Former Vice President Al Gore’s claim that global warming represents “by far the largest challenge human civilization has ever faced,” and a “planetary emergency” came under intense scrutiny—perhaps as never before—at a recent conference in New York sponsored by the Heartland Institute. There, more than five hundred scientists and policy experts gathered to discuss , among other things: the reliability of global warming data; the role of natural warming vs. manmade causes; and what strategies should be employed in response to the purported crisis.
Conference organizers did a marvelous job of balancing hard science critiques of the methods used by global warming alarmists with practical public policy advice for the elected officials, economists and scholars in attendance. There was something for everyone. Perhaps the most interesting scientific analysis was presented by renowned hurricane forecaster William Gray, who argued that variances in ocean salinity play a much larger role in global climate change than any human causes. Based on his 40 years of experience studying the oceans, he even went so far as to predict a cycle of global cooling within ten years (though he acknowledged that he may not be around the see it!) Several other scientists, from such respected institutions as Harvard, the University of Virginia and the Institut Pasteur in Paris, presented convincing counter-arguments to the findings of the United Nations’ highly touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Shamefully, (but not surprisingly) their arguments are usually ignored by the mainstream media. Keynote speaker and ABC News correspondent John Stossel blamed this phenomenon on the media’s fascination with “doom and gloom” stories that, while not always representative of the full story, make for good television.
On the policy front, several panelists and speakers discussed the intensively negative impact that proposed legislation would have on the U.S. and world economies. It is estimated, for example, that meeting the requirements of the Kyoto protocol would cost U.S. taxpayers $300 billion annually—nearly ten times as much as the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Radical legislation on climate change could also hamper the Third World’s access to energy and thus keep them from solving such problems as, shortages in their food supply, unclean water, high rates of infant mortality and shorter life spans. But the cost can be measured in more than just dollars. The cost to entrepreneurship and innovation could be even higher—taking valuable resources away from as-yet-unknown technologies that could reduce carbon emissions even more efficiently than Kyoto. This point was effectively made by former Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Richard Rahn, who used the “game-changing” technology of Blackberry phones as an example of innovation that didn’t exist just ten years ago. In the same vein, applying human ingenuity to the crisis of global warming—whether real or imagined—is a better strategy than layers of burdensome state and federal regulation.
Whatever the final outcome in the debate over global warming, the conference offered convincing proof that the global warming “consensus” is not all that it seems. In science and in public policy, scrutiny and skepticism are positives, not negatives. Kudos to the Heartland Institute for tackling this issue and for bringing some much needed attention to the other side of this important debate. To paraphrase Al Gore, the future of human civilization is depending on it.