Factual · Powerful · Original · Iconoclastic
As I write in the New York Post, the Waxman-Markey climate legislation could cost the nation nearly $10 trillion -- while doing virtually nothing to stop warming.
That's because to the extent it would reduce warming at all it would do so through limiting "greenhouse gas" emissions, but yet another study has questioned just how much such gases contribute to warming.
According to this one, published in the American Geophysical Union's official publication, the Journal of Geophysical Research, "We have shown that internal global-climate-system variability accounts for at least 80 percent of the observed global-climate variation over the past half-century."
And that's not to say the rest is due to greenhouse gases, either.
We know that there has been NO warming over the last decade, even as the world has been belching GHGs in greater amounts than ever. At the very least this calls into question the equation of "more greenhouse gases equals more warming." It's neither mathematical nor scientific - merely ideological.
But why would people be so keen on horribly expensive legislation that may not even perceptibly reduce temperatures? Lots of reasons, actually. But here's one, and I've linked to a video clip: At a British forum on July 7, Al Gore crowed that Waxman-Markey is a step toward "global governance." Woo-hoo - world government!
Too bad if you're not sure that's such a hot thing.