Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Paul Driessen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Climate McCarthyism and Eco-Inquisitions
by Paul Driessen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


Two centuries years ago, Voltaire proclaimed, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Today, our free speech traditions are under assault.

Colleges prohibit “offensive” or “politically incorrect” speech. Radical Islamists threaten to kill scholars, artists and even popes who “disrespect” the Prophet. And when we desperately need unfettered scientific debate, intolerant eco-activists have ushered in an era of climate McCarthyism and eco-Inquisitions.

Al Gore wants to muzzle anyone who raises inconvenient truths about climate alarmism. Greenpeace wants “climate criminals” pilloried and silenced. Grist magazine wants “Nuremberg-style war crimes trials” for climate disaster skeptics, followed by hanging, one assumes, since burning at the stake would release greenhouse gases.

Climate catastrophist Ross Gelbspan told a DC audience: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility NOT to report what those scientists say.” Reuters, Time, 60 Minutes and the Discovery Channel appear to have taken his views to heart. UK alarmist George Monbiot says the airlines contribute to climate change – so “every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

During a congressional hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer treated physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton like a child molester, for suggesting that claims about climate chaos should be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what FDA uses for new drugs. And on October 27, Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller issued what the Wall Street Journal aptly called a “gag order” against ExxonMobil. “Its message: Start toeing the Senators’ line on climate change, or else,” said the Journal.

The Catholic Church’s dogmatic Earth-centered-universe theology has been replaced by an equally intolerant Church of Gaia catechism of cataclysm. But the problem goes well beyond that, well beyond constitutional rights and traditions of open, robust debate being trampled by newspapers and politicians duty-bound to uphold them.

It is, above all, an unprecedented power grab by activists, politicians and bureaucrats who want to be the final arbiters of every energy and economic decision.

Yes, Earth’s climate is changing – again, though far less than it has repeatedly throughout our planet’s history. Yes, people are influencing our weather and climate – to some degree. But few scientists have joined astronomer James Hansen in saying that humans have replaced the sun and other natural forces as the primary cause, Climate Armageddon is nigh, and drastic action must be taken immediately.

Cataclysm theorists point to computer models. But models are not evidence. Neither are headlines, hype or Hollywood special effects – nor incessant claims that every storm, drought, heat wave or cold snap is due to fossil fuels. Moreover, even perfect compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would do virtually nothing to stop hypothetical human-induced climate change. And the true costs of imposing Draconian measures would be astronomical.

Carbon taxes, carbon caps, greenhouse gas targets and timetables would send already high energy prices into the stratosphere, raise the cost of every consumer product and service, reduce profits, impair productivity, stifle innovation – and drive numerous jobs overseas, to countries where energy is still available and priced lower. Simply put, no juice – no jobs.

In the coming decade, according to energy analysts, Colorado alone will need 5,000 megawatts of new electrical generation; Texas, over 25,000; the USA, hundreds of thousands. Most will have to come from fossil fuels. Will policy makers enable or prevent us from meeting these needs?

If it takes 13,000 wind turbines (on 105,000 acres) to generate the electrical output of one 500-mW gas-fired power plant, how many turbines will it take to produce 50,000 mW? How much scenic acreage will they despoil? How many birds and bats will they kill? Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Driessen is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Be the first to read Paul Driessen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Frey: re motivators
It always seems to me that whenever someone tries to champion conservative positions or resist some leftist initiative, they get accused of being self-interested, & a lot of attention gets focused on who contributed to their campaigns.

For example, a decade ago resistance to citizen disarmament was characterized as pandering to the business interests of gun manufacturers and dealers. That one didn't really even pass the laugh test, but it persisted for as long as the antigun campaign of the '90's did.

In this kind of debate, the backers and probable motivations of the ringleaders for the leftist positions never seem to come under the same scrutiny. A presumption is made (esp. by the pop media) that their motives are pure and altruistic.

Two particular elephants in the room always get ignored in this matter:

1. Very large companies, apart from the kind of mau-mauing they get from partisans like Sen. Snowe v. Exxon, often have perverse competitive interests in strict regulation, especially the kind that tends to make overhead and capital costs skyrocket. Large companies want to slough off competition from small competitors in their markets that depress the market price of commodities thru competition. I'm sure certain large fuel suppliers would be willing to accept byzantine restrictive regulations if they would tend to overwhelm small operators and raise the market price of the product. That has happened in many other areas of environmental law.

2. Finally, the logic of the anthrogenic global warming dogma leads directly to world socialist totalitarian government that will be dictating to everyone with regard to everything having to do with their energy consumption, in effect, controlling virtually every aspect of their lives. This would be a quantum leap in the power of those fortunate enough to be influential in said government.
Arguably, everyone who aspires to have a secure job telling other people what to do stand to realize their dream thru AGWT. In my view, this selfish avaricious ambition dwarfs any mere commercial motivation anyone else might have. It is arguably one of the most dangerous political phenomena to come onto the scene since fascism and Soviet Communism, which IMO it will resemble but be carried to the ultimate degree.
Why is the motivation of growing government, and one's career based on it, never scrutinized or considered as a corrupt motive?

Tim
Inhofe was not running in 2004 or 2006, so he had no campaign records or financing for those years (He was probably filling his war chest, but it wouldn't go on the books until the actual election.)

"And what is wrong with accepting money from people/organizations who agree with you?"

Nothing, as long as you decide your position independent of the size of the pocketbooks of those who agree. Maybe Inhofe believes that global warming is a hoax from a careful consideration of the evidence, we can't read his mind. But the question of who is funding a politician is relevent. If you don't believe it is, I'm afraid you have a somewhat naive view of politics in this country.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.