The discussion about the costs of climate change legislation occurred Wednesday at the House Agriculture Committee, and the projections from the USDA were surprisingly tame. According to USDA projections, fruit and vegetable growers don’ t have all that much to worry about from “cap and trade” legislation. Modestly higher fuel prices, true, but that’s about it.
However, the USDA study did not provide the full supply chain evaluation that the industry had asked for in the climate change analysis. Without measuring the impact throughout the distribution systems, the numbers don’t mean all that much.
Behind the practical matter of what climate change legislation “means” to agriculture, the back story is about whether the science can be trusted. As it turns out, we Americans are more skeptical about global warming (climate change) than most of the rest of the world.
The “climategate” story is one reason I don’t completely trust in the environmental movement. As an open minded Midwesterner, I don’t “completely distrust” environmentalists, but I have a healthy amount of skepticism about motives and big government agendas behind the startling contention that the earth “hangs in the balance.” When scientists say “the argument is over” about the reality of global warming, it sounds like they have vested interest in the debate. And it appears they do.
In shorthand, “Climategate” involves several incriminating emails were hacked from an e-mail server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. The emails appeared to point to doctoring of temperature series to mask a decline in temperatures. From the New American, the accused wonders about the timing:
While skeptics accuse him of conspiracy in concealing and manipulating data, Jones has fired his own accusations of conspiracy against the unidentified hacker(s). He doubts it is a coincidence the e-mails were published just prior to the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark, from December 7 – 18. “This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks,” he said in a CRU press release.
No, Mr. Jones you are wrong. The people involved in putting the question mark in front of global climate change are proponents like you. The Wall Street Journal writes that “Climategate: Science is Dying” in this Dec. 2 piece: