Kyoto Protocol: Bad Policy Based on Bad Science
Why Isn't the Administration Telling Us the Truth about the Science Behind this Treaty?
Tomorrow is Earth Day. The President may choose to celebrate the event by signing
the Kyoto Protocol on Global Climate Change. Yet, more than 15,000 scientists signed a
petition urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty and any other similar proposal.
Of the engineers, scientists, economists and other signatories of the petition, more than 40
percent hold doctorate degrees in their field. What's their reason for opposition? As they say:
uThere is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of Earth."
And, so why would this Administration insist on holding the obviously flawed Kyoto
protocol in such high public esteem? [See, also, a separate RPC paper, uThe Gang That
Couldn't Talk Straight Rides Again: Administration Contradicts its Own Estimates of Kyoto
Treaty's Costs," 4/21/98, addressing the flawed economic assumptions behind the protocol.]
What is the consensus in the scientific community on whether human activity is
contributing to the warming of our climate? There is none. But, there is plenty of evidence to
suggest that warming and cooling of our climate is something that has gone on for a very long
time and likely will continue to go on
-
with human actions perhaps playing a limited role.
What Does The Science Say?
Supporters of the climate change calamity theory gather strength from the 1995
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers, which said in part
u...The
balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate." In
fact, though, the 2,500 IPICC scientists did not contribute to or endorse the six-page Summary
for Policymakers." Indeed, there is evidence that the 1995 IPCC report was doctored to
conform with the policy judgments contained in the Summary. Professor Frederick Seitz
wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996, 'In my more than 60 years as a member of
the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National
Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more
disturbing corruption of ihe peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
85
Page 2
Dr. Seitz goes on in his article to note several deletions from
the approved Chapter 8 draft that
expressed doubts about "a discernable human influence" by
scientists participating in the IPCC
review process. They are:
1. 'None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence
that we can attribute the
observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part
[of the climate change observed to
date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
3. 'Any claims of positive detection of significant climate
change are likely to remain
controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
As a result of such manipulation of information, many
in the scientific community have
concluded that the report was altered to support the conclusions
obtained by the "Summary for
Policymakers" solely for political purposes.
Nowhere does the IPCC summary actually claim temperatures
would rise between 1.8 and 6.3
degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Rather, these numbers
are the results of assumed scenarios
and assumed climate responses from model calculations,
according to Dr. Fred Singer in an article in
the Washington Times on July 1, 1997. Dr. Singer goes on to say, "The report
itself (page 434)
specifically disclaims that studies of climate patterns can
'quantify the magnitude' of a green house
gas effect on climate."
A review of the scientific literature measuring historical
changes in the earth's climate reveals
no genuinely long-term, consistent rise in temperature. Indeed,
such a review indicates that Earth's
temperature has varied over time up and down
-
gradually. A recent article in Science on February
27, 1998, noted,
"
The record shows that temperature variations are far greater during
glacial periods
(ice ages) than during interglacial periods. North Atlantic sea temperatures,
for example, varied by as
much as 3 to 4.5 degrees C during glacial periods 450,000
and 350,000 years ago, while they only
varied by about 0.5 to 1 degree C during the interglacial period
which fell in between."
The Kyoto Protocol is a Solution in Search of a Problem
If there is no convincing evidence that Earth's climate is changing
drastically, and, if there is
no discernable evidence that human activity is causing our planet's temperature
to rise, why then the
urgency? Perhaps because, as H.L. Mencken noted, "the
urge to save humanity is almost always a
false front for the urge to rule." This administration's policy on the matter
of climate change is an
urge to rule how people use energy, and demonstrates its longstanding
opposition to the use of fossil
fuels and its determination to wean the American people away from them
-
no matter what the cost.
In summary, as Senator Craig noted on the Senate floor
this week, "as more and more American
scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the vast
majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made
by the
Administration in the Kyoto Protocol is an unnecessary response to an exaggerated
threat." |
