Re: TownHall.com – 4/19/2008 – “Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your Way” – Paul Driessen

Driessen doesn’t seem to understand global warming science. He confuses maximum temperature from time-averaged temperature. He can’t tell systematic temperature changes (the true “global warming” prediction) from naturally and simultaneously occurring cyclical tendencies. He can’t tell cold region addition of ice (arising from increased precipitation) from cold region reduction in area. He can’t understand that rising temperatures are both caused by CO₂ concentrations and cause rising CO₂ concentrations, so looking back in time and seeing rising CO₂ levels following temperature increase is not a contradiction to global warming, but one of its predictions. His criticisms of uncertainty in the science of global warming are made in denial of the fact that the uncertainties in economic theory far exceed the uncertainties in the theory of global warming. He fails to understand the limitations of derivative predictions from global warming models --- predicting localized consequences of global warming (such as whether global warming would turn the Rio Grande Valley into a desert or swamp) are much harder and less reliable than predicting the average global effects.

Driessen seems to be unable to understand that CO₂ production and energy usage need not be as strongly linked in the (near) future as they have been in the past. Technology has a way of changing such linkages. Increased efficiency in solar, wind, and tidal/wave based energy production is bringing energy from those sources closer and closer to fossil carbon in cost-effectiveness. Increased efficiency in using energy can reduce energy consumption without reducing what we use energy for. What would Driessen have said about leasing federal lands for oil exploration lands instead of for growing more hay and raising more horses to solve the transportation problems of the past

Driessen is scandalized by the fact that “Activists, journalists, politicians, AlGoreans, and even scientists and corporate executives then select the scariest scenarios, call them evidence, trumpet them with hysterical headlines – and insist on drastic cutbacks in CO2 emissions and energy use”. So what? He promotes the least scary scenario --- global warming doesn’t exist and things will continue along as they have in the past. People who have political prejudices tend to favor the scenarios that promote their prejudices. But the political machinations of prejudiced political operators has little to do with the predictions of real science which take a probability-weighted middle ground of all possible scenarios somewhere between the two extremes.

Driessen says “Climate change is also about power. Power to control – and curtail…”. Is that the key to what Driessen is up to? Does he favor the economic/political power structure that seeks to keep energy policy as it is now --- favoring fossil fuel based energy production over alternative energy production and increased efficiency --- and opposes those who would shift economic/political power from the fossil carbon energy producers?