|The Perfect Storm, Part II|
|Report by Eagle Forum Correspondent Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum.|
When college students from the left and right met in Bonn, Germany this week to debate climate change and "global warming," it was like watching a sequel to the movie called The Perfect Storm.
The extremist environmental group Greenpeace brought 25 students to Bonn to plead with the members of the United Nations to move ahead without the U.S. in developing a carbon trading system, because they believe passionately that the globe is warming and that burning fossil fuels is the cause. Many of the same students were in The Hague last November where they learned that their rowdiness on American campuses would not be tolerated at UN meetings. And they learned that while their demands for "renewable" energies at their universities were appeased, they needed different tactics if they wanted to influence national leaders from 188 nations. That is why they challenged students on the other side of the "global warming" issue, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), to a debate.
The 25 CFACT students paid their own expenses to learn the science of the "global warming" theory. They had two incentives for coming to Bonn. They wanted to support President Bush’s position on the Kyoto "global warming" treaty and they wanted to learn what their teachers had neglected to teach them. Since they knew that they had to learn how to reasonably present the other side, the debate with Greenpeace gave them an opportunity to practice what they had just learned.
Greenpeace in a press advisory entitled, "American Student Representatives Challenge Bush’s Crusaders to Debate," exposed the political and partisanship tenor of their side. Their opening statement claimed that polls show that citizens of the world want action now and that ministers need to commit themselves to ratify the protocol now. After expressing their "feelings" about climate change, the Greenpeace students called President Bush’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol a "moral failure" alleging that its implementation would have no negative impact on America’s economy. As for the science of "global warming," a Harvard environmental student refuted scientific data stating, "Science is not a certain business," clearly drawing the line between the two sides. Robert Watson, head of the World Bank’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who is most responsible for sounding the alarm about "global warming" at the UN, looked on approvingly.
Taught by Dr. Fred Singer, a climate scientist and outspoken opponent of the "global warming" theory being taught as fact, the CFACT students focused on the scientific and economic facts. The students warned that even if the Kyoto Protocol were implemented, it would have almost no effect on climate change even though it would devastate the American economy. They cited the sun as the main weather factor, a scientific position presented in a new book, Klima Facten written by Ulrich Berner and published in March 2001 by a German federal institution. The author has been highly criticized by German politicians because he wants to de-politicize science, an affront to politicians who want to use "global warming" for globalization and are willing to hold science hostage. The students also questioned the wisdom of yielding individual and national sovereignty to the UN when the earth’s temperatures taken from two satellites measuring 60,000 times a day for the past 30 years show no "global warming" except a slight temporary increase during El Nino.
The debate did not change students’ minds, but it did cause at least one Greenpeace student to start "thinking" rather than "feeling" about "global warming." The student approached me after the debate to tell me that she was an American patriot even though she believed in "global warming." She said she did not identify with the Greenpeace chant: "Ho, ho, hey, hey, down with the USA," but defended it regardless claiming that they meant it only toward the U.S. position on the Kyoto Protocol. America will one day win this debate if "thinking" overcomes "feeling" about "global warming."