The sec­ond bat­tle of Copen­hagen

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Pat Buchanan

Be­fore Pres­i­dent Obama even landed at An­drews Air Force Base, re­turn­ing from his mis­sion to Copen­hagen to win the 2016 Olympic Games, Chicago had been voted off the is­land.

Many shared the lamen­ta­tion of In­di­ana Gov. Mitch Daniels, “What has be­come of Amer­ica, when Chicago can’t steal an elec­tion?”

A sec­ond and more se­ri­ous bat­tle of Copen­hagen is shap­ing up, in mid-De­cem­ber, when a world con­fer­ence gath­ers to im­pose lim­its on green­house gases to stop “global warm­ing.” Pri­mary pur­pose: Rope in the Amer­i­cans who re­fused to sub­mit to the Ky­oto Pro­to­cols that Al Gore brought home in the Clin­ton era.

The long cam­paign to bring the United States un­der an­other global regime — the new­est piece in the ar­chi­tec­ture of world gov­ern­ment — has been flag­ging since 2008. Then, it seemed a lock with the elec­tion of Mr. Obama and a veto-proof Demo­cratic Se­nate.

Why has the cam­paign stalled? Be­cause global warm­ing has stalled. The hottest year of mod­ern times, 1998, came and went a decade ago.

As BBC cli­mate cor­re­spon­dent Paul Hud­son writes: “For the last 11 years, we have not ob­served any in­crease in global tem­per­a­tures. And our cli­mate mod­els did not fore- cast it, even though man­made car­bon diox­ide, the gas thought to be re­spon­si­ble for warm­ing our planet, has con­tin­ued to rise.”

What this pow­er­fully sug­gests is that what man does and does not do is far less re­spon­si­ble for cli­mate change, if it is re­spon­si­ble at all, than other fac­tors over which he has no con­trol.

Con­sider. Though the emis­sions of car­bon diox­ide rose con­stantly through­out the 20th cen­tury — with the in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion of the West, Ja­pan, South­east Asia and, fi­nally, China and In­dia — global tem­per­a­tures have not risen steadily at all. They have fluc­tu­ated.

John Su­nunu, writ­ing in the St. Croix Re­view, says the Earth un­der­went “cool­ing in the 1920s, heat­ing in the 1930s and 1940s, cool­ing in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, warm­ing in the 1980s and 1990s, and cool­ing in the past decade.”

But if there is no cri­sis, why are we even go­ing to Copen­hagen? And if there is no causal con­nec­tion be­tween car­bon diox­ide and global warm­ing, what is the true cause of cli­mate change?

Some sci­en­tists say that 98 per­cent of the Earth’s tem­per­a­ture can be ex­plained by the sun. When the sun’s en­ergy in­creases, a mat­ter over which man has zero con­trol, the Earth’s tem­per­a­ture rises. When the sun’s en­ergy di­min­ishes, the Earth’s tem­per­a­ture falls. have lately been heat­ing up. Easter­brook says th­ese cy­cles tend to last for 30 years.

As Mr. Hud­son notes, there are sci­en­tists who claim they have taken all th­ese fac­tors into con­sid­er­a­tion and in­sist that the Earth, over the long haul, is warm­ing. But Hud­son cites Mo­jib Latif of the In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change, who says we are in the fist stage of a long-term

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.