Glenn Beck recently gave his own "expert" opinion on the cap and trade bill now headed to the senate. One one point I agree with Beck when he says that it is time for America to move on past the news of the Michael Jackson death and start focusing on this legislation. I have already covered the important role spin will play in the climate change debate. As to the arguments Beck makes, I could not disagree more and the rest of this article will provide a detailed response.
Beck Argument #1: Beck claims that temperatures have globally have remained flat since 2001.
Response: So what? Eight years is a VERY small statistical sample when you are talking about a gradual climate change effect that occurs over hundreds and thousands of years. Saying we should ignore climate change because of a small eight year sample is like saying I should bet my life savings on blackjack because I won seven deals in a row. Overall studies have shown that CO2 levels along with temperature have increased dramatically over the last 100 years which is a much better sample size.
Beck Argument #2: There is no scientific consensus on global warming.
Response: It really depends on how you define consensus. If you define consensus as 100% of people agreeing then you will never get consensus on anything. You can still find people who deny the holocaust that does not mean it did not happen. The fact is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change along with many other scientific associations have agreed that temperatures are rising and humans are causing it. Even Federal Climate Change Science Program, a program commissioned by the ever liberal President Bush, concluded that temperatures have been rising for the last 50 years and humans are to blame. Beck also references some 700 scientists who are now skeptical over global warming. First, lets be clear that being skeptic does not mean that they refute global warming altogether. There are many skeptics of God but such people would still concede he may exist just that the proof is not there right now. Secondly, we know nothing of who these scientists are more what there specialty is. If they are all holding doctorates in environmental science that is one thing but if they are simply all retired constructional engineers that is quite another matter. I have not seen the list, I assume it has some reputable figures and some not so reputable. The question again becomes are they really authoritative enough the countervailing authority. Republicans claim their skeptics outnumber the supporters by 13:1 but that is an unfair comparison since the "1" they are referring to was not a petition supporting global warming claims but instead the number of authors to a study printed by the IPCC.
Beck Argument #3: This bill is about grabbing power and money for people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.
Response: Beck is correct in saying that Pelosi and Gore stand to profit. I will not deny Pelosi takes lobby money from green groups and that Gore benefits from global warming legislation. However, Beck conveniently seems to leave out contributions taken by republican leaders and other opponents of the bill. Big oil, coal companies, and other business groups have their fair share of contributions and I would be willing to bet that they too have given quite a bit in an attempt to defeat the bill. In the past they have certainly done so as evidenced by Tom Delay's contributions taken in getting the Bush energy bill passed. So lets not pretend that those opposing the current bill have nothing to gain in their pursuit.
Beck Argument #4: Energy prices will increase even Obama said so.
Response: Obama did say that energy prices would sky rocket with cap and trade measures. A quote he probably now regrets. What Beck again conveniently leaves out is that the climate change bill passed by the house provides substantial rebates to companies who may suffer from these price increases. Beck fails to mention that many groups feel price increases will be minimal given the ability of companies to increase efficiency and develop alternative energies. Have cars really become too expensive because we now require them to be more efficient? Absolutely not technology found a way. Has energy become too expensive in the face of the current Clean Air Act which limits sulfur and nitrogen emissions? No in fact the program has had a net benefit economically. That according to EPA report released under the Bush administration. Finally, in considering the cost of cap and trade we must also consider the cost of not doing anything. What environmental cost will we endure if we do nothing? What kind of security do we really have when we rely on fossil fuels for nearly all our energy?
Beck Argument #5: Cap and trade has failed in other places and hurt their economies.
Response: First, let us acknowledge that there are other reasons for the economic decline of such countries other than cap and trade. Can we say global financial crisis? Secondly, cap and trade takes a long time to actually produce the benefits. In the long term industries develop new technologies to increase efficiency and decrease energy costs. It is far too soon to call the programs a failure in other countries after 5-10 years of development. Third, as energy becomes a dominant commodity in the next century do we really wish to be the only industrialized country to bet on fossil fuels for our entire consumption? Would it not be wise to develop other methods of energy at least as a backup plan?
Later I will provide a more comprehensive view of the climate change bill using resources from the leading think tanks (both liberal and conservative) on this issue. With an issue as weighty as this it is necessary that we have the facts in voting yes or no. Those who support the bill should not be afraid of debate, we should simply ask that the debate be straightforward and honest.
Comments
I suggest you learn to read real science and not just junk science on the funny papers. Global warming is not caused by humans. What is your degree in anyway??
mr. witt, clearly you are nothing more than a propaganda tool for the brainwashing left. also, in arguement #4, the last line should read "for nearly all OF our energy." at least glenn beck knows proper sentence structure.
Your response to Glenn Beck is weak at best. We do not need cap and trade for innovation, once a promise of profit is in the air there will be more than enough industries willing to invest in a technology that promises profit. All this will do is make the current investors wealthy now, by your own admission the effects of this will take years to be seen.
As far as skeptics in your remark about God and global warming in your words even if the proof is not there yet, so should we forge ahead even though the proof may not be there yet? And we have proof that the global climate has changed many times even before humans existed, do you believe that, what a thought. The question to me is where is the proof that humans are accelerating this process so much quicker than it may have happened naturally because that is what the earth does. Nothing stays the same forever.
Everything always sounds so good in theory, like medicare, medicaid, tarp funds etc. and we all know how well they turned out
You are one of those who listen to the news media and never investigate the real truth behind the issues.
Reality global warming and or climate change are actually called Biospheric rift, Biospheric rift is the direct application of Karl Marx Metabolic rift. The truthful title is Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change and the Biospheric Rift. Its a ruse used to blame capitalism as the cause to assumed climatic conditions, hardly scientific in its supposition. Its basically inference based on a uncontrolled, skewed data presented by the consortium which poses to be the most profitable from the institution of this Marxist based ideology.
Good job, and thank you Ryan Witt! Thank you for taking on the bullying, narrow-minded, self-interested, conspiracy-theorist, conservatives. Irrefutable proof that global warming is occurring due to human activity is not possible right now, and may never be possible. Principally, this is because we unable to control and manipulate the many global-scale variables in a scientific manner. Currently the indications are strong that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming. There is a consensus of scientists in the environmental protection field about this. Yes some really smart people disagree that this is the case. In the face of this dilemma, we can either continue as we have, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and watching to see if we were wrong (maybe never being able to definitively prove this), or we can initiate an accelerated conversion now to energy sources that are more renewable, that do not require us to transfer wealth to other countries,
Beck may not be the most glorious purveyor of scientific argument. I doubt anyone could argue that his scientific endowment is large. But there are lots of other places where you can find what you need to understand, very clearly, that man made global warming is a fraud. The idea that carbon dioxide should be regulated is quite silly. It represents such a small % of the sum of other green house gasses that it's really hard to fathom why THAT component should be regulated at the expense of our economy. Anything that can destroy capitalism under the guise of fear seems to be primary foundation of this intellectual sodomy.
A simple method of determining the confidence level of the purveyors of global warming hysteria would be to require the brokers of carbon credits to bond their projects. If a given reduction in GHG emissions from a project does not result in the reduction in global temperature predicted by the models, the financially injured parties get their money back. Unfortunately, there is no way to accurately measure such a correlation and I don't think any bonding house would touch it - which should tell us something about the practicality of climate change legislation or global carbon credit schemes.
I thought you were going to give me a detail response on cap and trade. You gave me nothing. One volcanic eruption produces more harmful pollutant's than every human and farm animal has ever produced. Media has become toilet reading.
Glenn knows proper sentence structure, eh? He can't even spell "oligarchy". I've heard him butcher the english language on many occasions. I also find it amusing that you don't seem to realise that fox "news" is the #1 brainwashing network, and it has been for some time. You're just as brainwashed as the people you're accusing. Glenn Beck is nothing more than entertainment for scared, white Americans. If you look to him for facts, you're a severely damaged human being. Anyone who claims to know for certain wether or not global warming is real is full of it. The scientific "jury" is still out on the issue. Theres evidence both proving and refuting it. You're just believing what you WANT to believe until all of the facts are in. Enjoy your narrow-minded bias!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!