Man-Caused Global Warming And Climate Change: A Monstrous Lie
It is well known and documented that Alpine Glaciers (those found in mountainous areas) have advanced and retreated many times in recordable history. This is history witnessed and written of by man during the past approximate 5,000 years. There is unmistakable and unarguable evidence these glaciers have advanced and retreated many times since the end of the last Ice Age, when Continental Ice Sheets covered much of the Polar Regions and the Northern Hemisphere. Something caused this glacial retreat, or melting, and it wasn't man-caused. At least this melting occurred before he burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).
These were also at least as rapid climate changes as we see in the world today. So what is unique about current events? Why are we in such a frenzy to "stop climate change"? It is nothing unusual, unless we're being scared and panicked by fear? Is it so we will happily, or a least willingly, pay more taxes, carbon taxes or otherwise, to solve this imaginary warming problem? We should be worried, but not about global warming.
Peter
Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentine Patagonia
Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2014 07:59 AM
By Larry Bell
Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.
This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”
Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.
Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”
Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”
Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."
Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.
Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”
Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.
Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”
As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”
Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”
As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.
Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”
Yes. That should worry everyone.
Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.
The absurd notion that mankind is causing global warming and hence climate change continues to be spread by the liberal controlled media. It is not seriously questioned often enough because too many people are making and stand to make Billions of dollars from the "biggest hoax of all time." It has become such a political hot-potato that even people in positions to know, like scientists, are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs, their funding, or worse. Yes, there is THAT much money involved. Now we learn that the NSA, IRS, FBI, EPA, etc. is listening in on, and sometimes selectively blocking or censoring everything we read and write. Are we living in a "Police State"? Yes, beyond a doubt. Watch, I'll be shut down just for saying this.
The idea that we could actually change and control the Earth's huge and complex atmospheric climate system is even more absurd. People won't even go close to asking the question "could we really control climate change even if we put every last human effort and dollar to work on the issue?" The answer is obviously NO. I mean 1/3 of the people in the U.S. are on food stamps, tens of millions of people are unemployed, or underemployed, and people want to spend Billions more to try and change the climate? Insane.
To the ignorant trolls lurking out there: you bet it's a political issue. It has to be. New bills and taxes are being forced down our throats by our legislators on this issue every day. It has long gone way past being a scientific question, which I originally, naively assumed. As a scientist, I had faith in logic, reason, facts, and the scientific method. No longer. We have lost control to big business, and big politics or big government. So we must fight the insanity using every method we can.
Politicians look at a "carbon tax" on everything we do, and they DROOL; because most of the energy we use requires the release of simple (and harmless) carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They salivate or dream about grabbing all that potential tax revenue. It is literally like being able to tax the air we breath. We do produce and release carbon dioxide every time we exhale. Simply speaking, we breath in oxygen, use it for vital physiological functions, and our bodies convert it to carbon dioxide. And our government wants to tax it!!!! Amazing (and sad) that so many people are so uneducated that they accept such absurd tax proposals. Obviously most of our public school teachers have also fallen for or are intimidated into accepting the global warming/human connection hoax.
Now we get some egomaniac control-freak, like Billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg making proposals like the one described in the article below. Such idiocy is actually treasonous, if you think about it. What destroys America's economy, destroys America. Peter
Mayor Bloomberg Pledges $20 Billion NYC Doesn't Have To Address Global Warming Which Isn't Happening
Written by Jeff Dunetz, The Lid.
Build a Boat! It's Gonna Start Flooding! (sometime soon). According to Mommy Mayor Bloomberg NYC is about to be flooded because of global warming, so he's announced a $20 billion dollar plan to prevent the big apple from becoming the worlds largest bobbing for apples game. Its a reasonable plan with only two problems, the City doesn't have that kind of money and the sea level isn't rising, in fact temperatures haven't risen in 15+ years.
Mayor Bloomberg unveiled a $20 billion plan to defend New York City from what he claim will be the ravages of global warming in the coming decades. His plan will cost the average New York City household nearly $3,000.
Bloomberg’s 430-page plan, Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, includes approximately 250 recommendations ranging from new floodwalls and storm barriers to upgrades in the city’s power and telecommunications infrastructure. The plan also calls for $1.2 billion in loans and grants to help owners make buildings more resilient to floods and proposes changes in the city’s building code.
New York has always had to deal with the threat of flooding. Hurricanes and severe tropical storms have struck the area periodically since the founding of New Amsterdam (today’s New York) in 1624.Bloomberg announced the plan by claiming New Yorkers could either “do nothing and expose ourselves to an increasing frequency of Sandy-like storms” or “make the investments necessary to build a stronger, more resilient New York.”
Bloomberg is correct about the frequency of bad hurricanes, there was Hurricane Donna in 1960 (a category 2), Hurricane Gloria in 1985, Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012. See--a-15-year-gap followed by a 26-year gap and a 1-year gap (there were other storms but these were the bad ones). Come on Mayor! Four bad hurricanes in 52 years and you are freaking out!
“I have trouble seeing exactly how spending $20 billion—that’s billion with a ‘b’—will prevent bad weather or climate,” said climate scientist Willie Soon. “In general, to be more prepared is a good thing. But preparing, as New York City is apparently doing, using the faulty climate modeling scenarios offered by the UN IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a serious distortion of basic science.”
As far as sea levels---that's also nonsense. The President forgot ever since the last ice-age 10,000 years ago, sea levels have been rising. So unless the Neanderthals were imitating Al Gore and flying private jets and driving gas guzzlers, rising sea levels are not caused by man but by natural phenomena.
The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 20 feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).
But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Just like there has been no warming since 1998.
Gotta feel bad for the Mayor, he must be having some pretty bad nightmares to believe the City that never sleeps is going to become the city that can't keep its head above the water. Maybe he should stop having spicy food before he goes to sleep. Perhaps instead he could relax with a nice 44 ounce Slurpee. Source
History will show most of the work done and efforts made to convince the public of a relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming and/or climate change is based almost completely on faulty science, doctored data, and politically motivated lies. It is and has been a shameful record of mixing so-called science and politics. It is worse that Soviet-style central planning, the kind that lead to the failure of the Soviet Union and the suffering and deaths of millions of people. More and more people are belatedly coming to the same sad realization.
Peter
Global warming as real as Obama's jobless numbers, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says
Written by Ben Wolfgang, The Washington Times.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher - WikimediaIf you believe in man-made climate change — and think the nation’s unemployment rate truly has fallen to 7.5 percent — then Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has a bridge to sell you.
At a Tuesday-morning House hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the outspoken Mr. Rohrabacher, California Republican, took aim at environmentalists’ claims that mankind is fueling global warming by continuing to use fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.
That notion, he suggested, is as false as the idea that the U.S. jobless rate really is as low as the just-announced 7.5 percent. The Labor Department on Friday reported that the U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in April and that the unemployment figure fell to its lowest level in five years.
“The American people understand how fragile we are economically, even with a supposed 7.5 [percent] unemployment rate. Anybody who believes that probably also believes in global warming,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “I believe the global warming theory that mankind is impacting climate change has been so exaggerated, … that it will bring down the standard of living of the American people.” Read rest…
As was totally predictable, the Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on subsidies to the solar and wind energy industries has been a bust, a failure, a waste. With America in such debt, isn't it time to pull the plug on these losers? Will anyone be held accountable for such a criminal waste? And voters elected the same Administration responsible for this outrage to four more years? Amazing stupidity. Peter
Is Colorado's "new energy
economy" still viable in light of recent setbacks in the industry? No
By William Yeatman The
Denver Post
Posted:
DenverPost.com
It's been a rough stretch for Colorado's "new
energy economy." Over the last few months, the Centennial State's green energy
industry, which the new energy economy was supposed to kick start, has been
beset by a series of setbacks. Loveland-based Abound Solar went bankrupt; Vestas
Wind Systems laid off almost 200 workers at its Windsor blade plant; and General
Electric pulled the plug on a planned solar manufacturing plant in Aurora.
The troubles of renewable energy companies
are not unique to Colorado; they extend nationwide. U.S. taxpayers ponied up $60
billion for green energy "investments" as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill. The results are
only coming in only now, and they are not good. The list of "stimulosers" — of
which Solyndra is only the most famous example — is long and growing. It
includes Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Amonix, A123 Systems, Nevada Geothermal
Power, and many others.
These green industries are in trouble for a
simple reason. They are running out of subsidies. The 2009 stimulus has been
spent and the wind production tax credit is set to expire in December. Without a
steady influx of taxpayer help, renewable energy sources like wind and solar
power cannot compete, due to their high capital costs and intermittent
supply.
How dependent on government are these
industries? The American Wind Energy Association estimates that almost half of
the entire wind power workforce — almost 37,000 people — would lose their jobs
if Congress were to allow a single tax subsidy to expire. Such sudden and severe
contractions are symptomatic of industries whose business plan is predicated on
political favoritism. When the political winds change and the subsidies on which
these companies depend are cut, the bottom falls out from under them.
On the demand side, green energy entails
higher rates for consumers. In 2011, for example, a New Energy Economy policy
known as the Solar*Rewards program accounted for almost 4 percent of sales,
despite generating a scant half a percent of Xcel Energy's system-wide power.
That's a bad deal for Coloradans. Unfortunately, the burden on Xcel ratepayers
will only increase with the expiration of federal subsidies, which have
effectively discounted Colorado's policies.
Somewhat paradoxically, the new energy
economy's biggest expense likely will pertain to fossil fuels. The 2010 Clean
Air Clean Jobs Act mandated that Xcel Energy generate from natural gas almost
1,000 megawatts of base load supply that it now gets from coal. At current
prices, natural gas is historically cheap, but it is still more than twice as
expensive as coal, according to Xcel Energy's regulatory filings.
And let's not forget that the price of
natural gas reached historical highs only four summers ago. In fact, the high
cost and volatility of the natural gas market relative to coal was the primary
reason that the Colorado utilities have relied on the latter to meet the
preponderance of the state's energy needs.
A spike in the price of gas after the current
supply contracts expire would cost Xcel Energy ratepayers dearly.
The worst aspect of the new energy economy
program is its regressive nature. Utility bills represent a larger portion of
poor households' budgets, so the new energy economy's costs are shouldered
disproportionately by those who can least afford them.
Before the new energy economy program came
along, Colorado utilities' decisions on how to provide power to consumers were
guided by considerations on how to do so most efficiently at the least cost.
Now, many of those decisions are based on political considerations, such as the
need to prop up renewable energy, imposed by politicians. As a result, Colorado
ratepayers can expect to pay for unsustainable subsidies, endure lower power
supply reliability, and suffer unexpected consequences — all in the name of
green ideology.
William
Yeatman is assistant director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington,
D.C.
Ok, this is ignorance taken to its maximum. We all know what permafrost is; frozen soil, and it traps naturally occuring methane gas below it from escaping. When the soil warms and thaws, this gas escapes and goes into the Earth's atmosphere. Hello? This has been going on for millions, billions of years. Glaciers advance and retreat. The oceans rise and fall. The sun sets and rises. This has all been going on long, long before us evil human beings began burning fossile fuels.
So let's not be afraid of methane, that gas which we use to heat our homes and cook our food, scare us. Don't let them blow smoke up our....bums....... Peter
Josh Haner/The New York TimesKatey M. Walter Anthony, the lead author of a new paper, examining a methane seep in Alaska.
Methane held underground by caps of Arctic ice is bubbling out as a warming climate causes those caps to melt, researchers report in the journal Nature Geoscience. The paper offers some of the strongest field evidence yet that a melt-back of land ice can release methane.
Removing an ice cap seems to work a bit like popping the cap on a bottle of soda, allowing pent-up gas to escape. In an interview, the paper’s lead author, Katey M. Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said that this mechanism has probably been at work since the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago.
“We’re not necessarily saying this is a new source, so much as it’s newly discovered,” Dr. Walter Anthony said. “And at the moment, it’s not a huge source.”
The discovery raises concerns nonetheless.
The study implies that as human-induced greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet in the coming century, the retreat of land ice throughout the Arctic will send extra methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas itself, so such additional emissions, if large enough, could function as a feedback that would accentuate the warming.
The new mechanism may sound similar to one that I described last year in an article focusing on other work by Dr. Walter Anthony on the frozen lakes of central Alaska. But the two methane sources are not the same.
As that article explained, old organic material is locked up across much of the Arctic in frozen ground called permafrost, much of which dates back to the last ice age. As these shallow deposits thaw in today’s warmer climate, bacteria are converting the carbon into methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are escaping into the atmosphere.
The new paper describes a different type of deposit known as a geologic reservoir, in which methane gas has been trapped underground for a long time, thousands or even millions of years. Atop those deposits, land ice – in the form of permafrost, glaciers or ice caps, which are collectively known as the earth’s cryosphere – has helped to keep the methane sealed underground. But now that the ice is melting, the gas can escape.
Dr. Walter Anthony and her husband, a researcher named Peter Anthony, found the leaks by flying over Alaska and hiking across Greenland, looking for spots where methane from deep in the earth was bubbling vigorously enough to create holes in the ice cover of frozen lakes.
They believe they have identified 150,000 seeps in Alaska alone, and they approached a fraction of them from the ground to take gas samples. The Alaskan seeps were often near the margins of retreating glaciers or thawing permafrost. In Greenland, the seeps tended to be concentrated around the margins of ice caps that have been retreating over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The big question raised by the paper is exactly how big this flux of geological methane will become in a warming climate. “As the cryosphere degrades further, it could be a really big source,” Dr. Walter Anthony said.
Still, new findings about Arctic methane must be interpreted with caution.
Researchers in recent years have repeatedly found additional sources of methane in the Arctic, and additional ways for it to escape from underground or from the sea. Writers of news articles and blog posts have often leaped to the conclusion that these fluxes are new, instead of just newly discovered, with some write-ups carrying headlines like “Arctic Armageddon.”
Experts say the published science on this issue does not merit such panic, at least not yet.
It is true that the level of methane in the atmosphere has begun to rise in recent years, for reasons science cannot fully explain. And researchers are definitely concerned about that increase.
But data from monitoring stations in the two hemispheres suggests that the increase is not coming from the Arctic. Some of it could actually be coming from increased human production of natural gas with the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing (natural gas is mostly methane).
Edward J. Dlugokencky, who monitors global methane emissions for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an e-mail that the available information “does not exclude the possibility of future increasing Arctic emissions resulting from Arctic warming, but it is strong evidence that it is not happening yet.”
Many experts do believe, however, that the situation is urgent in a scientific sense. They say we need a much better handle on where methane is coming from today and where it could come from in the future, so as not to be caught off guard by potentially nasty surprises.
The huge man-made global warming scandal is being laid bare.......do we have enough space in our prisons for the perpetrators of the scam? The crime?....lying and "stealing" untold Billions of taxpayers dollars, often to enrich themselves, calling it "science" and destroying the world economy. Peter
Speaking of lies and the liars that spread them: In light of yesterday's column on the cottage industry of global warming hysteria and the slant they give the day's news, I got a nice email from the people at the Heartland Institute reminding me of the theft and alteration of documents from Heartland by hysterical warming apologist Professor Peter Gleick, a supposed ethics expert with the Pacific Institute.
I first covered the story as it was occuring in February, when Heartland reported the theft. Sinced then Heartland has published a list of websites and periodicals that abetted Gleick. I have have appended that list at the end of this column.
Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, admitted that he recently stole some documents- and he may have forged others- from the conservative think-tank. But that’s all in a day’s work for a work-a-day climate warrior. The important thing isn’t the quest for the truth in global climate research, but, as Charlie Sheen would say, winning. With winning comes cash.
Because for some time it’s been clear, that in the climate debate, instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile, all the attention will be on the winners and losers. And some losers in the debate are much bigger than others.
For example:
“In the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts,” writes MSNBC, “scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.”
No word yet whether Gleick will create an award for forgery. I hear the pool of candidates isn’t deep this year since all of the forged data from Climategate has already gone pro.
The authentic documents stolen from Heartland were released by Gleick, along with some documents the Heartland folks say are forgeries.
The real documents were prepared by the think-tank to counter the global warming bunk that is being taught in US schools. I know about the global warming hysteria that is taught at the elementary and secondary level, because my kids come home everyday and instead of telling me about how they’ve learned to read and write and how great George Washington was, they instead tell me that “transfer calculations indicate that strong gradients in both ozone and water vapor near the tropopause contribute to the inversion.” Ah, huh. I think neither they, nor their teachers, nor the authors, nor myself, knows what that means.
Still I hope the question is on the ACT. But I doubt it.
This is a very serious issue.
How serious?
“Heartland has not said whether any of the documents it unwittingly released were altered,” reports the LA Times, “and Gleick said he did not change any of the material he got. But several of the key points the purported strategy document makes are backed up in the material Gleick obtained from Heartland. Most notably, in a fundraising document, Heartland identifies one of its priorities as reshaping the discussion of climate change in K-12 classrooms.” Ohmygosh!
Well let’s just say that the Heartland Institute is in BIG trouble now.
How dare these right-wing troglodytes have a scientific position contrary to the United Nations Interplanetary Council on Wealth Transfer and Class Envy.
No, no. no. You can’t do that. Not under an Obama administration.
Yeah sure: The UN misspends our money on their sex scandals, mismanagement of programs designed to secure peace and prosperity and engage in habitual human rights abuses by a majority of the members states who make up the one-world-government to-be. But clearly, those problems aside, they have the skill to put together a group of scientists who can report objectively on the science behind global warming; especially the part where the remedies include: 1) You footing the bill; and 2) They get your money.
Don’t we mere mortals know that our puny powers of reason and deduction are impervious to the powers granted to the Society of Ethical Geophysicists by the government of the United Nations?
That’s why the scientist, Geophysicist Ethicist Mr. Gleick, is now being hailed by the director of research for Greenpeace, Kert Davies, as a “hero,” says the LA Times.
Most other commentary declaims Gleick's methods, while not-so subtly applauding his aims. The Atlantic'sMegan McArdle has had about the only rational response, concluding that Gleick is crazy:
And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position--so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn't have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier. I would probably have thrown that memo away. I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what? That Heartland exists? That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible?
When conservatives question global warming, we are lying, apparently. When liberals steal in the name of global warming, it can't be a sign of desperation, poor science or character. No; they must be crazy, with due respect to Ms. McArdle, who I believe is sincere .
I guess since liberals haven't yet embraced retroactive abortions, the next, best thing they can do is label someone crazy when they want to cut them from the herd, as they did recently with Media Matter's David Brock.
Skeptics- or rather, deniers, as we’d much rather be called- will point out that increasingly the public is distrustful of global warming science.
Despite a little bounce in the polls, 60 percent of US respondents to a Rasmussen survey don’t think that global warming is man made. “In a January survey of the top 22 policy priorities for the US,” writes Our World 2.0 “the public ranked climate change dead last, according to the Pew Research Center.”
“When government muzzles scientists for political reasons, it cuts at the fundamental principals of good science,” Stephen Hwang, professor of general internal medicine at the University of Toronto told Our World.
But when the doctors and scientists seek to muzzle the rest of us it’s all A.O.K.
And for some weird reason the public just doesn’t trust those scientists who are fully sponsored and funded by the UN, US, UK and other government grants, which in turn were funded by you.
By talking about it, you troglodytes just emit more carbon. Good going.
Your proper role is to just shut your big, fat mouth and fork over a carbon credit or cash equivalent so the truth-seeking can continue unimpeded.
For more information you can see the Heartland's website on the scandal at Fakegate.org.
In the meantime, here's a list of publications that Heartland says is a rogue’s gallery of organizations that are willing to invade people’s privacy in pursuit of an ideological campaign called “global warming.”
Please contact them – by commenting on the posts, emailing the bloggers or webmasters, even picking up the phone or writing a letter – to insist that they (1) remove those documents from their sites; (2) remove from their sites all posts that refer or relate in any manner to those documents; (3) remove from their Web sites any and all quotations from those documents; (4) publish retractions on their Web sites of prior postings; and (5) remove all such documents from their servers.
The following Web sites and blogs posted stolen and fake Heartland documents on their own servers:
February 15 – Climate Denial Bombshell (Update) Huffington Post Mr. Shawn Lawrence Otto, blogger 177th Street N Marine On Saint Croix, MN 55047-9760contact page 651-433-2982 or 651-433-3103
The following organizations have condoned the theft, quoted the forged memo, or are attacking the scientists and others whose identities were revealed by Peter Gleick. Urge them to stop, retract their comments, and apologize for the damage they have caused:
Pacific Institute 654 13th Street, Preservation Park Oakland, CA 94612 510/251-1600 510/251-2203 (fax)info@pacinst.org
Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001 202/462-1177 202/462-4507 (fax)info@wdc.greenpeace.org
National Center for Science Education 420 40th Street, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2688 510/601-7203 800/290-6006 (toll freee) 510/601-7204 (fax)info@ncse.com
350.0rg 155 Water St 6FL Brooklyn, NY 11201 510/250-7860jamie@350.org
Written by Don Surber, Daily Mail blogs | April 16 2012
Al Gore - Nobel Peace Price 2007
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So far this month, the public has learned that the Arctic is overrun with polar bears, according to a Canadian study. The poster child for fear-warmongering by junk-science global warmists not only survives but thrives.
Then an actual count of penguins found that there are twice as many Emperor Penguins in Antarctica than previously thought, a second study found.
Then, another study found that far from melting in 23 years as the Nobel Peace Prize-winning IPCC report predicted, the glaciers of the Himalaya mountains are doing just fine.
The time has come to investigate James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore and other global warming stars for fraud. They lied. They manipulated data. They made false predictions of doom in their over-heated sales pitches. I know that Hansen and Gore made millions off these false alarms of ecological doom. We must now hold them accountable for false claims and the spreading of rumors.
(continued here)
It is difficult to grasp how much money has been wasted and how much human suffering has been caused by the hoax surrounding the decades-long myth of man-caused global warming/climate change.
What began as an innocent-sounding and appearing effort to understand the world's weather systems and patterns and how these affect humans on Earth was morphed into a bottomless money drain on taxpayers in the form of endless government funding of ever-increasing ludicrous projects. Billions and Billions (Trillions) of dollars or their equivalent have been largely wasted. Job creation? Hardly. It is like paying someone to dig a hole and then having them fill it in.
What have any of these "climate studies", laws, treaties, taxes, caps, trades, etc. actually accomplished? Are we any safer? Are our lives any better? Is there less flooding, fewer tornadoes, a stabilization of sea level, are polar bears any happier? Is there less "pollution", is the air any cleaner, are the glaciers advancing, or retreating, coral reefs living or dying, do we even really know any of those things, if we did, do they matter? Has anything been done other than enrich Al Gore and people like James Hansen, the taxpayer-paid, global warming fathers of global warming alarmism? They ought to be arrested, tried before a well-publicized jury of ordinary people, and if guilty, fined to their last penny, and locked up forever.
As I see the United States sink farther and farther into debt, not to mention the rest of the world, and I see money wasted on projects like mandated wind energy, solar farms, electric vehicles, ethanol fuel from corn, and a host of other things that are uneconomic, impractical, and used by corrupt politicians to manipulate people and simply serve as a means of collecting more taxes, I become a tad bit irritated.
I care about America. I'm not being paid by "big bad oil" to share this material and my knowledge and experience, limited as it may be. I simply care about the world and its people and I hate to see the future being ruined by these so-called "environmentalists" for future generations. Honestly, it is not for me. I don't have that many years left. I don't like seeing people being conned and ripped off. Everyone is in far greater debt, (and remember taxation and perpetual debt is a form of slavery.) I trust nobody likes being a slave, even if it is just a partial slave, and especially not a slave to these "climate criminals". Peter
Written by John O'Sullivan, guest post | March 01 2012
James Hansen being arrested at Keystone protest sit-in.FBI agents are urged to grill others linked to self-confessed climate criminal, Dr. Peter Gleick in the 'Fakegate’ climate counterfeiting scandal. Evidence now points to NASA’s Dr. James Hansen as accomplice in global warming racket.
Dr. Peter Gleick resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office confirmed an FBI probe is under way, “We are currently working with the [Heartland] institute and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.
Dr. Gleick's rapid fall from grace has mired other top tier climatologists in what may become a full-blown wire fraud and RICO racketeering investigation by federal authorities. Leading critics are sure that the elements of 18 USC 1343 appear already met under admitted facts.
Questions will now need to be asked about the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) role in enabling Hansen to make a notorious presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988; all thanks to a dubious ‘peer-reviewed’ paper of his that AGU brusquely shoehorned through.
Now identity thief Peter Gleick has been exposed as disseminating at least one forged document used to defame the Heartland Institute, a well-known free trade policy think tank. Gleick admitted to Huffington Post readers that he handled stolen documents. His intent was to injure others – a crime under U.S. Law. Actual financial harm occurred due to Gleick's unlawful release of Heartland's donor list and contributions; one donor has since withdrawn funding.
However, none of the documents distributed by Gleick (other than the fake strategy document) reveal any smoking guns against Heartland. But already, astute investigators have found a worrying link between Gleick, Dr. James Hansen and the AGU that may yet point to a real smoking gun in U.S. climate fraud racketeering from 1988.
Gleick, Hansen and the AGU Complicit in the 'Greatest Crime' Hansen's paper, foretelling of a world of catastrophic man-made global warming was 'peer reviewed’ to sway an otherwise skeptical Congress. The AGU is thus a vehicle of dubious patronage.
Hansen misled elected officials by deceitfully claiming that carbon dioxide (CO2) from ocean out-gassing and other natural vents has different carbon ratios 'signature' than human 'fossil fuel' emissions.Hansen then successfully duped policymakers into believing human CO2 emissions were linked to global warming. But the truth is that there is no way to distinguish between natural or man-made sources of CO2. Hansen's paper was thus not up to the scientific standard necessary for publication and should never have passed proper peer review.
Thus Hansen’s Congressional charade precipitated the U.S. government’s resolve to fight global ‘greenhouse gas’ warming and blow $100 billion tackling a proven non-problem (despite 30 percent rises in carbon dioxide emissions global temperatures have fallen this century).
Federal agents now have a green light to apply RICO statutes, designed to root out racketeering, based on the following facts: As a self-confessed climate criminal Dr. Peter Gleick faces incarceration. He has already admitted to being implicated in identity theft, stealing private documents and falsifying evidence to defame, and thus injure the Heartland Institute and others. Gleick is linked via the AGU to Hansen's 1988 paper and by association to other scientists suspected of fraud (inc. hockey stick graph conjurer, Michael Mann). Over the decades such unprincipled alarmists stand accused of filching millions in taxpayer funds by exploiting public fears in a phony global warming narrative.
How RICO Statutes May Be Applied
If the FBI can show that a fraudulent AGW narrative was knowingly implemented by Gleick, Hansen and other key players, then not only can prosecutions for racketeering be swiftly implemented, but the whole climate science house of cards will collapse.
Federal law sets out the meaning of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.§ 1961. Identity theft and the fraudulent creation of documents that Gleick dishonestly attributed to Heartland clearly qualifies his crimes as possible racketeering offenses under RICO.
To sustain convictions apattern of racketeering activity must first be established. This requires the FBI to produce evidence that Gleick, AGU and/or other co-conspirators have engaged in at least two acts of racketeering activity. The law requires that investigators tie together such acts within 10 years of each other.
The burden for prosecutors is not a light one but these riders of the global warming gravy train may well fit the bill as per the test applied by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the 'continuity-plus-relationship test' applied to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern.
U.S. Supreme Court guidelines state that co-conspirators "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.)
Where Does Climate Politics and Law Go From Here?
Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the 'post-normal' climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.
Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this 'post normal' academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:
“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”
If national governments won’t put a stop to it then state prosecutors and civil litigants likely will. Indeed, Glieck's crimes may also be prosecuted under California law. Section 528.5 to the Penal Code deals specifically with such impersonation (SB 1411: Internet Impersonation).
While over in Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a high-profile prosecutor adamant he will continue the fight on behalf of the Commonwealth’s taxpayers and expose Michael Mann's hidden misdeeds.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is making strides defending vexatious libel suits filed separately by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver. History will eventually join all such pieces of the puzzle to show how just extensive the climate fraud truly was.
Not only has Tipper Gore seen the light and wants to distance herself from Al Gore (and his fraudulent activities), but the public seems to finally be catching on to what an enormous hoax the entire myth of man-caused global warming is and has been.
Wouldn't we all love to have those Billions of dollars spent on this "wild goose chase" returned to the government coffers and use that money for something based on sound, honest science instead of a socialist, leftist agenda? Maybe the tide is turning. Maybe the global economic and financial crises are causing people to take a second look at how taxpayers money is being spent. Maybe simple common sense will prevail after all. Peter
Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes.
How the tables have turned in a short time. On May 20, Oxford Union, the prestigious 187-year-old English debating society, formally considered the question of whether it was more important to focus on growing the economy or solving global warming. Climate realism won the day, 135 to 110. It's no wonder, considering how the purportedly scientific arguments advanced in support of the scaremongering conclusions have fallen apart since the Climategate scandal invited verification of the left's previously unexamined claims.
During the debate, Lord Whitty, former environment minister under the Labor government, claimed 95 percent of scientists were in agreement that man was responsible for a coming climatic cataclysm. Lord Monckton, representing climate realists, asked him to provide a reference backing up the claim. The audience jeered Lord Whitty for having none beyond, "Everyone knows it's true."
When the best the warmists can come up with is an appeal to authority, their case is lost for good. That's why, just a few days earlier, climate realists gathered in triumph on this side of the pondat a Heartland Institute climate-change conference in Chicago. Eminent scientists presented a wealth of evidence suggesting nature is, in fact, a much more powerful factor affecting the climate than man. That realism suggests the need for moderation when it comes to political action based on climate data.
"We think we need public policy that's based in facts, rather than facts that are based on a public agenda," Colorado State University professor Scott Denning said.
Once outcasts on the fringe of the scientific community, these individuals braved the ridicule of the self-appointed "enlightened" members of society to dismantle systematically the hockey sticks and other frauds crafted by leftists over the years.
In 1895, the New York Times suggested the Earth was headed toward a "second glacial period" in which "countries now basking in the fostering warmth of the tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions." By 1923, the Gray Lady had decided, "The Arctic seems to be warming up" as "so little ice has never before been noted." By the 1970s, schoolchildren were indoctrinated by textbooks blaming a new ice age on man's Earth abuse.
All this begs the question of how long it will take the warmist crew to readjust their scare story to win back the public. The majority firmly rejects their socialist prescription to solve an imaginary problem.
Yes, we've been lied to, played for fools, defrauded, and worse; we've been and are being deceived by the mainstream media who pretend they are so caring and honest (think Brian Williams of NBC), and once reputable newspapers like the New York Times actively hide the truth or simply ignore it.
Then consider the garbage continually spewed out about the dangers of climate change by Newsweek Magazine, NBC and MSNBC, totally ignoring, or yes, denying the fact that man-caused global warming has been shown to be a complete fraud. Of course one must remember that these operations are purely propaganda mills for their owner, General Electric (GE).
Do you ever wonder why the Obama Administration is pushing so hard for "cap and trade" and regulating and taxing "carbon emissions"? Could it be that GE, a staunch supporter and financial contributor to Obama, happens to have Billions at stake with their "clean coal technology", wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, and light bulbs. This is big, dirty business folks, and we Americans, in fact everyone on Earth is being screwed by these people, organizations, and the naive , "useful idiots" who have swallowed this man-caused global warming nonsense and "save Mother Earth" ideology. We had better wake up and stop this lunacy now! Peter
Some 49 of these 50 United States simultaneously laughed at so-called “global warming.” Every state but Hawaii had measurable snow on Feb. 13. An average eight inches covered 68.1 percent of the continental U.S., well above January’s more typical 51.2 percent.
Warmists correctly retort that a cold snap is no pattern. Instead, listen to East Anglia University climatologist Dr. Phil Jones. This world-famous advocate of so-called “global warming” conceded to the BBC that Earth’s positive temperature trend between 1995 and 2009 is “not significant.”
Jones, the chief figure in the “Climategate” e-mails scandal, rejected the oft-stated claim that “warming”-related science is settled. “This is not my view,” Jones said. “There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties...”
Thus, it has become nearly impossible to hear about “global warming” without giggling. The so-called “global warming” that Albert Gore promised has yielded to global cooling. Meanwhile, Gore’s vaunted scientific “consensus” has collapsed, like a roof buckled beneath too much snow:
• NASA is fending off charges that it “dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based,” according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Average global temperatures are calculated based on observations from some 1,500 weather stations today, versus about 6,000 in the 1970s. Canadian stations have fallen to 35 from 600.
Icecap.us meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA has removed “higher-latitude, high-altitude” locations from its sample. Andean weather gauges, for instance, are overlooked, while regional temperatures now are based on readings “on the coast or in the Amazon,” D’Aleo says. He compares this to calculating Minneapolis’ average temperature by checking thermometers in St. Louis and Kansas City.
•The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purports to be for “warming” science what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is to U.S. fiscal policy. If CBO were caught with a broken abacus making multiple errors, however, some politically motivated, it might face IPCC’s current level of embarrassment.
•In its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report, IPCC’s Dr. Murari Lal asserts that so-called “global warming” would melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035, first drowning Asians in flash floods, and then dehydrating them beside desiccated rivers. Dr. Lal’s source for this apocalyptic vision was a non-scientific, 2005 World Wildlife Fund report, one of 16 non-peer-reviewed WWF papers that IPCC considered “evidence.” WWF, in turn, recycled two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain. WWF’s study also featured a massive mathematical mistake. It stated that a glacier receded at 134 meters (439 feet) annually. The correct distance was 23 meters (75 feet). WWF calculated annual shrinkage by dividing 121 years of glacier loss by 21, not 121. Oops!
•IPCC claimed that African, Alpine, and Andean mountain tops had lost ice between 1900 and 2000 “due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming.” One source for this conclusion was an unpublished master’s-degree geography thesis that quoted observations from Swiss mountain guides. IPCC also cited a 2002 “Climbing” magazine article that quoted mountaineers who had scaled glaciers since the 1970s.
“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense,” Professor Richard Tol of Dublin’s Economic and Social Research Institute, said in January 30’s London Daily Telegraph.
Such monkeyshines have dominated this issue for four decades. As IPCC author Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
These revelations of slipshod and sinister “global-warming science” have crippled cap-and-trade energy taxes, job-killing international “climate change” treaties, and other self-destructive policies.
The fact that America is buried in snow is the icing on the cake.
Those who knowingly promoted the myth of man-caused global warming have been exposed as frauds, cheats, and liars. They make the humiliation of Tiger Woods pale in comparison. Peter
Yvo de Boer, climate chief of the United Nations for four years, unexpectedly announced his resignation today. Although he officially won’t leave his post until July 1st, it marks another turn for the worse for those hoping to see action on climate policy. De Boer, who led the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (2007) and more recently in Copenhagen (2009) said, “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen.”
Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman explains just how epic of a failure the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really was: “To fully appreciate what a step backwards the final Copenhagen accord is, one has to recall the buildup to it. For the last two years, global warming activists and UN officials had circled December 2009 on their calendars as the watershed moment for creating a new carbon-constrained global economy for decades to come. And in the nick of time, they would argue, as the existing targets in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol are scheduled to expire in 2012. Furthermore, with the Bush administration gone in 2009, many in the international community felt that the path was clear for the Obama administration to finally include America in binding, verifiable, and enforceable restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.”
It also goes to show just how ill-suited the United Nations is at handling a climate treaty. The vastly competing interests of UN member states make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement. For instance, the Copenhagen conference sought to get developed countries to accept massive economic costs to meet carbon dioxide cuts and provide billions of dollars in wealth transfers to help nations cope with the projected consequences of a changing climate, while simultaneously exempting developing countries (even the large developing country emitters like India and China).. The kicker is that this deal – as bad as it would be for developed countries like the U.S. – would not significantly arrest greenhouse gas emissions. More egregiously, the U.N. itself had become too invested in the agreement. As noted by Heritage fellow and UN expert Brett Schaefer:
“The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral facilitator, not a decision-making body. The decisions over what commitments nations make should be left to their respective governments — they have to justify them to the citizens who will be affected. In this debate, the U.N. has moved inappropriately beyond serving as bureaucratic “butlers of the process” to full-blown advocates pushing for ever more stringent commitments in the face of countervailing evidence and lack of political support for its suggested actions.”
With UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon selecting the de Boer’s successor, it’s unlikely we’ll see an effort to minimize the U.N.’s role in negotiating climate change treaties. But reversing that trend was unlikely anyway. The best option is to sideline the UN and shift negotiations on efforts to address climate change to a more effective forum of those states that would be expected to shoulder the burden of any proposed efforts and, therefore, would be sure to view those proposals in a proper cost-benefit framework.
As for de Boer, working with businesses may be easier said than done. BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar recently left the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP), a coalition of business and environmentalists that support legislation to reduce greenhouse gases such as cap and trade. With trillions of dollars on the table and up for grabs, corporations worked hard for a seat at that table in search of corporate welfare at the expense of the consumer. But the recent revelations of flaws in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as well as the ostensible data corruption and manipulation exposed by leaked emails and documents from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) have companies jumping off the global warming bandwagon. It’s certainly not going be a cakewalk convincing them to jump back on and willingly cut emissions given the economic cost and faulty science.
Some say de Boer’s resignation will add to the trouble. Agus Purnomo, Indonesia’s special presidential assistant on climate change admitted the resignation “comes at the worst time in the climate change negotiations. His decision will ultimately add to the difficulties we already have in reaching a successful outcome in Mexico.” Hopefully, participating governments take this opportunity to reassess the entire fiasco of UN led negotiations like Copenhagen.
The following is just a tiny fraction of the fallout from the scandal clearly exposed by ClimateGate. There is much more here, the source of the following information. Peter
The New Scientist decides that enough is enough, it’s time to hit back against Climategate. But instead of trying to answer the growing list of questions raised by the CRU leak, NS just tries to discredit skeptics with tired old arguments. That rushing sound you hear is the NS haemorrhaging subscribers, read the comments.
Uh Oh, dirty rotten hippie scoundrels are discovering that the burden of proof has suddenly reversed polarities:
You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It’s all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism.
Tony Blair's ignorant comments about man-caused global warming reinforce the obvious. Cap and trade (tax) is not about the environment. The entire global warming charade is about power, control and money. It will be seen as the biggest scandal of all time. Peter
Tony Blair says the science behind climate change theory doesn’t need to be true Written by Tony Hake, Climate Change Examiner Monday, December 14 2009 10:13
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Copenhagen yesterday for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). In comments that are sure to raise eyebrows, Blair said that the world must act on the purported threat of manmade climate change, even if the science isn’t accurate.
The release of thousands of emails from the world’s top scientists – Climategate as it has come to be called – has cast doubts on the scientists and the science behind the manmade climate change theory. The ethics of many of the scientists have been called into question and each day at the climate summit last week, scientists and world leaders were forced to address the scandal.
It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. ~ Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The revelations appear to have Blair wondering about the science as well. He told the UK’s Telegraph, “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.”
Were the science shown to not be correct, the former prime minister said that the world’s nations still needed to take action. “Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible,” he said.
There is little doubt that the world as a whole needs to work to ensure a cleaner natural environment. Pollution as a result of carbon emissions and the world’s dependence on fossil fuel are issues that need to be addressed.
At issue however, is whether stringent measures that would be costly and thus damaging to nations’ financial health and consumers are needed. Indeed, the proposed cap and trade type schemes that would form the basis of any agreement are expected to do little to reduce carbon emissions. Many argue that more reasonable measures need to be taken, ones that can produce real results without harming economies or people.
