TCS Daily


Rockefeller, Snowe Target Free Speech

By Nick Schulz - November 1, 2006 12:00 AM

Since the advent of the Kyoto Protocol, scores of academics, think tankers, journalists and pundits have been arguing that the treaty designed to combat global warming simply could not achieve its aims. There were technological, economic and political realities that made success highly improbable.

The specific arguments varied and have modified as evidence and data have accumulated. But in the main, the critics of Kyoto argued that absent cost-effective technological fixes, the amount of economic pain required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not be politically tenable for the world's developed democracies. Voters' demands for economic growth would likely override concerns about climate change. The benefits of Kyoto would be so small, and so far off in the distance, that nearer term economic concerns would dictate policy and action.

As a result, the only time that Kyoto was presented to the Senate for a vote, it was rejected, 95-0. The Byrd-Hagel resolution, as it was called, put the Senate on record as opposing any climate change agreement that did not require developing nations to participate and that was likely to cause substantial harm to the U.S. economy.

Criticisms of Kyoto have always been out of fashion, and critics were often denounced for their claims. Frequently they were criticized for having received money from interests with a stake in the dialogue over climate change. It is of course true that some Kyoto critics, including this website, had received advertising and sponsorship support from energy companies (just as some Kyoto supporters have received sponsorship and other support from parties that would benefit from Kyoto). But many other knowledgeable and serious critics, such as climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT and the economist Deepak Lal, did not receive industry money.

Either way, enough time has passed to conclude that, at least on the question of the workability of Kyoto, the critics have been correct. For years it was only the critics pointing out Kyoto's flaws -- their unadulterated arguments found in smaller journals of opinion such as this one and occasionally on the op/ed pages of the country's better newspapers.

But today, mainstream media outlets can no longer overlook the obvious. Even those who have given the benefit of the doubt to alarmists are conceding that Kyoto is failing.

This week the Associated Press reported:

"The industrialized world's emissions of greenhouse gases are growing again, despite efforts under the Kyoto Protocol to cap them and stave off global warming..."

The United States has frequently been viewed in environmental circles as a villain because it emits more greenhouse gases than any other country and has not supported Kyoto. If Kyoto fails, the alarmists have asserted, it will be because the US refused to go along.

But that excuse no longer holds water. The US cannot be blamed for Kyoto's failures. Even in regions where Kyoto was fully embraced -- such as Europe, as well as in Japan, the very country where the treaty was signed -- slashing emissions has proved unworkable.

"Of the 41 industrialized nations, 34 increased emissions between 2000 and 2004, the U.N. reported.... Kyoto signatories such as Japan, Italy and Spain have registered emissions increases since 1990."

This failure will come as no surprise to those who have been following the arguments of Kyoto critics. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a chief proponent of global warming mitigation efforts, admitted Kyoto's shortcomings a year ago.

But instead of recognizing the failure, now some powerful members of Congress wish to denounce the messengers and are threatening their freedoms - both of speech and association.

The same week that the AP and other news agencies admitted Kyoto was not working as planned, Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe urged a major energy company to stop contributing money to groups "whose public advocacy," they claimed, "has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators even singled out this web site for opprobrium.

This slur against TCS is irksome because it's obvious the Senators do not read the site they denounce. TCS has run pieces asserting climate change is real and mankind has an influence over climate. If they bothered to contact me before denouncing the site I edit, I could have alerted them to that.

The denial on display here is on the part of the Senators, who issued their letter the same week the United Nations publicly admits Kyoto's supporters are failing to reach their goals.

It is particularly troubling that Sen. Rockefeller would target the freedom of speech of others. He has enjoyed exercising his free speech rights for many years as a longtime benefactor of the Washington Monthly, a magazine on the left. It seems free political speech is fine and can be supported by those with an interest in public policy outcomes, provided they espouse only views that Sen. Rockefeller agrees with.

There are dozens of organizations and publications on the political left that receive advertising, sponsorship and other dollars from firms, organizations, labor unions, foundations and individuals with public policy agendas in Washington. For government officials to single out TCS because of its advertising support by one firm should be deeply disturbing to anyone who cares about free speech, regardless of political orientation.

Despite the claims of Sens. Rockefeller, Snowe and others, the conversation over climate change is really just starting. The widespread agreement that greenhouse gas emissions can influence climate and that controlling them is difficult marks the beginning of a debate, not the end. In the coming months and years the participants in this debate are likely to wrestle with, among many other things, the merits of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems, the reliability of climate models, the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, government funding of basic research and the role to be played by new technologies.

What the debate most definitely does not need is the stifling of opinions just because they happen to be unfashionable. As it turned out with the workability of Kyoto, what were once unfashionable views turned out to be correct.

The author is editor of TCSDaily.com and is conducting researching for a book on economic growth, institutions and development.


Categories:

208 Comments

Human sacrifice
So, TCS has been targeted for silencing. There's a writer for Grist magazine that suggested an Inquisition (he likened it to Nuremberg) and punishment for the non-believers. When it comes to natural phenomena, humans still revert to appeasement to their gods.

Getting Around The Proscription on Bills of Attainder
To hammer in public media, rather than issuing a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder-which is what these two mediocre and useless slugs would really like to do.

Why debate public policy when you can threaten people with ever growing power?

This is why I'll vote against every Democrat and RINO.

Why is anyone surprised?
Liberals have never been tolerant towards any view that they disagree with.

A sign rationality is winning:
when the opposition begins to act irrationally.

It's about time TCS posted something on AGW.
I was beginning to think the debate was over.

U.K. Report: Warming Will Damage Economy (AP)
Associated Press: Raising the stakes in the global warming dispute with the United States and China, Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken.

The British government also hired former Vice President Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman since losing the 2000 presidential election, to advise it on climate change - a clear indication of Prime Minister Tony Blair's growing dissatisfaction with U.S. environmental policy.

The 700-page report argues that environmentalism and economic growth can go hand in hand in the battle against global warming. But it also says that if no action is taken, rising sea levels, heavier floods and more intense droughts could displace 200 million people by the middle of the century

htttp://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/10/30/ap3131083.html

Can we stop the ad hominem and debate ideas?
Pretending that you can ignore someone's ideas by associating them with some bugaboo like Big Oil or the Sierra Club for that matter is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem. We need to stop casting aspersions and start debating ideas.

The Warmers (only shorthand and not meant as disparaging) need to admit that Kyoto style mitigation efforts are a failure and move on. It would also be nice if they could marginalize the extreme alarmists on their side who give the impression that the Earth will turn into Venus if we don't stop using fossil fuels right now.

The Skeptics should be more forthcoming with positive ideas to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which is a good idea even if the climate is not particularly sensitive to increases in GHG's. It's all well and good to nit-pick the other side, but in the end, if the Warmers have a program and the Skeptics don't, the Warmers will prevail.

Interesting...
that LeMule has now reverted to Rhampton-like posting.

Which leads me to say: So what?

What is the revelation in this report? More unverifiable claims masquerading as science? Hiring Gore is surely not a sign of a strong position. Just watch the policies of Blair and the other "Warmers" ruin Britain's economy.

The Stern Report Cherry Picks Its Data to Reach Its Conclusions
See note and comments here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000973sterns_cherry_picki.html

and here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000974the_stern_review_on_.html

The comments are worth reading, for example this quote from Richard Belzer in the second link:

"I am concerned that advocates of aggressive action are being duped by those whose primary interest is increasing tax receipts and/or regulatory authority. They are quite happy to have an environmental excuse to collect more revenue or build a larger regulatory bureaucracy.

Advocates of aggressive action should devote more attention to implementation issues, especially the problem -- no, near certainty -- that their efforts will be (have been?) hijacked. Except on the economist's chalkboard, an effective system for GHG reduction cannot be tax-based or allowance-based.

Last night I wrote that it would require a "relentlessly authoritarian government capable of exercising its authority mercilessly world-wide." Yup, still sounds right, as much as I wish it were not so."

I would love it if they did!
>"We need to stop casting aspersions and start debating ideas."

Absolutely but first, tell me how the skeptical ones in the scientific community are silencing the AGW advocates? It is pretty one-sided as this article shows.

>"It's all well and good to nit-pick the other side, but in the end, if the Warmers have a program and the Skeptics don't, the Warmers will prevail."

But the skeptics do have program. It's called "only promote action when you know what the hell is going on". The other plan is called "let the markets determine the rate of change and the development of alternatives". Both very sound plans in the minds of a great many.

Hmmm...
Is this the same Al Gore who invented the Internet and was the subject (along with Tipper) of the Love Story book? The Al Gore who could not even get a majority vote for president from his home state? Just the way to add credibility to the global warming crowd! Way to go, British Government!

-Bob

I was trying to be tactful
"It is pretty one-sided as this article shows."

Oh, I agree completely. However I see a lot of ad hom responses (even if some of them are well-deserved) on this site to folks presenting the Warmer (or Liberal) side of a debate. The best response to trolls (in the USENET sense) is to ignore them. They feed on invective. Don't encourage them.

Your skeptic program appeals to thinkers or T in the Myers-Briggs terminology. Unfortunately, feelers (F) are in the majority and a declaration of a crisis along with a proposed solution, no matter how bogus, will usually prevail. See for example Thomas Sowell's 'The Vision of the Annointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy' (http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/sr=8-1/qid=1162412798/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5097644-8137711?ie=UTF8&s=books )

This is politics after all and do something will usually always beat do nothing even if do nothing is the correct decision. The Skeptics need the equivalent of the 1994 Contract with America instead of Bob Dole's I'm not Bill Clinton and it's my turn.

I accept the idea that reducing our useage of middle east oil is a good idea.
I do not accept the idea that there is any merit in the notion that we must cut back our useage of fossil fuels in general.

so the only way to beat a bad program, is with another program that isn't as bad?
...

So what? Our closest ally states an official government policy to combat global warming and so what?
This is unbelievable.

>More unverifiable claims masquerading as science?

So the govenrment of Great Britain doesn't know what science is, and got taken in. Fortunately, Tlaloc is here to set us straith.

>Just watch the policies of Blair and the other "Warmers" ruin Britain's economy.

What the report says is that the economy is toast unless something is done. But, sure, you know better.

Why am I not surprised that eric has latched onto more discredited propaganda?
Even the authors of the study Stern claimed to base his report on, have rejected Stern's conclusions.

blasted republican, SUV drivers....
Sea level has been rising for over 10,000 years and still has another 30 to 50 meters to go before reaching the maximum achieved during the previous interstadia. The current climate is ideal for human habitation and any change, even minor change, will disrupt humans. You build next to a river or the ocean and you will get flooded out -- no exceptions. Lesson - don't build your house next to a river or the ocean unless you can deal with the consequences. Smart planning and economic growth always go hand in hand, but I dispute the "environmentalism" part, because that is a state of mind or belief rather than anything concrete. You know, the "-mental" part. There is zero evidence that there is anything that humans can do to reverse global warming. This is the old nature worship religion in which if we have a good year, a good crop, a good fish harvest - we attribute it to our spiritual goodness; conversely, when we have a bad year, a failed crop, an empty net, we blame it on our lack of faith or worse, blame it on somebody else (blasted republican, SUV drivers!), therein the origin of the "scapegoat" and witch trials. Al Gore's involvement only certifies that this effort is fear-mongering at its most primitive.

govts know what politics is. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why do insist on lying about everything?

The report states that economic growth will slow by 2 to 3 percent if nothing is done. At no time does it ever claim that the economy is toast.

Actually, it's the Al Gore...
... who never claimed he invented the Internet, but did take credit (fully justified) for being a strong advocate for its funding and development in Congress. But I'm sure you're a better judge of sicence than he is, or the British government.

So the NAS report on global warming is no longer valid?

blasted republican, SUV drivers....
Sea level has been rising for over 10,000 years and still has another 30 to 50 meters to go before reaching the maximum achieved during the previous interstadia. The current climate is ideal for human habitation and any change, even minor change, will disrupt humans. You build next to a river or the ocean and you will get flooded out -- no exceptions. Lesson - don't build your house next to a river or the ocean unless you can deal with the consequences. Smart planning and economic growth always go hand in hand, but I dispute the "environmentalism" part, because that is a state of mind or belief rather than anything concrete. You know, the "-mental" part. There is zero evidence that there is anything that humans can do to reverse global warming. This is the old nature worship religion in which if we have a good year, a good crop, a good fish harvest - we attribute it to our spiritual goodness; conversely, when we have a bad year, a failed crop, an empty net, we blame it on our lack of faith or worse, blame it on somebody else (blasted republican, SUV drivers!), therein the origin of the "scapegoat" and witch trials. Al Gore's involvement only certifies that this effort is fear-mongering at its most primitive.

Cherry picking your data
The report in question takes partial data from a single report. 1973 - 2005, the data shows a trend, however the same report shows that when you examine the period 1957 - 2005, there is no trend. The report also makes it very, very, clear, that because of the stochastic nature of the data, what trends are to be seen are to be taken with huge grains of salt.
(I wonder how the report would look if they added the non-disaster year of 2006 to the data set?)

The report then takes the already discredited worst case scenarios for CO2 concentration growth rates.

The report also totally ignores than many and well documented positive affects of CO2 enhancement.

As usual, eric prefers propaganda to science.

more undocumented noise from Mark.
Oh really???

>Even the authors of the study Stern claimed to base his report on, have rejected Stern's conclusions.

Who? document this

note the URL previously posted had an extra t in http - it should be
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/10/30/ap3131083.html

Tell this to the authors of the British report
I'm sure they didn't think of any of this, so they got it all wrong.

Since they've already ignored any and all contrary evidence
what makes you think they would pay attention to this?

Really? Why would you think so?
And which report are you talking about? All the recent ones tie recent warming to human-created greenhouse gas emissions. This is quite consistent with the British document.

Facts and science don't matter in power politics
As has been discussed by many, the data supporting AGW is weak requiring highly uncertain models to make predictions.
Yet many who are socialists want government to take more power and control more people's lives and use AGW as an excuse. 30 years ago it was population and they were wrong then.
Recent events with gasoline prices should show that a free market is better suited to direct energy prices and technology.
Climate change happens and when governments subsidize hazardous regions like FL or New Orleans with insurance or levys, then more economic damage will occur when nature calls.

make that, tie a tiny fraction of recent warming to greenhouse gas emissions
and you would finally approach accuracy.

And all those British scientists just couldn't figure this out
Amazing. But Mark knows what's the real deal. Except he can't document it..

>As usual, eric prefers propaganda to science.

Sure. an official British government report on the issue is pure propaganda. Absolutely.

Oh, please. This picks one tiny nit. The bottom line is the science is there.
Here's the comment posted directly under the complaint:

While this report may certainly have its nits and warts, in the big picture it seems to do a good job of digesting and presenting fairly a tremendously complicated and difficult subject matter.

I believe that should and will be taken seriously by business leaders and politicians here and abroad, despite the fact that, given the scale of the problem, many simply prefer not to address it. There is already a majority in the Senate ready to act on climate change, so if there is a change in control of the House, I think it is pretty clear that we will see the log jam start to break up. It will cost the Republicans too much politically to stand in the way, and industry is looking for consistent policy at the national level, in lieu of many different state and local policies.

Naturally there will be opportunities for critics of the Stern report, but this will not die the death of a thousand cuts. Instead, the logs will be rolling in Congress and internationally, with opportunities for critics to help shape policy in the areas of their expertise.

Besides the science, I think the Stern report's discussion of the nature of the economic/policy-making problem, summarized in Chapter 2, is quite useful in explaining alot of the foot-dragging. Here are a few quotes:

"This is a global problem and mitigation is a global public good. This means that it is, from some perspectives, ‘an international game’ and the theory of games does indeed provide powerful insights. The challenge is to promote and sustain international collective action in a context where ‘free-riding’ is a serious problem. Adaptation, like mitigation, raises strong and difficult international issues of responsibility and equity, and also has some elements of the problem of providing public goods."

"Compared with efforts to reduce emissions, adaptation provides immediate, local benefits for which there is some degree of private return. Nevertheless, efficient adaptation to climate change is also hindered by market failures, notably inadequate information on future climate change and positive externalities in the provision of adaptation (where the social return remains higher than the return that will be captured by private investors). These market failures may limit the amount of adaptation undertaken – even where it would be cost-effective."

,

do that, and you'd be at odds with the NAS, the British government and almost all scientists
But wait - what do any of those people know??

Gee, this is tough: believe Mark, or believe an official British government scientific report
The report was just released Oct 30, by the highest levels of the Britihs government, and you're sure that it's total BS, pseudo science. You have no references, just borrowed noise. But we should believe you, and not the British government.

Are you completely unable to read??? 5 to 20 percent of GDP per year lost means toast
Where do you get your crap??? This is right near the top of the AP story.

"The report said unabated climate change would eventually cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. The report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, represents a huge contrast to the U.S. government's wait-and-see policies."

Did they get it wrong??

Here to set us straith!
The same bad, politically-motivated science does not somehow gain validity by jumping over an ocean. Neither does being our ally make such unfounded claims of gloom and doom more certain. It is quite telling that you believe it does.

I would say that the government that so fully endorsed the Kyoto fiasco doesn't know scientific **** from scientific shinola.

the same government
This would be the same government that warned us about Saddam's WMDs and attempts to buy yellowcake in Africa? Why do you believe them now?

Answer...
>"Did they get it wrong??"

They sure did.

Not only are they predicting the course of climate change, a very complex system that has not, to this date, been accurately modeled, they are now adding in economic forecasts that are equally as complex and making huge predictions based on it.

Does that not create the slightest doubt in your mind? Are you know going to cling to a "the British said it!" stance just as you have so weakly hung on to your patented "NAS!" talking point? Does a British accent somehow confer validity to models that have been proven inaccurate?

Wait - many people here still believe the charges about WMD and yellowcake
But by all means, treat the new report with skepticism. Calling it "propaganda" sight unseen seems a little strange, I must say.

So you know it's wrong
The government of Great Britain has enormous stakes in this. They're putting their weight behind this statement. Which you're absolutely sure, sight unseen, must be wrong. And we're supposed to believe you - someone who took a week to be convinced that combustion products weigh more than the carbon burned - know more about this stuff than the British government. Sure. Makes sense to me.

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory!!! let's all put on our tinfoil hats
sure It's all a conspiracy by socialists to impose world government. The science is phoney and greed-motivated, the MSM are pushing it to befuddle the ordinary people and flatter the elite. Everyone knows this.

So everyone is wrong except George Bush, Senator Inhofe and TCS
All those scientiific bodies, all those governments, everyone.

>I would say that the government that so fully endorsed the Kyoto fiasco doesn't know scientific **** from scientific shinola.

Whereas you -- tell us again how much the CO2 produced from burhing one ton of anthracite weighs. You had such a good handle on that bit of science, didn't you?

The British
Lemuel,

You seem a reasonable person but I do have to disagree with you about thinking that just because the Brits say global warming real (and their science say global warming is real), that is must be real because they are so smart. Having just lived there a year I have to say that the culture is EXTREMELY self flagellating. Since pretty much the whole country is irreligious - everything must be nature or human centric. It seemed to me that you could absolutely prove to those people that the whole global warming fear was completely based on scientific models, they would not believe you - because they want to be guilty! Some of the stuff that I read in main stream respected newspapers was truly unbelievable. They hate themselves! They have never done anything valuable for society - and never will - or so they seem to think. Shame!

Suzy

But it's not just the British
Your observations about the Brits are tart and have a lot of truth -but it's not just them. Every industrial country in the world has reached the same conclusion. If it were just the British, sure, that's just a data point. But at this point, it's everyone except our government. Our scientists (and the ofifical scientific body set up to give advice to government) agree to.
L.

ps - on the British self-hate thing, the BBC show "What Not to Wear" is a prime specimen. I'm sure you've seen it.

One note on the story: Oil companies have a perfect right to tell their story & make their case
Just like everyone else. I agree with article that the suggestion that they shouldn't, or don't have the right to do this is wrong. I do think that such support should be transparent - that is, that people realize where the comment is coming from.

Give me examples...
where the AGW supporters want to use technology and (not or) free markets, not government edicts, to solve their percieved catastrophe.

Stifling Dissent re Kyoto
What is 'fashionable' is more often wrong than not! Especially is this true when we are dealing with liberal (read governmental control) versus free market issues.
What I fail to see is how the Left feels they can gag and silence any and all forms of dissent and yet carry on endlessly about being tolerant, unjudgmental and all the other current buzzwords they use to mean "just like us". Clearly the freedom of expression they so avidly proclaim does not extend to anyone who has one word to say that is contrary to their party line! Well DUH. Double standards have never been very effective and are not going to work here either!
I have to wonder that about anyone who is afraid to let any opposing opinion be heard. Do they secretly fear that their position cannot stand the light of day? I strongly suspect this is the case! Well, let us all stand firm and refuse to roll over, play dead and shut up!!

AzGaye

In a word: Yes
Mark,

Here's the way it works. Some group declares a crisis. Generally the same group declares they know the solution to the crisis. Now not every crisis gets the same treatment. See for example Social Security and Medicare. There's a genuine crisis that's being largely ignored because the proposed solution by the original crisis declarers, private accounts for SS and HSA's for Medicare, is not PC. The PC solution, tax increases by drastically raising the income ceiling, and decreasing benefits by means testing, is currently not politically acceptable either but is gaining momentum. The problem here is that a high percentage of people receiving benefits and about to become eligible to receive benefits vote and a large percentage of them would be considered rich in terms of net worth.

The critics shoot the solution(s) full of holes, but if the solution is politically correct, they are ignored. The solution is implemented because eventually the public is convinced by all the shouting that there actually is something to this and SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. Doing nothing is not acceptable once critical mass of public opinion has been achieved. For AGW (or ACC) this is already the case in the UK and much of Europe.

Now here comes the really bad part. The solution doesn't work (Kyoto anyone?) for all the reasons cited by critics originally. Does that mean we go back to things as they were or try something else? Of course not. We do MORE of the same because if the solution didn't work it means we just didn't try hard enough. Evidence is irrelevant in this process.

So your options are:

1. prevent public opinion from reaching critical mass. The opponents of private SS accounts have done a great job here. The Warmers would say the same about AGW skeptics in the US.

2. Propose an alternative program that might actually work and is politically acceptable. AGW skeptics are not doing so good here.

3. Put your head between your knees and kiss your *$$ goodbye.

I can't think of any others.

As for why we need alternatives to fossil fuels and sooner rather than later, I'm not going to reargue the whole Peak Oil thing. Read Deffeyes: 'Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak'. (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Oil-View-Hubberts-Peak/dp/0809029561/sr=8-1/qid=1162432815/ref=sr_1_1/103-8690706-1141449?ie=UTF8&s=books

Group think and dogma
That's right and in this case, the consensus of the world's experts (and Saddam's own generals!!!) were convinced that Saddam had Bio/Chem weapons and was intent to start up his nuclear weapons program again. There were a few dissenters who were ignored and called Saddam apologists. Group-think, and all. It's not propoganda, its truly believed dogma. Bad results.

But here's the difference
IN one case, you had conclusions about something that someone (Saddam) was supposedly trying to keep secret. Conclusions depended on unreliable informants, hearsay, and so forth.

Regarding global wamring, nobody is trying to keep a secret. The research is out there in plain sight. almost all the specialists in the field agree (a big difference right there from the Iraq stuff) and more information comes in all the time verifying the conclusion.

Bought just at the right time!
Congrats Nick!! You've totally arrived!! While the left will continue to dismiss TCS as an astroturf site, you've shown that you can have a collection of authors who don't always agree with each other or the sponsors, attract corporate sponsors who generally agree with the small-l libertarian perspective here, and spawn interesting discussions on the boards by wannabes like me.

When the scientists start worrying about global cooling in 20 years, we'll round up all the alarmists and send them to The Hague. Nah, just kidding. We'll make them drive around in Priuses and try to teach our children not to point at them and laugh.

google it
along with why markets have trouble daling with these problems ( an intor ot htis is in the previously cited AP stoory

TCS Daily Archives