The Tragedy of Climatism: Resource Misuse on a Global Scale

clip_image002

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times.

Last week, thirteen members of the House of Representatives introduced a resolution “recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women.” The resolution implied that man-made climate change was responsible for impacts on global women, stating “food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.” But the resolution ignores the real tragedy, the tragedy of misguided policies to combat climate change.

Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate, has guided world governments since 1992.

That year, 41 nations and the European Community signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. The FCCC called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous global warming. For 21 years, world leaders have argued about how and when to reduce emissions. Today, 192 of 193 heads of state say they believe in man-made warming and most are pursing policies to try to stop climate change.

But, rather than beneficial, efforts to “fight” man-made climate change actually injure people in developing nations. The ideology of Climatism demands that nations forego the use of fossil fuel, use less energy, and force use of expensive or unreliable wind, solar, or biofuel alternatives. Poverty, lack of jobs, and lack of modern energy foster prostitution in developing nations. Climate change from emissions of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in our atmosphere, is a negligible factor.

The United Nations has long criticized the use of “unsustainable energy.” In a 2010 report on Asia, the UN warned, “Asia-Pacific countries must undergo structural adjustment to make key policy changes needed to switch their development mode…Most member countries have followed the industrial model of developed countries, which is the root cause of climate change. This traditional industrial development model results in an unsustainable energy consumption pattern.” The paper says nations must “pursue a low carbon development path” and skip a “growth path heavily reliant on pollutants.” The report goes on to question whether televisions, computers, and networking through the internet are necessary activities.

Yet, world economies remain overwhelmingly based on hydrocarbons. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2010 hydrocarbons provided 81 percent of the world’s energy, while wind and solar provided less than 1 percent. Denying hydrocarbon energy to developing nations is foolish and destructive policy.

clip_image004

The Equator Principles are ten principles for lending by international banks that work to the detriment of poor nations. Under pressure from environmental groups, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and 76 other banks in 32 countries adopted the Principles. These principles demand that banks lend in an “environmentally and socially responsible manner,” which sounds good. But a top objective of the Equator Principles is “to promote the reduction of emissions that contribute to climate change.” Lending capital is restricted for coal mines, oil refineries, and other hydrocarbon projects desperately needed to build the economies of developing nations.

At the same time, the theory of man-made warming appears increasingly shaky. Hundreds of studies show that Earth was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. Water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas. Arctic sea ice recently reached a 30-year low, but Antarctic Sea ice is near a 30-year high. More than double the polar bears roam the Arctic today than in 1960. History shows that droughts, floods, and storms are neither more frequent nor more severe than in past decades. Sea levels are rising at only about 7‒8 inches per century. Global temperatures have not risen for more than ten years, contrary to predictions by the leading climate models.

The tragedy of Climatism is a misuse of resources on a vast scale. Over $250 billion is spent each year in a futile effort to decarbonize―twice global foreign aid. The world spent over $1 trillion in the last ten years and is on track to spend another trillion in the next four years in a fight against a climate change phantom.

At the same time, real life-and-death problems need to be addressed. According to United Nations figures, 25,000 people die from hunger-related issues each day. More than one billion people try to survive on less than $1.25 per day. Two and one-half billion lack adequate sanitation, 1.4 billion lack electricity, and almost one billion lack clean drinking water. Every year, two million die from AIDS. Almost one million die from tuberculosis. Malaria, pneumonia, and diarrheal diseases kill millions more.

Suppose we reallocate the billions spent in the foolish fight against global warming toward solving the real problems of humankind?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

==============================================================

NOTE: This book was the subject of a book burning photo-op at San Jose State University

– Anthony

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sparky
May 5, 2013 4:23 pm

Dear Ed Darrell, Please note, in the last century the rise in global temperatures has been less than 1.0c. Sorry to disappoint you, but current temperatures are not at an insanely high level.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 5, 2013 4:36 pm

Ed Darrell says:
May 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm

No, we’re providing a direct refutation to the absurd claim that warming is over because temperatures have not risen dramatically in a decade, but instead stayed at an insanely high level reached about 2000, despite repeated claims here that global cooling began about 1995 (or 1996, or whenever the particular writer wished to claim it had begun).

????
“Insanely high level” in 2000?
Less than 1/2 of one degree higher in 2000-2001-2002 is “insanely high’ On what planet do you dwell?
What exactly is the harm in a rise in temperature of less than 1/2 of one degree rise in temperature ?
Of a rise in temperature of 1/10 of one degree from 1970’s “baseline” through this month? Nearly 45 years of “catastrophic global warming” an all you can point to 1/10 of 1 degree measured temperature rise? (I hope the Antarctic sea ice gets no higher than last year’s record high: At the latitude of its edge, the more Antarctic sea ice there is, the more solar energy is reflected, the colder the world gets.)
On the other hand, the less Arctic sea ice there is at 80 north, the more evaporation losses there are, the greater the radiation losses there into the night sky, the cooler the world gets.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 5, 2013 4:40 pm

Ed Darrell says:
May 5, 2013 at 3:17 pm

I think they’d defend mischaracterizations of the science. I think they’d cheer fools and charlatans like Christopher Monckton who claim, completely without cause, that Rachel Carson was a mass murderer.

Count the millions in third world countries who have died BECAUSE of her ideas, her claims, her exaggerations and propaganda against DDT. Yes, she and her followers are callas, anti-human, deliberate murderers.

May 5, 2013 5:34 pm

Hi Steve, I shared this article with some friends here in Manila who discussed about the renewables in facebook. They like it. Cheers.

May 5, 2013 7:10 pm

Count the millions in third world countries who have died BECAUSE of her ideas, her claims, her exaggerations and propaganda against DDT. Yes, she and her followers are callas, anti-human, deliberate murderers.

Carson’s ideas have saved 39 million lives since 2,000, 56 million lives between 1972 and 2000.
95 million lives saved — that’s a -95 million who died.
I’ve counted them carefully. You should, too.

May 5, 2013 7:28 pm

Yes, she and her followers are callas . . .

More like lions of preventive medicine, but if you wish to call them lilies, or even the genus calla, perhaps I shouldn’t complain.
(Apologies; it’s an innocent typo, I know. It made me smile, and I hope you can smile about it, too.)

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 5, 2013 8:45 pm

Ed Darrell says:
May 5, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Carson’s ideas have saved 39 million lives since 2,000, 56 million lives between 1972 and 2000.
95 million lives saved — that’s a -95 million who died.

Who counted them? Support your claim – and get your numbers from someone/from a group who is NOT supporting her deadly-enviro agenda.

May 5, 2013 10:37 pm

Ed Darrell says May 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm

No, we’re providing a direct refutation

I see no refutation, rather further unsubstantiated assertions (IOW, “Where’s your evidence, man?”).
BTW, who is this ‘we’ you now speak of?
Still waiting to see how you’re going to handle another unsubstantiated assertion, to wit your previous whopper: “DDT killed off fish with such great abandon” claim.
I’m not holding my breathe, either, awaiting a non-forthcoming reply, but perhaps an artful dodge coupled with a lame weave, still remaining non-response to a cite or a basis for the hyped claim.
.

May 6, 2013 11:56 am

I’m not holding my breathe, either . . .

It would be nice to see more people doing their homework instead of holding their breath. You’re partway there.
Go back to the links I offered earlier. You complained one started in 1972, when its timeline and its links went back to 1945. I think you could do well to study the issue to be sure you’re not demanding information already presented.

May 7, 2013 11:45 pm

[snip – Ed I’m not interested in your off topic DDT thread bombing crusade here, should have shut it down sooner. You have you own blog, discuss it there. – Anthony]