Published 10/5/09 Socyberty.com
I attended the Minnesota Symposium on Climate Change on August 19th. Yeah, I know, climate change is old news—but wait. This event was a little—no actually—a lot different than what one may expect when they hear the title.
Attendees to the MN Symposium on Climate Change
Just check out a little flavor of this event’s rhetoric:
[During the past winter of 2008-09, 1,500 new record low temperatures were set, along with 700 snow records; 179 glaciers around the world are advancing at record rate. 30,000 scientists from all over the world have signed onto The Petition Project, stating there exists no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.]
These are the concerns that brought together 14 scholars and experts and over 200 attendees to the Earle Brown Heritage Center in Brooklyn Park. Yes, this event gathered those interested in combating the current conventional wisdom that global warming is a problem and that it is man-made. The Minnesota Free Market Institute sponsored the event.
As temperatures have been fairly steady over the last few years, the flash-in-the-pan, up-to-the-minute news cycle has not had much to report regarding increased temperatures. However, the policy in Washington and much of today’s popular culture still maintains, as a certainty, the threat humans pose to our climate.
This in mind, I came to the event wondering how 14 experts were going to dissuade and counter what has been so widely touted. What’s more, if they were persuasive, I was more than a little curious how I would solve the potential dissonance in my mind, knowing that the two sides can’t both be right. And if these experts are right, then one needs to ask how so many millions of people can be wrong and/or be led astray.
Climate was the topic but weather initiated interference this day as tornado sirens howled across the metro that afternoon (good thing the founder of the Weather Channel was there!).
When things did get started, former MN State Senator Rudy Boschwitz took the podium and introduced the keynote speaker of the event, Dr. Fred Singer. Dr. Singer is a regarded expert in the field of climatology, having been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine, and scores of other outlets. He has lectured to the science faculties at Berkeley, Stanford, Copenhagen University, and several other renowned academic institutions and has received numerous honors for his lifetime of contribution from various associations including NASA.
So clearly we had a smart and respected scientific figure before us. What were his counter claims and how does he defend them?
Dr. Singer provided a regal presentation–fitting for a man whose physical appearance resembles Sir Anthony Hopkins. The message was clear and spelled out in classic “good news/bad news” fashion—“Good News: global warming is not a threat; Bad News: politicians don’t listen.” To Dr. Singer, the fulcrum of the debate is simply whether or not one believes that man-made CO2 is the culprit for recent global warming. He contends that it is not, so obviously, in fact, that “the scientific debate is nearing an end”.
This is interesting because it is in complete contrast to the popular beliefs held by most which, indeed, uphold the same notion that the debate is nearing an end, but that it is the harm from humans that is obvious.
Dr. Fred Singer presents
To make his points, Dr. Singer addressed the Sun cycle and its effect on Earth’s climate. He offered a graph charting CO2’s rise and fall following temperature rather than causing it. He also described the incentives today’s scientific community has to publicly maintain that there is a real, man-made threat. Namely, that global warming researchers got $5B from President Bush a couple years back. Since more funding isn’t offered if there is no global warming threat, these researchers have an economic incentive produce results showing that there is a problem and that man is the cause. This poses a moral hazard. This did provide one possible answer to the question—“How can smart and respected figures come to such different conclusions?”—money, perhaps.
Because of his stance, Dr. Singer sees the wealth, time, legislation, regulation, technology and subsidies going into this cause as resources squandered rather than appropriately being devoted to worthy causes such as fighting disease or global malnourishment.
Following Dr. Singer’s presentation were breakout groups. I attended two sessions titled, “The Economic Realities of Cap and Trade” and “Climatology – the Evidence Please”.
“The Economic Realities of Cap and Trade”
This session offered an explanation to how conventional wisdom could be so wrong—it’s in the elite’s interest to promote it, as it paves their path toward more control. The initial contention made was that the goals set forth by the U.S. regarding CO2 emission reduction are of such great quantity that the sought-after industry restraints must be just the beginning of an over-arching plan by the government to eventually increase its involvement in other areas of the private sector. As such, it was said that environmental concerns are not the real reason for such political action, but simply, that more economic control is being sought.
David Strom, Senior Policy Fellow of the MN Free Market Institute, and Dr. Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute, were the two presenters.
They then brought to light the problems evident in a “Cap and Trade” system. Such issues included: the lack of necessity for the policy, its unclear effectiveness in lowering emissions, the risk of losing industry to other countries, corruption regarding the receiving of carbon credits(the allowances from the government to emit CO2), and finally, the increased energy prices consumers will have to pay.
An interesting note also brought up was the lobbying being conducted by investing and trading companies to get this type of legislation passed. Their hope is to cash in on this new economy of carbon credit trading.
“Climatology – the Evidence Please”
Environmental Policy Research Specialist, and MN State Senator, Mike Jungbauer introduced information in this next session questioning the legitimacy of the global warming claims. Presented were the ice sheet increases in Greenland and Antarctica over recent years and the fact that polar bear populations aren’t just maintaining, but are increasing.
The Weather Channel founder, Meteorologist John Coleman, then offered an enthusiastic talk on his efforts as a key figure in the climate change debate. Coleman delved into the saga of Al Gore asking, “How did Al Gore get it so wrong?” There is an interesting story to hear regarding Gore’s ascension to fortune and fame, riding the concerns of environmental catastrophe.
Undoubtedly, Gore’s influence has been enormous and embraced by much of the world. The question to ask yourself following Coleman’s speech is, “Could today’s popular acceptance of man-made global warming be driven largely by Gore’s need to feel important?
Coleman concluded by saying that science doesn’t know why Earth’s temperatures rise and fall (a chart given showed CO2 has been rising over the last eight years, whereas, Earth’s temperature has been steady). He does speak favorably of the theory that the Sun’s activity is the main culprit for Earth’s climate change.
Booths were also on display throughout the duration of the symposium from a variety of organizations, providing conversation and literature for onlookers. I had the chance to speak with one of the booth’s representatives, Dan McGrath from Minnesota Majority. Here are some excerpts of points we discussed.
Me: Dan, are you here to combat what you would consider to be bad politics or bad science?
Dan: Both
Me: Why does science, purportedly objective, have to be influenced by politics? It would be a lot more amicable to debate the science if it didn’t have to involve governmental policy.
Dan: It has to be political for the people who are the alarmists who promote what they feel is a life-saving issue. They need the force of government behind them to make it happen. For those taking advantage of this scare, the manipulators, it must be political to attain the control that this movement can afford them.
Me: So the alarmists [those who advocate policy to thwart global warming] and all the people who believe today’s conventional wisdom are being duped?
Dan: Yup
A reception followed this four-hour-long congregation of naysayers. Indeed, they were in good company, educating themselves and churning out ideas and support about what to do/how to change the direction the country seems to be going. Just as today’s environmental activists fight for what they feel is a life and death issue, so too, do these folks, in the hopes that valuable resources aren’t misdirected toward an unprecedented power and a baseless cause.
In the end, I can accept that the masses can be wrong about man-made global warming. All who have ever lived have been largely influenced by their society, their peers and media. Ask any sociologist and they’ll explain to you the susceptibility large populations have of falling prey to good public relations and/or to their desire to have a problem in their midst, an issue they can come save the day with. People are easy prey to such contrivances. But to fall prey a predator needs to exist. In the eyes of Dan McGrath and others, the predators are politicians and businesspeople looking to gain from others’ concern for the environment.
But what about these masses—the attendees—what’s their incentive? I can accept that another group of American’s are also frightened of change and fearful of authority. They are quick to assume that their leadership is being controlling and taking advantage of them. People on this side of the debate can buy into their own “sky is falling” drama—not from climate change, but from government policy.
Certain members of each side are actually quite similar in their fear. The fear is just attributed to different causes.
This conclusion helps to alleviate some of my dissonance. Perhaps it’s in the masses, not the scientific community, where similarities between sides are more readily available.
I like to go back to my question to Dan about the politicization of this subject. And with that I ask the readers: What would be your opinion of this topic if it was not political? It’s nice and refreshing to consider a topic, so typically and emotionally loaded, and examine it as a purely scientific one. It’s a pretty no-nonsense question when you think about it: do you think man has contributed to global warming?
It’s nice to know there are numbers to examine. Plain, objective numbers that cooler heads and neutral folks can examine to determine truth in this argument. So what does the science today say? Well, when gathering the data, science truly doesn’t know what affects the temperatures on Earth. It is all speculation.
For those attending the Minnesota Symposium on Climate Change, their concern is that speculation has ceased and that erroneous laws scientific and social are being set.
