My 'email interview' with Lorrie Goldstein

As I mentioned in the previous post, with all the Kyoto misinformation being tossed about, it is refreshing to come across a voice of reason and healthy skepticism in MSM. Lorrie Goldstein has done a tremendous amount of reading on all sides of the debate, and provides a balanced, rational approach.

I asked him by email if he would sum up his position as being an "AGW believer; just not a Kyoto advocate in particular?"

His reply was as follows:

...I agree with the IPCC's latest report that AGW is "very likely", although I do not automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with this theory as a "denier".

I do not agree there is any scientific consensus on how fast it is happening, how dramatic the impact will be or, most important, what we should do about it, the latter of which is a political issue, not a scientific one.

I oppose the Kyoto accord for reasons I have highlighted in today's column and many others.

I believe we should purse a made-in-Canada policy which emphasizes practical energy conservation, not just reducing GHG emissions, but air pollution as well, another byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

I would end public subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (how much subsidy do you need when oil is $100 a barrel and rising?) and earmark those funds for credible public and private sector research in Canada into ways of combatting pollution and global warming, including burning fossil fuels as cleanly as possible.

I would also invest money now going into public subsidization of the fossil fuel industry into credible public and private sector research and development of renewable energy resources, especially solar power, which I consider more potentially promising than wind.

I believe we should offer such technology to the rest of the world on fair and reasonable financial terms.

Finally I believe in the responsible use of nuclear power, the only practical man-made energy source we have right now that does not emit GHG or significant amounts of air pollution, to fill in the energy gap as we start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Makes sense to me. How about you?

* * * *

Monday Update: Lorrie has passed on his research list, which not only establishes his excellent credentials as a columnist on the topic of Global Warming, but also provides a bibliography for others who wish to become better-informed:

(1) The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson, the best all-round book on the subject I've seen.
(2) The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan
(3) The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock
(4) Heat by George Monbiot
(5) The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
(6) Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza
(7) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Envrionmentalism by Christopher C. Horner.

The first six of these books support the theory of AGW although they suggest different solutions. The last is by a skeptic.

I have also seen and researched the following documentaries from beginning to end.

(1) An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore
(2) The Great Global Warming Swindle by Channel 4 in Britain
(3) Exposed: Climate of Fear by Glenn Beck on CNN

The first of these is, of course, the most famous individual work promoting the theory of APG. The other two are by skeptics.

I have also read IPCC docuents, hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, both pro and con, as well as a number of political books and documents that deal with climate change as one of their subject areas.

This includes the 1993 Liberal Red Book of election promises where Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (who co-authored the document) promised to reduce Canada's man-made greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. What they "achieved" during their 12 years in power from 1993 to 2005 was, roughly 29% above 1990 levels.