An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. “Global warming isn’t global,” Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. “It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas haven’t warmed at all.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation.
“Satellite and projected data do not agree,” claimed Murray. “Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful.”
Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist, “the economics of global warming should be our main concern,” Murray pointed out. “Even if Kyoto is correctly implemented to the “nth” degree, results by 2050 would be totally inadequate.”
Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, “reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited.” Murray continued with some propositions:
“What do we do? We need to tackle the effects (meaning poverty, health issues) of “Global Warming” directly. Kyoto, if fully executed, will be barely measurable, so bypass this. Invest in other problems. Put Kyoto funding towards poverty.” Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including “removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.”
Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
