Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris  Bio

Email Article

Email Us

Print friendly

Telling the truth about global warming offers Romney support from a vast constituency

Need for a new climate change champion

 By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris  Monday, February 4, 2008

Millions of Americans hold this view, yet none of the presidential candidates dare express it – human-induced climate change is a hoax.
 
You would think that a groundless phobia that has already wasted tens of billions of dollars and threatens millions of jobs would be an obvious target for anyone seeking to be the next leader of the Free World.  But no one has picked up the mantle; at least not yet. 

Cowed into political correctness by the bully-boy tactics of activists and headline-seeking mass media, none of those aspiring to be President has yet had the courage to speak on behalf of what has become a massive constituency.
 
How massive?  The results of The Yale University Project on Climate Change give us an idea.  They found in their survey released on September 26, 2007 that, among average Americans, fears of climate change Armageddon is anything but universal, as most in the press assert.  In particular, despite being a ‘push poll’ effectively promoting the global warming hypothesis, the Yale survey discovered that:
 

40% of the American public believe there is “a lot of disagreement” among scientists about whether or not “global warming is happening”. Only slightly more - 48% - said scientists agreed.

 

Only a slight majority - 57% - thought that, “If global warming is happening”, it is “caused mostly by human activities”. 

A full 50% of respondents said they worried about global warming only “a little” or “not at all” and only 30% thought global warming was a serious threat to people in the United States.

 
If such high percentages of the general population don’t believe Al Gore then the fraction of registered Republicans who oppose climate hysteria must be massive indeed.  With Senator John McCain so firmly entrenched in the alarmist camp, this would seem to offer a significant opportunity to McCain’s only serious rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. 
 
Romney has done the best job among candidates in avoiding the use of environmental extremist language.  However, his opposition to schemes such as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act has been based only on economics, particularly the colossal trade disadvantage such legislation would impose on the U.S. 
 
While Romney’s argument is correct as far as it goes – imposing draconian carbon dioxide restrictions on the US while 4/5th of the world’s population who live in developing countries continue to industrialize without such limits would indeed ship jobs and wealth overseas – this point is not sufficient.  Most conscientious Americans want to do their part to help address serious global problems.  By explaining that human-induced climate change is trivial, or at least highly speculative, Romney has the opportunity to sway many more Republicans, and eventually Americans of all political persuasions, to support his presidential bid.
 
To differentiate himself from candidates who have simply bowed to fashionable thinking on the issue, it is not even necessary for Romney to take a definitive position.  All he need say when asked about the seriousness of the supposed ‘climate crisis’ is:
 

“I don’t know; I am not a climate expert.  I do know however that there is an intense debate among climate experts about the causes of global warming and, as President, I will ensure that both sides in the debate are heard and their views carefully considered.  In the meantime, I support a ‘no regrets’ approach to the issue – a focus on energy independence and conservation as well as the continued reduction in real pollutants where they present a serious problem.”

 
Romney could then explain that economists have shown that, by concentrating directly on solving well-understood environmental problems such as air and water pollution, instead of the hypothetical climate threat, real-world benefits will be vastly greater.  He could then cite the Copenhagen Consensus in which, when faced with allocating resources to helping humanity, even UN Ambassadors who do not question climate dogma rated the importance of climate change low in comparison with addressing such issues as sanitation and water, communicable diseases, malnutrition, hunger and education.
 
In the short term, telling the truth about climate change would help Romney highlight his conservative credentials in comparison with McCain, who has clearly succumbed to unfounded alarmism.  It could also inspire the many conservatives who long for a champion who could win it all to get more involved in the campaign.
 
And, in the longer term, by speaking realistically about our planet’s climate, Romney could begin to lead his nation and the world out of a two-decade nightmare that has wasted so much of our limited time and resources, surely a task worthy of the next President.