I left an outgoing announcement on the voice mail stating that my office was closed for Good Friday, and I’m pleased to report that even in Washington DC, nobody was sufficiently boorish to leave a message demanding a meeting. But there are limits to discretion and good taste here, and quite narrow ones at that. Saturday morning, my home telephone rang, and when I answered it, I was greeted by Dr. Kleinenschavantz’ high, quavering and scratchy tenor. He’s the head of policy projects for the National Energy Solutions Alliance.
NESA is an example of a strategy that has become quite ubiquitous in Washington of late – that of naming your organization dedicated to oppressing women “The Family Defense Network,” or your law to deprive minorities of their rights “The African, Arab and Native-American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander Legal Parity Act.” This ruse serves to deflect the attention of the public at large, who tend to assume that the name of an organization or law truthfully states the principles it seeks to implement. Because, usually, it does – that’s why naming a trade organization controlled by the most greedy, deceitful, unreconstructed followers of J. Paul Getty, John. D. Rockefeller and Francis S. Peabody “the National Energy Solutions Alliance” works so well. The last thing any of NESA’s members want is new energy solutions – they control the petroleum and coal interests, and what they want is as much money for doing so as they can possibly get. In his official capacity at NESA, Dr. Kleinenschavantz is, among other things, the delivery order project officer (DOPO, appropriately pronounced “dope-oh”) for NESA’s very own policy study of global warming, of which Yours Truly is what we here inside the Beltway call “the principal study author.”
Dr. K: Tom, you’re a religious man, aren’t you?
Tom: Huh? Who is this?
Dr. K: Dr. Kleinenschavantz.
Tom: Oh. Good morning, Dr. K. Ah, do you happen to know what time it is?
Dr. K: Sure, Tom, it’s six fifteen.
Tom: Yeah, I’m looking at my bedroom clock here, and that’s what it says – six thirteen, actually.
Dr. K: Tom, as a Pentecostal Evangelical, I sincerely believe in miracles.
Tom: As a Catholic, I believe that if the Vatican says it’s a miracle, then it is, otherwise, it’s not.
Dr. K: Look out the window, Tom!
Tom: I see – it snowed last night.
Dr. K: In April!
Tom: It’s snowed in April around here before. Looks very nice – about an inch, dusting the budding purple dogwoods, highlighting the tree branches in white outlines, sort of like a Japanese painting…
Dr. K: It’s more than that, Tom! Here it is, the day before Easter, the time we celebrate the greatest miracle of all, and just one day after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policy Makers was released. Just one day after those secular humanists publish their work of Satan, saying that global warming is an established fact, and it snows in Washington! It’s a sign from God, Tom!
Tom: I donno, Dr. K., I think I’d have to check with the Vatican before I could agree with you on that.
Dr. K: Would you?
Tom: Ah, I’ll see what I can do. They don’t always return my phone calls.
Dr. K: Tom, if you were a Pentecostal Evangelical, you’d be allowed to find miracles anywhere you want.
Tom: Uh-huh.
Dr. K: You could find a miracle in every act of Jesus – in every act of every Apostle; I’m serious, Tom, I’ve done it myself in Bible study. Just look, and you will see that God provides miracles for you everywhere – like when a complete stranger knows the exact directions to where you’re driving your family in the SUV; or when one of your kids takes home a karate trophy; or when you find a wallet full of money, just lying there in the street; or even when it snows, Tom, even when it snows!
Tom: We Catholics depend on our priests to tell us what the Bible means and when actual miracles happen. That’s their job.
Dr. K: But you see where that leaves you? Being a Pentecostal Evangelical is so… liberating!
Tom: I’m truly envious. So, what can I do for you?
Dr. K: Convert to Pentecostal Evangelicalism!
Tom: Right. I meant, why did you call?
Dr. K: Oh, that. Yes. I’m calling about the Policy Summary and Recommendations Section.
Tom: I see. As I remember, the Statement of Work says that the Policy Summary and Recommendations Section of the deliverable will be sent to the NESA DOPO no more than ten business days after the IPCC issues the Summary for Policy Makers. That was Friday morning, so the due date for the Policy Summary and Recommendations Section is Friday, April twentieth. It’s a bit ahead of schedule, too, so not to worry.
Dr. K: Oh, I’m not worried about getting the deliverable on time, Tom. All the previous sections of your NESA study have been delivered in a timely manner. I just… well, I’d like to know what the NESA Study Summary Section is going to say.
Tom: There’s a problem with telling you that right now.
Dr. K: What could that possibly be?
Tom: The final IPCC report was published yesterday morning. Yesterday was Good Friday.
Dr. K: So?
Tom: So I spent Friday engaging in religious observances.
Dr. K: You did?
Tom: Hundreds of millions of Christians, and virtually every Catholic on the planet did. You didn’t?
Dr. K: Ah, nobody at NESA took the day off, so I couldn’t imagine doing so myself.
Tom: Makes sense – I believe the NESA board all worship at the altar of Mamon, don’t they?
Dr. K: I, well, I never asked, really.
Tom: Yeah, I spent the whole day attending Mass with my Catholic relatives and their families, crossing myself, genuflecting before hierophantic prelates in golden brocade robes and mitres, crossing myself as clouds of incense wafted through the cavernous church bathed in colored light from acres of sunlit stained glass windows, willfully taking the magically transubstantiated body and blood of Our Lord into myself as a gigantic organ, a twenty-ton bell carillon and a massive choir filled the air with the sacred music of the world’s great composers, amidst graven images of saints and towering walls covered with frescos of angels and cherubs – you know, all that decadent, opulent, jewel-encrusted Papist stuff that got Martin Luther’s cassock in a twist.
Dr. K: What’s a cassock?
Tom: A priest’s robe.
Dr. K: Martin Luther was a priest?
Tom: Sure. The Pope excommunicated him after he started making a fuss, of course.
Dr. K: I wouldn’t know about that sort of thing, Tom. I was raised a Pentecostal Evangelical – my grandpa was one of Aimee Semple McPherson’s most loyal followers. You burn incense?
Tom: Yeah. In big covered silver pots hung on chains. The priests or altar boys swing them back and forth while the celebrant leads the procession.
Dr. K: Procession?
Tom: Very grand parade up to the altar – giant gold crucifixes, sliver-headed staves, silk and satin banners, scented candles in gold holders, clergy in their scarlet, purple and white robes, resonating Gregorian chants…
Dr. K: Chants? Any speaking in tongues?
Tom: Catholics don’t generally go in for that. We sure do mangle Latin up pretty good, though – to the point where it’s almost incomprehensible; but that’s as close as we get.
Dr. K: Acres of stained glass?
Tom: Two point one acres in the church I attended.
Dr. K: Statues of saints?
Tom: Marvelous stone carvings, like the ones you see on documentaries about Michelangelo.
Dr. K: Never seen one. What are frescos?
Tom: They’re paintings on the walls and ceilings. The whole building is a big work of art, basically, inside and out. Vast expanses of polished multi-colored marble floors, ornate gilded wood work, sculpted columns, gargoyles.
Dr. K: Gargoyles?
Tom: Grotesque carvings of animals and so forth on the outside of the building.
Dr. K: What?
Tom: Like a serpent’s head, or a bat’s face with a downspout coming out of its mouth, so when it rains, the serpent spits the water clear of the spires.
Dr. K: I had no idea you Catholics decorated your churches with serpents and bats.
Tom: They’re, like, friendly serpents and bats.
Dr. K: So Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and he conducted services in a building like that?
Tom: No doubt about it; and I don’t even think he had a problem with the gargoyles, actually.
Dr. K: I better not tell my kids this stuff – it will give them nightmares for sure.
Tom: Yeah, ignorance is bliss.
Dr. K: When it comes to telling young Pentecostal Evangelicals what Catholics do inside their churches, I couldn’t agree more. No offense.
Tom: None taken.
Dr. K: I must say, though, sounds like you people sure know how to put on a good show.
Tom: We should – we’ve had about fifteen hundred years to work on it. Anyway, I spent all day Friday engaged in quaint, medieval, antiquated, decadent, mystic, antique, sensual, grandiose, ostentatious, extravagant, inscrutable, ancient, effete, degenerate, dissolute, Byzantine, arcane, sumptuous, mysterious Roman Catholic mumbo-jumbo instead of working. So I haven’t read the IPCC summary yet. I assume you have?
Dr. K: The NESA Board had a fit just as soon as it hit the street. They were calling me at the office all afternoon, on my cell phone when I left the office, and at home until well past ten o’clock! I couldn’t sleep, so I’ve been up all night going over that thing.
Tom: Oh, I see – the Board members are nervous Nellies and can’t keep their pants on for two whole weeks.
Dr. K: Exactly. They’re terrified that the media will lean on them for comments and they won’t know what to say. They want me to prepare a preliminary press release for Monday morning.
Tom: Okay, fair enough. Thanks, honey.
Dr. K: I beg your pardon?
Tom: My friend Cerise made a quad espresso hazelnut cappuccino while we were talking – she just handed it to me.
Dr. K: You answered your telephone at six fifteen on a Saturday morning while seated at your kitchen table?
Tom: No, as I indicated before, I answered it in bed.
Dr. K: Oh, I see, so your friend came by earlier and was making you breakfast in bed?
Tom: No, as a matter of fact, you woke both of us up. So she very kindly went downstairs and made us some quaint, decadent, sumptuous, sensual, effete, extravagant Italian coffee.
Dr. K: But Tom, you’re not married! How can you spend all day in church on Friday and… and then…
Tom: Confession.
Dr. K: What’s that?
Tom: One of the benefits of being a Catholic – and, by the way, one of the things about Catholicism that Martin Luther did have a problem with. Now, let me take a couple of quick gulps here… All right. You pose the issues, I’ll answer them. Got a pen and paper ready?
Dr. K: Ah, just a second… okay, I’ve got them.
Tom: Go ahead.
Dr. K: Tom, this is not just some scientists shooting their mouths off, you know – our own government bought into this stuff. How the hell could the Bush EPA let this happen?
Tom: Is that the first question you want me to answer?
Dr. K: Oh, no, I’m just, well, it’s upsetting to read some of this…
Tom: Steady, that’s why we get paid the big bucks – to give the unforgiving minute sixty seconds worth of run.
Dr. K: What?
Tom: Kipling. You like Kipling?
Dr. K: I, I don’t know… I don’t think I’ve ever kippled.
Tom: Never mind – just hang in there, that’s what I mean.
Dr. K: Right – steady as she goes. Okay… Ah, phooey, Tom! You know that last week the Supreme Court ruled the EPA has the constitutional right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? What did we pay all that money for, to get those conservatives on the court, if they’re going to turn on us like this?
Tom: Get at grip, Dr. K! We can’t do this if you’re going to crack up on us! Now – deep breaths – in… out… in… out…
Dr. K: In… out… in… out… Okay, I’m okay…
Tom: You can do it – maintain… concentrate…
Dr. K: Okay. I’m… I’m fine.
Tom: Then make a note of this – if anybody brings up the EPA, NESA responds that EPA was instrumental in moderating the radical language in the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, in particular assuring that all stated levels of certainty are defensible and realistic; and that, furthermore, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy approves of EPA’s efforts to moderate statements in the Summary. Anybody brings up the Supreme Court decision, NESA says that the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions does not equate with any demonstrated need to do so and the EPA realizes this and NESA is confident that it will act accordingly.
Dr. K: “ … any demonstrated need to do so..” and what?
Tom: “… and the EPA realizes this and NESA is confident that it will act accordingly.”
Dr. K: Got it. Tom, I’m so glad I called you. I feel better already.
Tom: Great. First, let’s start with the introductory material. Any qualifying words, like “temporary,” “intermediate,” “approximate,” “current,”…
Dr. K: “Current!” Got it, right here! “The Assessment is of current scientific understanding of impacts of climate change on natural, managed and human systems, the capacity of these systems to adapt and their vulnerability.”
Tom: So, in its press release, NESA observes that these are only the current understanding of those things. What changes faster than scientific understanding? What was the “current” understanding of the possibility of life on Mars in 1950? Why, it was almost an accepted fact – there were globes and maps of Mars that showed canals that were obviously the work of intelligent beings. Then, in the 1970’s, the “current” understanding of life on Mars was that it’s impossible – the first Mars lander craft sent back data that showed the place was completely dead. Now, the “current” understanding of life on Mars is that it at least existed there once, and, what do you know, it’s just possible that life on Earth evolved from it, and, what’s more, there could be life on Mars right now. Then NESA asks, why should our understanding of global climate be that different from our understanding of life on Mars?
Dr. K: Excellent… let me get all this… all right, go ahead.
Tom: Ah, sure. What’s your first question?
Dr. K: Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to be asking the questions.
Tom: Right.
Dr. K: It says here that the first part of the Summary concerns “the relationship between climate change and recent observed changes in the natural and human environment.” How can we attack that?
Tom: Scientists always qualify their data – what does it say about data quality?
Dr. K: “The statements presented here are based largely on data sets that cover the period since 1970. The number of
studies of observed trends in the physical and biological environment and their relationship to regional
climate changes has increased greatly since the Third Assessment in 2001. The quality of the data sets has
also improved. There is, however, a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries.”
Tom: Bingo! In the press release, NESA points out that all this dire prophesy is based on less than forty years of data, and that the IPCC Summary admits that data from developing countries, which cover the majority of the dry land on planet earth, exhibit “marked scarcity.”
Dr. K: Dynamite! How about this one – “There is high confidence that recent regional changes in temperature have had discernible impacts on many physical and biological systems.”
Tom: No way to argue with that.
Dr. K: What!
Tom: No reason to, either. Parse it carefully, and you will see what I mean. There is “high confidence,” but only of “discernible impacts.” These days, I can put one drop of benzene in an Olympic size swimming pool. Wait an hour while the pumps mix it around. Then I can take a drop of that water, put it in another Olympic size swimming pool, wait another hour, and take a drop of water from that. Then I can do it again with a third Olympic size swimming pool. Then, using modern scientific equipment, I can show that there is a “discernible” amount of benzene in the that third Olympic size swimming pool. The IPCC Summary asserts nothing more than that – our ability, given advanced technology, to detect minute things with a great certainty.
Dr. K: A drop of benzene… three Olympic size swimming pools… yeah, I get it. All they are saying is, they can detect tiny changes with great certainty. That’s perfect.
Tom: Yeah, that’s from the previous assessment, though.
Dr. K: Oh, yeah, so it is.
Tom: What’s the current assessment go on to say?
Dr. K: Ah, yeah, here it is – “Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.”
Tom: So, in the press release, NESA observes that these scientists have previously detected “discernible” things, that could amount to nothing much, with a great deal of confidence; and, now, they report that they have “observations” which they consider to be “evidence,” that the climate is changing in some places due to these “discernible” things, but the participating governments could not, apparently, agree that there is any actual causal relationship.
Dr. K: Oh, wait, it says “These studies have allowed a broader and more confident assessment of the relationship between observed warming and impacts than was made in the Third Assessment.”
Tom: Since they don’t say how much broader or how much more confident, they’re just begging the question, and the NESA press release should point that out.
Dr. K: Outstanding! Now, the Summary goes on to give a large number of examples – more glacial lakes, melting permafrost, plankton blooms, spring coming earlier, melting ice caps, changes in bird egg laying patterns, that kind of stuff.
Tom: The the press release should say NESA recognizes that certain evidence strongly indicates that the world is getting warmer, and NESA is as concerned as anyone else about it.
Dr. K: But NESA doesn’t really care a fig about it!
Tom: This is Washington, Dr. K. Around here, we have such high regard for the truth, we only use it on special occasions. This isn’t one of them. Say NESA is concerned and wishes there were something that could be done about it, but sees no evidence that Man or Technology can thwart what is probably the result of cosmic processes, like volcanic activity, cycles within the sun or changes in the earth’s orbit.
Dr. K: What if some wise guy points out that the scientists can prove that volcanoes don’t account for all the effects, the sun hasn’t changed that much and the earth’s orbit has stayed the same?
Tom: The key word is “like” – “changes like” those things. Obviously, if it knew exactly what the real cosmic changes were, NESA would have a moral responsibility to tell the world what they are. But NESA doesn’t know what they are – and neither does anybody else.
Dr. K: Oh, now I get it; just let me make a note of that. Okay, then the IPCC Summary says “The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.”
Tom: Oh, yeah, that was in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment. No biggie. What does it say next?
Dr. K: “However, the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented.”
Tom: Piece of cake. The press release notes the IPCC Summary clearly states that even if the ocean pH change is due to human activity, there is as yet no documentation that it has had any effects on the marine biosphere.
Dr. K: Brilliant! Tom, I’m just awestruck at the way you can twist things around like that.
Tom: It’s a gift, I guess. What next?
Dr. K: The Summary says there are four sets of evidence that, taken together, link impacts on biological systems to anthropogenic warming.
Tom: What are they?
Dr. K: The Working Group I Fourth Assessment conclusion…
Tom: That most of the observed increase is very likely due to greenhouse gas?
Dr. K: Yeah. Then there’s seventy-five studies with 29,000 data points that show 89 percent consistency with the direction changes expected from global warming; the third one says they did a global synthesis of Assessment studies and there is strong spacial agreement between places where it’s warming up and places where changes are being observed; and the fourth one says that several models have provided better results when greenhouse gases and aerosols are included along with natural phenomena such as volcanoes and solar activity.
Tom: The NESA press release should point out that none of those prove anything conclusively, and that limitations of the methods and gaps in the data make it impossible to state with any certainty that human activity is to blame.
Dr. K: Tom, this is incredible! You just paraphrased the next thing the Summary says!
Tom: No voodoo involved, Dr. K. They always say that.
Dr. K: Oh.
Tom: Next, they probably note that regional measurements show greater variability than global ones, and that the global predictions are extrapolations of regional data. Then, I bet they go on to say something like “but anyway, if you look at all this stuff, you see something discernible.”
Dr. K: Yeah, they do, Tom. And they use that word, “discernible.”
Tom: And NESA already knows what to say about “discernible” – it means you can find two molecules of benzene in a drop of water. Big deal.
Dr. K: Absolutely! We just brush that “discernible” stuff right off, like bird droppings on my Lexus’ windshield!
Tom: You got it. What’s the rest of the IPCC Summary say?
Dr. K: It says what’s going to happen, where, how badly, and discusses how accurately they can say that. It breaks the analysis out by major global systems, like water resources, ecosystems, agriculture, costal cities, industry and public health. Then it breaks it out by major geographic regions – Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, North America and the polar regions.
Tom: So, according to this document, which was prepared by the United Nations and has been sanctioned by major national governments, just how bad is it going to be?
Dr. K: Pretty bad, Tom. Expanding deserts, dying oceans, famines, disease and widespread species extinctions. Entire countries, like the Maldive Islands will disappear from the face of the Earth. Most of Bangladesh will go under, along with a bunch of other impoverished nations, causing massive populations of displaced persons.
Tom: Then what does it say?
Dr. K: It discusses what can be done, and then concludes with research recommendations.
Tom: That last part is always in there – those guys need more research grants. They have bills to pay, just like anybody else. Tell me about the latest Social Cost of Carbon estimates in the part before that.
Dr. K: They’re all over the map. Everything from three dollars to three hundred and fifty dollars per ton of carbon.
Tom: As usual. Okay, the NESA press release should say that while NESA is philosophically opposed to any tax on carbon emissions, it would be willing to acquiesce to a reasonable carbon tax if it is evident that the American people want one, and, just as importantly, the IPCC can produce an average SCC value where the limit of error at a 98 percent level of confidence is no more than fifteen percent of the average value determined.
Dr. K: Won’t it be dangerous for NESA to make a statement like that? What if the IPCC determines a SCC value of a hundred bucks a ton with an 98 percent confidence level between 85 and 115 dollars?
Tom: That will never happen.
Dr. K: How can you be sure?
Tom: Because NESA will conduct its own peer-reviewed SCC value determinations, with scientists it pays with its own money, consistently turning in values that are less than five dollars a ton. The NESA value will have to be included in the IPCC average for the SCC, otherwise NESA can scream bloody murder about it. Therefore, no matter what the other averages are, unless they’re all close to the NESA value, the error limit will spread out wider than the mighty Mississippi. At that point, NESA can argue that since, say, if the average is fifty bucks, and thirty percent of the error limit curve is less than zero, there’s a thirty percent chance the public ought to pay NESA members an extra fifty dollars a ton.
Dr. K: Really? That’s incredible! I just love statistics!
Tom: Me, too. Anything else?
Dr. K: How should I advise the Board concerning NESA’s long-term strategies?
Tom: That’s the easiest question you’ve asked me yet. Between the United States, Saudi Arabia and China, there’s not going to be any carbon tax, that’s for sure. Furthermore, there are no alternative energy sources that are cheaper than coal, or even petroleum, really, despite all that hype about gasoline prices in the US and the constant hysterical raving that we’re going to run out of oil. So there’s going to be more and more carbon dioxide emissions, whether they cause global warming or not. And the planet is getting warmer, and the sea level is rising, whether people are to blame for it or not. Bottom line, all NESA members have to do is make plans to deal with sea level rise around their costal refinery and coal depots. Get some public insurance, so the taxpayers pony up if the facilities get destroyed by a storm – argue jobs, that always works. Get the federal government to pay for dikes and sea walls to protect those facilities, too – energy availability is a matter of national security. Then, kinda, sorta look the other way when a less-than-profitable refinery on the Gulf Coast gets washed away and gasoline prices spike like crazy for a few weeks. After that, use eminent domain, like those shopping centers did, to clear housing off a water front or take over a wildlife refuge to build more refineries and coal depots.
Dr. K: That’s all?
Tom: That’s all you need to do if you’re filthy rich and own a bunch of coal mines, oil wells and gasoline refineries, like NESA members do, yeah.
Dr. K: Tom, that’s sweet!
Tom: Just another simple application of the Golden Rule – “He who has the gold, makes the rules.”
Dr. K: You can sure say that again, by golly!
Tom: So NESA is all set with the latest in global warming policy, or at least until Tuesday.
Dr. K: Yep, sure looks like it.
Tom: So, you going to church tomorrow for Easter Sunday?
Dr. K: You bet, Tom! Wouldn’t miss it for the world!
Tom: Then do me a favor – ask God a question. I understand that He talks to you Protestants pretty regularly, and maybe He could tell you the answer.
Dr. K: What, Jesus doesn’t converse with Catholics?
Tom: We have people for that. Sometimes His Mom drops by with advice, but it’s usually pretty cryptic and She doesn’t take questions.
Dr. K: No problem, Tom, it will be my pleasure to ask Jesus a question for you. What is it?
Tom: It’s the one NESA policy question that remains unanswered.
Dr. K: Why?
Tom: Because nobody will ask it.
Dr. K: What policy question is that, Tom?
Tom: Where are the filthy rich members of NESA going to spend all that money they have after they destroy the planet they live on getting it?
Dr. K: Oh, well, no need to wait on that one, Tom – I asked Jesus that question last Palm Sunday.
Tom: What did He say?
Dr. K: He said “My Father made all this in six days, and He can make plenty more of it any time He wants.”
Tom: Thanks.
Dr. K: You’re welcome. And thank you!
Tom: ‘Bye.
Dr. K: God Bless!