The report that nobody reads WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT that the globe isn't warming because too many people are making too many things and driving too many cars? Peter P. Rogers, Ph.D., a Harvard environmental scientist respected by businesspeople and enviros alike, gave us his insight. We asked Rogers about the document that most environmentalists point to for scientific support of their global warming thesis: a report released in 1995 by the 2,500 scientists on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Doesn't this document conclude that human-activity raises the CO, levels, thus rais. ing the temperature? Rogers replies with a simple question: Have you read the report? He knows the answer. Of course not. Hardly anyone has or ever will. The report consists of almost 2,000 scientifically dense pages—a few too many for your average nightly news reporter. But Rogers has read most of the opus, and reports that its conclusions aren't what most people think. "It says we (scientists] aren't sure what is happening, and we need at least five more years to study the problem," say's Rogers. Most of the media comment derives from readings of the weighty tome's seven-page executive summary. The summary, unlike the document itself, isn't at all uncertain. It says the balance of evidence suggests a human hand in global warming. "The summary, which everyone reads, bears little relationship to the actual report, which was written by the scientists," says Rogers. Who wrote the summary? Politics rears its head here. One of the major contributors was Robert Watson, then the associate director of environment at the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy, a Gore appointee. Didn't the IPCC executive committee vote to approve the summary? Yes, says Rogers, but the committee members were chosen for political reasons, not for their qualifications as environmental scientists. Regional, racial and gender diversity were paramount. "Instead of looking for an expert in a field of study, the panel needed to fill a position with an African scientist or a woman. Debates were judged by votes rather than reasoning." Haven't 2,500 scientists endorsed the U.N.'s global warming hypothesis? Not really. The alleged endorsement is only in a summary Haven't half of the world's living Nobel laureates in science signed a petition condemning global warming? Yes, says Rogers, and most of the laureates are nice people and, for the most part, good scientists, but few know much about environmental science or climate change. "Most of these Nobel laureates are busy people," says Rogers. "They aren't going to spend all of their time learning about climate change.” Of the three climatologists who have won Nobel prizes, two are not champions of global warming, he says. As Rogers sees global warming, the only thing we know is that the level of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is rising. Environmentalists assert that this is caused by burning fossil fuels for energy and electricity. The burning produces CO, emissions as a byproduct; the rising CO,, in turn, traps heat in the atmosphere and causes the temperature in the earth to rise. Rogers says this is a credible hypothesis but no more. It might be right. Or it might not. "Rising CO, could also be due to something we don't know about," he says. Rogers says the key is the top 10 centimeters to 10 meters of the world's oceans. The occans hold most of the thermal mass of the earth; the temperature affects CO, absorption. It is a process, Rogers emphasizes, that science does not yet understand. Most scientists agree that ocean currents and winds play a big role-but these factors are not even included in the computer models that forecast global warming. So complex is the environment, and so primitive the models, that critical informa tion, such as the existence of the Great Lakes or the Sierras, is routinely left out. Absurd results include a forecast of flooding in Death Valley. Another model predicts that due to higher CO, levels 100 years hence, rainfall in the Midwest could rise by 15% or fall by that amount. Most of the global warming models do not include the most important factor in deter. mining the earth's temperature: cloud cover, which accounts for the majority of the changes in the atmosphere's temperature over time. For years this glaring omission has been denounced by the abrasive and brilliant MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Rather than address Lindzen's critiques of their models, the climatology community has stopped invit ing him to their conferences. THEORIES OF THOMAS GALE MOORE Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. Now, the question that I have first I would direct them to Mr. Smith. When you were talking about warmer may be better, I immediately recognized the theory that economist Thomas Gale Moore put forward here a couple of years ago, and, because I had an opportunity to question him, I'm pretty familiar with what his arguments are and I would give you the opportunity to answer the three questions he couldn't answer. The first one being that his data, over time showed the warmest periods coinciding with the time the archaeological record shows no human existence. What information do you have about the impact on humans relative to high global temperatures? Secondly, he had a problem with his data in that, while he argued that warmer times were better times, he had inconsistencies that showed some of the most significant times in human existence came at the colder periods, i.e., the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, etc., etc. And lastly, when I asked him to respond to issues of loss of biodiversity and species extinction and the ultimate impact of that on the global environment, he couldn't answer. So, I'd like to know, number one, given that the warmest weather or the warmest climate time precedes human existence, at least according to Mr. Moore, what information can actually be extracted from this? Secondly, what about the inconsistencies? And thirdly, what about the impact of loss of biodiversity? Mr. SMITH. My major point was not that there is no-there's an unambiguous answer as to whether warmer is better or warmer is worse. My point was, in the face-my general point in my overall testimony was, in the face of uncertainty, are we better advised to adopt a energy suppression policy or an adaptation resiliency policy? But, within that framework, let me answer the questions. The I don't know what you can infer about how humans would or would not have performed in a world before there were humans. I don't know. I read science fiction a lot and sometimes in science fiction stories they make the places seem Ms. RIVERS. Well Mr. SMITH (continuing). -Sound Ms. RIVERS (continuing). —The Mr. SMITH (continuing). Fun but I don't know anything itMs. RIVERS. The author of the study inferred that warmer was better. Mr. SMITH. Yes, but how do you know Ms. RIVERS. Even though he had no evidence. Mr. SMITH. But I don't think anyone would know whether we would be better advised to be living in the Pleistocene or not. We weren't there, I mean, I guess. Ms. RIVERS. Exactly my point. Mr. SMITH. Yes, I don't know how-I mean, I can't speak for Dr. Moore in this situation. Ms. RIVERS. Okay. Mr. SMITH. The second two points which you raised whether or not all periods of economic-of human-as we all know, going back and looking at the history and trying to decide whether it's better or worse, there's a big fight about whether the Dark Ages were dark. The point that I think that is derivable from his work is that 46-495-13 the periods in the climatic record, what is it, 5,000 or 10,000 years ago? Pat knows this better than I Mr. MICHAELS. Seven. Mr. SMITH (continuing). And a thousand years ago were called the big and the little climatic optimum, for some reasons. And I think that's what he's inferring. And the last point was, I'm sorry Ms. RIVERS. The loss of-with increasing Mr. SMITH. Biodiversity. BIODIVERSITY Ms. RIVERS. Biodiversity. Mr. SMITH. Yes, I think it's very important to realize that the challenge to for biodiversity is a very complicated one and it goes well beyond climate change-type questions. But, it's partly whether humans are going to play a role in helping nature adjust to whatever changes as we sometimes allow and sometime disallow Ms. RIVERS. In helping nature adjust or in creating the problem for nature? Mr. SMITH. Well, I think it's not to-humans are part of nature. And the challenge really is whether nature-some years ago, at the first United Nations conference on the environment, Kenneth Boulding, who I think is still alive, one of the first eco-economists, basically, Kenneth Boulding suggested and, I think, quite presciently, in past, is that every-man is the most successful species on this planet, whether we're happy about it or not. I'm happy about it. But the-but it as a result of that, every species, plant or animal, that exists on this planet in some sense, his words, will have to be domesticated. Ms. RIVERS. I'm asking about the scientific effect of loss of species biodiversity on the planet. That's what I'm asking about. Mr. SMITH. Well, we find warmer weather, I mean, I know this, that Ms. RIVERS. Do you know? Mr. SMITH. I know this, yes, I know the science Ms. RIVERS. Oh no, you know Mr. SMITH. I know the scientific record suggests that you get much less biodiversity in colder climates than in warmer climates. Does that mean we're going to have more or less? I don't know that answer. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Ms. RIVERS. Okay, thank you. The Competitive Enterprise Institute really tries to look at the impact on business of policy, is that a fair question? Mr. SMITH. No, we don't. We try to look at the impact on-CEI is the largest environmental think-tank in the contrarian movement, the ones who don't believe that eco-socialism is an effective way of protecting ecological values says it's not an effective way of protecting economic values. CEI's mission is to explore ways in which individuals, rather than-people, rather than politicians, can advance the goals we as Americans share, including environmental goals. POLITICIZATION OF BUSINESS Ms. RIVERS. Do you feel that, sort of, the argument that if we take care of business, we will ultimately take care of-it's a sort of at what's good for GM is good for America? Mr. SMITH. No, actually, I've given a long lecture on exactly that point. No, I don't believe that at all because much of the problems in our society are that we have used-we have politicized business as well as science. We've actually gone in with subsidies in this area and this may be in agreement on this panel that energy subsidies, whether for solar power or for coal, are bad ideas and ought to be eliminated. Ms. RIVERS. If you found businesses that were going to be among the most affected by this kind of policy, embracing the policy, what would you-how would you react to that? Mr. SMITH. I would think it's not the typical reaction you expect from the business community. Ms. RIVERS. So, GM saying that they recognize there is a problem with CO2 and they're willing to embrace change in order to deal with it? Mr. SMITH. That's very interesting because, as you probably have noticed, you know more than I about this, I'd suspect, one of the very major shareholders in Ford Motor Company, apparently, came out against automobiles the other day. I was a little surprised about that. I suspect it indicates the extent to which very wealthy individuals, the elites, the environmental establishment, have been able to, essentially, create a climate in which less is more, Malthusian doctrines are proceeded Ms. RIVERS. Well, is it also, perhaps, an indication of the communitarian spirit that Mr. Michaels was talking about? Mr. SMITH. Socialism is a very, very powerful motive and many people slip into it and not just Ms. RIVERS. So, if you're concerned about community and the world in which you live, you are Mr. SMITH. No, no, no, no, no. I think the question is really whether we believe that the world we believe in-and I think we probably share some values, would like to live in a better world, we like biodiversity-is whether that vision is better advanced privately or politically, coercively or voluntarily. We believe voluntarily Ms. RIVERS. I have to follow up because it's important when you go into Malthusian and communitarianism and socialism. Jack Smith is the one who made the comment. He is the Chairman of General Motors, one of the largest industries on Earth. I have never heard anyone characterize the President of GM as a socialist. It's an amazing thing. Mr. SMITH. I don't know what you're talking about, actually, right now. You're Ms. RIVERS. I'm talking about the fact that the President of General Motors came forward and said CO2 is a problem and GM wants to be a part of the solution. We recognize what the scientists are saying, we embrace it and we are prepared to move forward. We have some views about how we should move forward Mr. SMITH. Sure. Ms. RIVERS. But they are not doing what has been done in the past Mr. SMITH. Yes, I know. I think you're absolutely-that point, I think, is a very interesting one and I think it gets to the point of where I think the rent-seeking arguments are inadequate. People's opinions about many things are partly economic in nature but, I think, most people overstress that. We're also a very idealistic Nation and people can be seduced or convinced by utopian views of how the world should work. I think many in the American business community, well beyond General Motors, the BCSD, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, Stephan Schmidheiny and so forth. There are a number of businessmen who are more green than they are businessmen. Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. Mr. SMITH. There is no doubt about that. CEI SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES Ms. RIVERS. Let me go back to your statement of the reason that your organization exists is to be skeptical and to be concerned about certain kinds of environmental initiatives. Have there been any environmental initiatives in the last few years that your orga nization has endorsed? Mr. SMITH. Yes, I think so. Flow control is-the attempt to head off flow control is something we worked with PIRGs and it was a left-right coalition-type issue. We've been very interested in awe've been pushing for the unitization of groundwater so we can find some of the same abilities to allow us to make water supply as available as energy supply has become. We're working on ecological adoptions. We're very heavily involved in the African Elephant ivory issue and attempt to, essentially, integrate the elephant ivory trade into the world economy rather than take the Apartheid segregationist approach that has been the topic of this Administration. Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. Do I have any time left? Chairman CALVERT. We only have a few minutes left to go to the Floor and vote. Ms. RIVERS. Okay. Chairman CALVERT. So, with that, I'd like to thank this panel for their attendance and testimony and answering our questions. It's been very interesting. This hearing stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] |