issues I felt were not really addressed.

1. How “Cap ‘N Trade” is really nothing other than a massive tax transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations. Other than increasing taxes, there will be no real reduction in Carbon Dioxide or any real effect on the climate.

2. There really needs to be a discussion about how we address energy independence while we create alternative energy sources. Yes we need to get away from burning carbon, but that will take many years. What are we to do in the meanwhile; continue to send our hard earned dollars to people that hate us or want to kill us? How about create a whole new energy source like Hydrogen Power? Not only could we stop using oil and gas, but we would also create a whole new set of industries that we would own, we would control and we could sell to the rest of the world.

I guess here is where the wise guy in me comes out; I have a saying, that where government, science and actual discussion are concerned, why anyone would actually expect the right thing to be done. That is where we are today for the most part.

Wednesday's discussion was an excellent start. More of this needs to be undertaken. It is only when people talk, debate and listen that creative solutions can be achieved. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not believe for one second that the debate about Global Warming, or Climate Change as they are calling it now, is over. It is not. It is only over if we the citizens don’t stand up and speak out. Otherwise, it will be over and we will all pay dearly for something that we have no control over.

2.

'Responsibility' vs. 'Do no harm'

Climatologist James White debated author and attorney Christopher Horner on policy responses to global warming, April 8 at the Lakewood Cultural Center, in the debut event of the Centennial Institute distinguished speaker series at Colorado Christian University. Interest from the campus community and metro Denver friends of CCU was high, with attendance of about 400 overflowing the 300-seat auditorium. "Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?" was the topic for an hour-long exchange between White, who directs a research center at CU-Boulder, and Horner, whose book Red Hot Lies alleges unfounded alarmism about CO2 emissions. The adversaries were respectful but forceful with their dueling slideshows. Audience questions continued past the scheduled hour of adjournment. If you'd like a DVD of the whole event, click here to request ordering information.

White insisted human activity is massively and adversely modifying the biosphere, but he stopped short of the doomsaying often heard from the Al Gore camp. People will get by even if warming worsens, he said, but we should take climate change as a warning to lighten our footprint -- "training wheels for sustainability." Change on earth is natural, he said, and that includes human-caused change -- "but unlike bacteria, we can control our actions. We can tell right from wrong, we have a sense of responsibility. What is our responsibility to the Earth?"

But Horner said that Obama's energy tax as contained in the cap and trade legislation before Congress violates the principle of "First do no harm." With 155 countries already signaling non-cooperation on carbon emissions, he said, stringent efforts by the US will have negligible impact on warming trends "while leaving us less well-off economically to deal with what's coming anyway."

If climate activists were serious about reducing carbon, he taunted, they would start with clean green nuclear power, not a job-killing tax. Further evidence that they are not serious, Christopher Horner noted, is in a 1991 strategy memo by Club of Rome which said in order to advance their no-growth agenda, "new enemies have to be identified [and] the threat of global warming fit the bill."

"Man has always adapted, and wealthier societies adapted best," Horner asserted in his closing argument. "Access to energy, not energy poverty," will position us to cope with whatever is ahead, another of his slides stated. For a future that may be literally more stormy than today, he pointed out, you'd rather live in affluent Florida than destitute Bangladesh. So the prescription is policies making all the world more like Florida and less like Bangladesh -- exactly opposite to the Kyoto agenda.

Centennial Institute Fellow Kevin Miller, an Aurora entrepreneur, commented afterward: "Can one begin to imagine such a debate being sponsored, let alone tolerated, on the CU-Boulder campus? That's the niche CCU is claiming with its new institute and thoughtful programs like this one."

John Andrews, institute director and former Colorado Senate President, joked that the event avoided being snowed out, only to be blacked out. The evening's mild weather put to rest worries about the "Al Gore jinx" of several recent warming conference, but the debate was ignored by mainstream media. For example, said Andrews, editors at Channel 7 for some reason didn't feel this fit their upcoming series on green issues, while the Denver Post environment reporter avowed Horner's presence made this occasion "not a debate... not news."

But CCU and the Centennial Institute shrugged it off. "Our two nationally-known experts on climate science and climate policy seemed to think it was a debate," said Andrews. "So did a century-old local university. So did our capacity crowd of several hundred open-minded Coloradans. If the MSM choose to be close-minded about this, it's really their problem, not ours."

Attend climate debate 4/8

Centennial Institute, Colorado Christian University’s public policy think tank, invites you to attend a debate on “Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?” James White of CU-Boulder says yes. Christopher Horner of CEI in Washington says no. They will face off at 730pm on Wednesday, April 8, at the Lakewood Cultural Center, 470 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO. The two sides on global warming don’t often directly engage, so this will be a notable occasion for civic dialogue. Tickets are free but space is limited. Click here for reservations. Then read below for details.

The Issue

The Kyoto Agenda to address alleged global warming is contained in the 1997 treaty of that name which has been ratified by 183 countries – but not the United States. The agenda involves overall reduction of worldwide carbon emissions by about 5% from 1990 levels. The proposed cap-and-trade bill in Congress is President Obama's response to the Kyoto Agenda. Proponents warn of catastrophic harm to ecosystems and human civilization if Kyoto is not implemented quickly and fully. Opponents argue that implementing Kyoto would hurt the poor by slowing economic growth while only negligibly reducing temperature increases (if any; they cite data that global cooling has begun). What does the data say? What should be done?

The Forum

Two nationally respected scholars on global climate issues – Dr. James White, Director of INSTAAR at University of Colorado-Boulder, and Christopher Horner, Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. – will debate this important topic. The Kyoto question is not often argued head-to-head as a result of former Vice President Al Gore and other proponents insisting the time for discussion is over; the time for action is now. The Centennial Institute and CCU, as seekers of truth, believe that free inquiry and debate in human affairs are never out of order. Our April 8 forum is offered in that spirit.

The debate is open to the public and free of charge, but space is limited. to reserve seats for the debate call 303-963-3424 or e-mail Centennial@ccu.edu.

Three threats to our liberties from BHO

After considering Obama's campaign promises and policy statements, one can make these disturbing prognostications. They are related and inescapable if we are to believe what the President-elect and Democratic Leadership claim as their goals. I believe them. Number 1. Criminalize fee for service. Universal health care has implications and consequences that are seen and unseen. Adding the claimed 47 million "uninsured" to our non-emergency system will dictate rationing of care and when any service is rationed, wealth and power work to over come the ration. Politicians will not participate in the rationing of care so only wealth will remain as an alternative mechanism. Prevention of that option requires that the government criminalize the acquisition of medical services by those with the ability to pay. As soon as universal health care is crafted by Congress, hidden within will be the end of American medical excellence.

Number 2. When President Obama signs into law the rebuilding of our nation's interstate highway system he will include a user fee technology that will tax all private cars based upon highway miles and mpg. The case will be made that global climate change and auto industry bailout mandates dramatic action to change our methods of travel and private automobile use. Technology will give the Federal government the option of tracking every mile of interstate highway and transferring a tax statement to private car on the system. Gone will be the free movement of Americans across our own land.

Number 3. Global warming is a fraud. It is not happening. Debate would demonstrate that but the forces of President Obama will foresware any and all debate. They will claim debate has been heard and time is now. Carbon Cap and Trade will be installed. With that Federal mandate, 5 million new "green" jobs will be required as union employees and they will be a voting block directly attached to the fraud of green house gas. With 5 million additional votes there will be no option for coming national elections. The governing class will be forever installed.

Beware of cheap gasoline prices

Remember this past summer when gasoline and diesel prices were paralyzing the country? Liberal acquaintances and relatives of mine were screaming that, as usual, it was entirely the fault of Bush/Cheney. After all, they both are oil barons, on the receiving end of bucket loads of money at our expense, right? These same folks were completely unmoved a couple weeks before the election when a very select few media sources released the Obama statements that anybody could go ahead and build a coal energy plant if they chose, but he'd bankrupt them with taxes and regulation. A few people talked about the devastation such an energy policy would create---trickle down job losses in trucking, railroad, etc. (similar to what we hear now about the auto industry). There was no outrage or debate in the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, the top leadership of the coal and electric industries did not race to microphones to plead with the American people to stop the coming doom. If my memory serves me correctly, I did not hear any labor union executives speaking out about pending loss of jobs and benefits. Instead, we witnessed another crucial element that in a normal cycle would have turned the election.

Fuel prices are back to a reasonable, and for most, a quite comfortable place. But as many of our fellow citizens are explaining this away as the market reaction to the ousting of the Bush Administration, I fear we are being lulled into a false sense of euphoria in terms of what we pay at the pump.

Post-election, have you noticed the TV commercials on energy? All of them are in compliance, of course, with Sen. Obama's 'energy policy'. There's a crusty old fellow supposedly from Tuscon, Arizona, touting wind and solar, and using folksy rhetoric such as, "God's green acre". Clearly, his message is directed toward the pick-up truck, hick types that according to liberals, aren't smart enough to just quietly follow all phases of the progressive movement in lockstep. This commerical was produced not just to keep momentum going about alternative energy, but it clearly wants to debunk Sarah Palin and the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd. They attempt to propagandize us into the belief that real, card-carrying rednecks are onboard for wind and solar. The gentleman in the commercial does everything but tell us, "Fossil fuels are going to heck in a hand basket, don't ya know?"

Another commercial I've seen frequently is the one about clean coal. Viewers are taken on a 'tour' of a clean coal production plant, which is simply barren land with nothing happening on it except the growth of sage brush. Again, this is a slam toward any of us moron's who would like to see the production of clean coal increased. The 'progressive' viewers probably are loving these examples of Hollywood production brillance. Since these commercials are very expensive to put on the air, and since they reflect perfectly the policies of the incoming administration, dare we ask who is behind the funding? There are websites given quickly at the end and you can visit them and read a little bit about the organization, but the bottom line remains---who is really behind the funding?

Current gas prices are a luxury. Congress and the new president seek to gain complete control of Detroit and the automaking industry. They will renew off-shore drilling bans, probably come January (look for that as part of the "First 100 Days" phrase Pelosi loves to use). There will be no exploration, coal mining will be decreased, not increased, the new president will likely carry through on another campaign relevation of having our electricity 'skyrocket', and more. The New, New Deal says nothing about building nuclear plants to get us moving quicker toward cleaner and increased electricity, yet we are all supposed to go buy an electric car as soon as they are mass produced.

Energy independence as defined by the 'moronic' group of which I am a proud member, would mean aggressively going after our massives amounts of coal and oil to sustain our energy needs, and at the same time, integrating alternatives as they become affordable and reliable. I fear the plan is to greatly restrict any fossil fuel usage while we wait for alternatives to come on line. The result would be a vast decrease in commerce and industry. Our way of life would change dramatically and a once great nation would be not just hobbled, but incapacitated. What would our government do without the huge tax receipts from the evil oil companies? If the oil industry is burdened with more and more tax and regulation, they will go the way of the American auto makers.

There are many among us that are full of hope, but I'm more fearful than anything. I foresee $4.00 gallon gasoline again, possibly higher, sooner than later. Don't be fooled into thinking that the federal government is not concerned about the decrease in gas taxes that are a result of this drop in the price of oil. Low gas prices with subsequent freedom to travel, take a job further away from home, etc., are not options the Congressional leadership and incoming administration want we morons to enjoy.

If fossil fuel powered cars are going to soon be a part of the past, and the average family can't afford a pricey electric car, the result will be we either don't go anywhere or we take public transportation. That works if you live in a city where that is available and if government-run transportation happens to go where you need it to go. As the theme song in another commercial goes, "What kind of world do you want.........?"