2009-07-18 / Editorials & Letters

Editor's Response

Once again, we have simply pasted above a copy of Vickie Fogarty's latest letter. She is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of an editorial that in this country dates back to Benjamin Franklin. The Free Online Dictionary defines it as "an article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers."

She is valiantly trying to defend Rep. Zack Space's decision to side with the California liberals pushing cap and trade at the expense of his own constituents here in Ohio. She is a bit more specific this time.

Fogarty claims there is a 'trend' of increasing CO2 levels and global temperatures, while acknowledging that temperatures haven't increased since 2001. We are now approaching eight years which sounds like a trend to me. It's just not temperatures that aren't behaving like global warming proponents would like to see. Data on the extent of ice pack and Arctic water temperatures isn't cooperating either.

The case for global warming is based on computer models which are subject to manipulation and bias. Again, unfortunately for the scaremongers, these models have NOT been able to replicate the actual measured temperature records. That makes it very difficult to believe they can accurately forecast the future. One of the most recent models predicted dire consequences in 100 years. It's tough to give it much credibility when you look at how poorly we forecast weekend weather on Mondays. Of course, the advantage of using a 100-year time frame is that nobody making decisions based on that fmodel will be alive to see whether it was correct or not. Remember, some of the eco-alarmists were predicting global cooling in the 1970's.

There clearly are global temperature cycles that have been occurring long before we started driving the evil SUV's. Evidence that these cycles are linked to sunspot activity on the sun is stronger than any link to CO2 levels. It's not definitive, and there are probably multiple factors, but the growing number of skeptics don't claim, as do the proponents, that the science is settled. But speaking of trends, the body of evidence refuting the claimed direct linkage between CO2 levels and temperature is growing daily. That's the key reason for rushing the vote in the House of Representatives.

I want Fogarty and Space to explain why it was so important to vote just some 16 hours after a 965-page amended bill was filed during the dead of night. None of our representatives could have possibly read it. Yet 219 representatives, all but eight of them Democrats, voted to give government near total control over the cost and use of energy.

Here's a little tidbit luring in the bill that you probably haven't heard about. You'll likely have submit to a government-approved energy audit before you can sell your home. As usual, the details will come later, but it's likely you'll have to meet the new national energy efficiency standards before the sale. Even if we're spared making the upgrades, it will be another club for a buyer to beat down your price. That's just one of the literally of hundreds of provisions that will affect how we live, use energy, and the cost of everything we buy. It seems reasonable for us to have expected that our representatives at least read and understand the bill before voting "yes." Otherwise, the only rational vote is "no."

Fogarty and Space are trying to hide behind a claim that cap and tax is really promoting energy independence. If we are dependent on foreign oil, it's because it's the best value available. Try making it to Columbus with some solar panels strapped to the top of your car. For me, I'll take the efficiency and convenience of 'foreign' oil to get there. The 'energy independence' claim is a smokescreen since HR2454 strongly favors foreign refineries to make our gasoline and diesel fuel. Our domestic refinery industry would be devastated, but they would be in good company as much of our manufacturing base would be heading to China or India. It's also worth noting that many of the cap and trade proponents are the same politicians opposed to doing more drilling in this country. It's not about energy independence at all; it's about control.

I suppose we can create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. We can go back to handpicking corn to make ethanol. Jobs must be productive to build wealth and maintain our standard of living. Government can employ thousands to do the tasks formerly done by hundreds or dozens, but it won't be productive, and will destroy wealth and our standard of living.

It's time for Space to stop his California Dreamin' and come home to Ohio.

Return to top