http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
"Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam Written By: Joseph L. Bast Published In: Heartlander Publication Date: February 1, 2003 Publisher: The Heartland Institute |
When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.
It’s B-a-a-ck!
Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.
The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute. "
source: http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
arooka
68 Comments
The Heartland Institute is a right-wing front for the tobacco, oil, private healthcare and other industries. Its board of directors serve with Philip Morris, General Motors, Amoco/BP, and Medline.
It has published reports on "junk science" (i.e., anything that says industry or privatization might not be the best answer to problems), and called for "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called PolicyBot.
Could it change back? Possibly. Likely? No one really knows. Do carbon dioxide emissions cause problems? Oh, more likely than not.
Actually, airplane travel is extremely detrimental for the atmosphere. But, people are not going to give up air travel, so perhaps all this discussion is moot.
We will have weather changes, some people will suffer, others will not. Perhaps great gobs of people will die. Will you or I care? Perhaps it hinges on whether that person is you, or me. Or what we accept as right or wrong.
Another thing that could be frightening is whether the black Dead Zones in the oceans keep growing. We have lost 90% of many species of fish throughout the world, the rest are becoming more contaminated with mercury. Things are changing in our seas.
Huge dead zones could herald the beginning of the end. So, keep a watch out. If no dead zones, if honey bees don't go away, if weather gets better and deadly heat waves decrease, we'll be fine, maybe.
It's all the watching and waiting.
Could the Earth die? Of course it could. It could become a dark ball of deadness sooner than later. One, big nuclear war, and it's essentially over.
Or, it could be a greyish greenish place filled with odd little bugs and rodents, and strange weeds.
That would be depressing to us, but we wouldn't be here anymore. The bugs might be happy, though.
You know what? The Earth is a bit more fragile than folks think. A nice study of science, and one can see that easy come, easy go... and in the great big Universe, worlds come and go all the time.
The purported 17,000 signatures were collected on a website which had no way of assuring that those who signed it were even scientists. For example, Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."
In 1998, OISM's founder Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.
I did read the paper published by the OISM, though, and it's a somewhat compelling piece of work, indicating with what appear to be strong figures that there is no reliable support for the notion of the actual existence of global warming.
Do you know a reference to a pro-global-warming paper that shows the trends in a different light?
There is a very available, and highly publicized paper that no one is paying any attention to, that was not funded by oil companies, car manufacturers, or anyone else with a monetary stake in the global warming debate, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of more than 800 actual climate scientists from dozens of different countries, reviewed, edited and revised by more than 2,500 climate scientists from scores of countries, and not a one of them in the pockets of corporate special interests.
It has been available in libraries for months, and portions of it on the web for quite a while. And it has been all but ignored by the mainstream media.
that will be the day *L*
thats what i expect from a stand up guy like yourself *L*
;-)
NOW, have a nice day!!!
;-)
Arooka is classless - Yes, I do not believe in the class society - It causes more harm to humanity than even you with your propaganda.
lying, loser,dummy, obnoxious - In your opinion, but once again your opinion is biased and full of misinformation.
Powerless to Change - Everyone has the ability in life to change, this is called choice.
Beyond Pity - Than you are without compassion, which is sad to see. One of the great attributes of humanity is our ability to have compassion, and you are without. Very sad.
sexist bastard - sexist (meaning discriminatory on the basis of sex) - Not true, I simply point out very rationally that there are differences between the genders. You may see this as sexist, but that is because you know nothing of feminism. You should read some books from Emily Murphy - the woman who gave women the status of people in the world. Learn about the words you say, don't just say catch phrases, as your lack of education becomes clear.
Bastard - Unlike many people in the world today, my parents married and planned for me. Not born out of wedlock and so, if you believe in Judiasm, Christianity and etc, I can go to heaven, unlike those who are actual bastards.
Dr. Fallon, you must control your brain and think with rationality, if you let emotions control you, than you will become a woman or a homosexual or something transgendered. Don't go that route, hold on to that which makes you a man.
so i think maybe you need to watch the catch phrases.
Regards
You either believe completly in your faith or you do not. Once you start picking and choosing what you will choose to follow out of the religion, leaves you outside of it gnashing your teeth.
This of course all depends on the factor that you have faith in what you claim. From this, you should not claim any relation to Christianity, as you only hurt true christians and God won't accept you anyways - when Jesus returns, would destroy you like all the other hethens. (and Bastards)
Wow.
Unbelievable.
Reality will never breach your walls...
;-)
Why do you suppose I would be insulted by your silly question of whether I am a woman? Do you think I would be afraid that people will think I am effeminate? Do you think I would be afraid of my own personality? Do you think I would hide the fact that, although I am a man, I have qualities that you don't have, and that might be labeled (by adolescents like you) as "feminine?"
The reality is that you are a fraud, a misogynist, and a bigot. Wow, finally makes sense.
Many people on Woyano refuse to take a stand, they want to be "tolerant," they "just wanna get along." Tolerance is great. But you push your nonsense too far, and I made my mind up long before I joined Woyano that I would never let bullshit go unchallenged, and I have a particular mind not to let your bullshit go unchallenged. It's too nasty, like that really ugly remark you made to LBP.
If you were not so ridiculously, coldly arrogant and insulting, I could probably let some of your bullshit go unchallenged, as it is fairly harmless. There are times when it is appropriate to let bad judgment and even bad taste go unremarked in the interests of sociability.
You crossed too many lines for me to sit and allow you to bullshit people -- especially new Woyanos who might not have the desire to go back and look at old posts -- without providing them a context for it. Simple as that. Get used to it.
And I suggest everybody get used to it. I don't like people to be talked to like this:
(after LBP said something in my defense) Arroka: "So use the kerchief to wipe his cum off your face."
Sorry, pal, your crossing too many lines. You and starrrrrrman are made for each other.
You misunderstand if you think that me calling you a woman is an attempt an insult. No, it is simply a realization, on my behalf, that you are not male, for you lack rational thought. Your emotional brain controls your actions - not the logic based brain of a male of our species. The fact that you are open to your feminine side is simply another example of what I am talking about. Bravo!
"The reality is that you are a fraud, a misogynist, and a bigot. Wow, finally makes sense." - Once again, your degree in propaganda only leaves you with words which are biased and full of misinformation. Bravo!
You may challenge what you deem as "bullshit", but please, oh, please read the information provided and than make a judgement call. If you still think it is bullshit, than so be it. I simply provide information which is factually correct and it is up to you on what you will believe. I realize that you may have xenophobia, but do not cry to me about it - I think that is a weakness. Being open minded is much better.
To Arooka:
Thanks for proving my point. Deteronomy is in the old testament, and it does say that. But my point was, we are living in the 'New Testament' so i follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. who if you recall rocks up in the New Testament and through him, anyone can go to heaven. regardless of there or anyone else's past.
so yeah...thanks for playing once again.
any more questions??
im always willing to tell you how ^-^
i do follow the bible, the old testament is a history, a incite of how hard it was to get tho heaven without Jesus.
Numbers 20:4 And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?
Numbers 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Numbers 27:17 Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd.
Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
1Chronicles 28:8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you forever.
Whether in ancient or modern times, anyone can see that the authors of these verses did not mean Heaven, especially in 1Chronicles where it is referring to the people of Israel, which in those times were considered "God's People."
so, my point is: what you have stated is infact the OLD way of entry to Heaven.
there is now a way in that is based purely on personal choice and only personal choice. only what you do and chose to believe will get you in.
"Bastard - Unlike many people in the world today, my parents married and planned for me. Not born out of wedlock and so, if you believe in Judiasm, Christianity and etc, I can go to heaven, unlike those who are actual bastards"
just pointing out that your wrong here. because that's part of the old covenant/ old testament. where in the new testament
Of course - this is the basic of languages - context. But you base your understanding on something which is counter to the historical use - the defined meaning of it, by the church. Which church? The Roman Catholic Church.
I did not mention "The Church." Most people misunderstand and see the word "Church" differently. I was merely stating the reference of a term and the fact that you have to read the whole story to understand what the authors are referring to.
And to be honest, I think that even if you got several historians, translators, and theologians outside of the Church together, they would still most likely define specific words like qâhâl or yehôvâh most likely the same.
You can define ouranos anyway you want, but it still means Heaven.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)