Climate Change and 2012

We already know that Barack Obama buys in completely to the theory that the world is warming due to the activity of man. He put forward a cap and trade bill that was designed to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. Further, he has told us all as much. Some of the Republican candidates have made clear that they too buy in to this theory. Mitt Romney said so expressly just the other day in New Hampshire. Governor Huntsman also has announced his view. Others have backed the theory in the past only to pull away now. Tim Pawlenty has announced that it was a mistake on his part to support climate change legislation while he was governor of Minnesota. For some, it is as yet unclear what their positions are. A good example here is Ron Paul, although I have to admit that Paul's position on nearly every issue is hard to figure out.

The sad truth is that all of these people are taking political positions as if the issue is one that will be decided by voters. The reality, however, is that climate change theory must be decided by science and not politics. Even if every voter in the country decides that there is no global warming, it will not stop that process if it is, in fact, occuring. Just the opposite is also true; belief in global warming does not mean it is really happening.

We all now know that that the "science" put forward by the climate change crowd is severely flawed. E-mails stolen from those who did the basic research at East Anglia university in the UK have revealed that much of the data was manipulated to produce a particular result. Rather than studying data to see what it showed, those doing the study appear to have decided on a conclusion and them manipulated the data to have it conform to the required outcome. This simply cannot be the basis for a world wide restructuring of the economy.

It will take true courage for a presidential candidate to study and understand the problem here and then to call for measures that would produce accurate data. If climate change is real, then humanity cannot choose to ignore it without disasterous consequences. On the other hand, if climate change is a product of distorted data, then if would be folly to waste trillions of dollars restructuring an economy that needs no such remedy. The next president (or even Obama) must announced a crash program to study the climate history and to look for actual indicators that any trend found is due to human rather than natural causes (like solar activity or volcanic eruptions). A one year study could easily replicate the work that has been called into question at East Anglia, and it could produce a transparent result made available to all the world for review. At that point, a rational decision could be made on the issue of global warming, not before. (If it would make Obama happier, we could call this the climate change stimulus package since it would provide jobs for scientists.)

This is just another area for which the country needs actual leadership, not just another speech.