Stop Global Warming Hysteria

There are many reasons why the stop global warming movement is a farce. It is not only scientists who disagree with the notion that humans are causing global warming with carbon dioxide emissions, it is not just scientists who contend global warming is a naturally occurring phenomena, it is more and more economists recognizing that it is a very bad idea to raise taxes, while crippling the economy in a vain attempt to stop global warming.
Peter


Global Warming Hysteria
By Walter E. Williams CNSNews.com Commentary September 27, 2007

Despite increasing evidence that man-made CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change, politicians and others who wish to control our lives must maintain that it is.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Rep. John Dingell wants a 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline. We've heard such calls before, but there's a new twist. Dingell also wants to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction on what he calls "McMansions," homes that are 3,000 square feet and larger. That's because larger homes use more energy. One might wonder about Dingell's magnanimity in increasing taxes for only homes 3,000 feet or larger. The average U.S. home is around 2,300 square feet, compared with Europe's average of 1,000 square feet. So why doesn't Dingell call for disallowing mortgage deductions on houses more than 1,000 square feet? The reason is there would be too much political resistance, since more Americans own homes under 3,000 square feet than over 3,000. The full agenda is to start out with 3,000 square feet and later lower it in increments.

Our buying into global warming hysteria will allow politicians to do just about anything, upon which they can muster a majority vote, in the name of fighting climate change as a means to raise taxes.

In addition to excuses to raise taxes, congressmen are using climate change hysteria to funnel money into their districts. Rep. David L. Hobson, R-Ohio, secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists. Money for similar boondoggles is being called for by members of both parties.

There are many ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and being 71 years of age I know many of them. Al Gore might even consider me carbon neutral and possibly having carbon credits because my carbon offsets were made in advance. For example, for the first 15 years of my life, I didn't use energy-consuming refrigerators; we had an icebox. For two decades I listened to radio instead of watching television and walked or used public transportation to most places. And for more than half my life I didn't use energy-consuming things such as computers, clothes dryers, air conditioning and microwave ovens. Of course, my standard of living was much lower.

The bottom line is, serious efforts to reduce CO2 will lead to lower living standards through higher costs of living. And it will be all for naught because there is little or no relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and climate change.

There's an excellent booklet available from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) titled "A Global Warming Primer." Some of its highlights are:

• --"Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."
• -- "Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.
• -- "There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

What about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? The primer says, "Polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century."

The primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us.

(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)

NASA Head Questions Global Warming

This is a perfect example of the politicization of science and how ugly it can get. I have been speaking out on this since the beginning. This NASA official, Michael Griffin will be forced to "step down", "retire", or commit "hari kari". One can not speak out against the status quo in the realm of political correctness. Tensions are high, the stake are high, the pressure is on. Watch closely, listen closely, trust nothing.
Peter

NASA head unsure global warming is a problem
Climate scientist dismisses remarks as showing ‘arrogance and ignorance’

WASHINGTON - The head of NASA said he was not sure global warming was a problem and added that it would be “arrogant” to assume the world’s climate should not change in the future. Scientists called the remarks ignorant.

“I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a taped interview that aired Thursday on National Public Radio. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with.”
“I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take,” Griffin said.

On Wednesday, Griffin’s own agency put out a news release about a research paper written by nearly 50 NASA and Columbia University scientists and published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. The paper shows how “human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.”

Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who is now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Griffin’s remarks showed he was either “totally clueless” or “a deep anti-global warming ideologue.”
James Hansen, a top NASA climate scientist and lead author of the research paper, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance” because millions of people will likely be harmed by global warming in the future.

Coincides with Bush's warming proposalWhite House science adviser Jack Marburger said he was not disturbed by Griffin’s remarks, but distanced them from President Bush, who on Thursday announced an international global warming proposal.

“It’s pretty obvious that the NASA administrator was speaking about his own personal views and by no means representing or attempting to represent the administration’s views or broader policy,” Marburger told The Associated Press. “He’s got a very wry sense of humor and is very outspoken.”

In a news briefing Thursday, White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman James Connaughton also downplayed Griffin’s remarks: “We’re dedicated to action. And, in fact, I think the conversation’s really moved beyond a statement of the problem.”
NASA spokesman David Mould said the radio interviewer was trying to push Griffin into saying something about global warming. NASA’s position is that it provides scientific data on the issue, but policy makers are the ones who decide, he said.

Hansen, director of the agency’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, said the consequences of global warming are dire and Griffin should know better.
“The devastation with sea level rise of several meters, with hundreds of millions of refugees, would dwarf that of New Orleans,” Hansen wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press, referring to Hurricane Katrina. “Is it arrogant to say that such would be a problem?”

New Website: http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/home/

This is from a website devoted to bringing out the truth about global warming, social consciousness, and the main-stream media. Here is their homepage: http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/home/

There is a lot of excellent information on the website. I recommend it.
Peter

AN OPEN LETTER...from the site editor.
I thought long and hard before embarking upon assembling the material on this site - given the sheer vitriol of those engaged in activist environmentalism and the movement's assault on free speech these days.

But I am a writer and journalist who takes a strong interest in truth and truth and a level 'playing field' in the public square of free speech and genuine debate too. That is why I find the mainstream media's attempt to close down the global warming debate so concerns me. When it comes to the climate change (i.e. an oxymoron, climate is always changing) debate I am no expert - but then that really is the point. There are NO 'experts' when it comes to the complex and relatively new science of climatology.

It is only when you read more of the various scientific opinions and study the evidence for yourself that it emerges the science "consensus" is actually a myth, as these pages reveal. And, in any event, quotes on this site show, "consensus" is the last thing science ought to be about on its road to discovery.

What we know for certain is that the earth, on average, has undergone a one-degree warming (most of it before 1940) over recent decades. All else, is pure speculation and theory, much of it based upon extremely fallible computer modelling rather than actual evidence. It should not fill anyone with confidence. Enter the science research labs who perceive a way to receive new mega-grants to enable them to 'save the earth' , and a colluding mainstream media (MSM) with a penchant for scaremongering and the "faith in theories" brigade who see environmentalism as fulfilling their moral purpose in life.

In the UK we have recently Green Madness spreading like a fog. Sky TV News recently had a meaningless counter logging up allegedly harmful carbon emissions at the foot of screen during its Green Britain Week. Apocalyptic visions now regularly form the opening segment of ITN News broadcasts (ITN is desperate for viewers). And the BBC, being so left winged it often 'flies' in circles has long pushed the apocalyptic agenda as the latest in its stream of coming catastrophes (none of which come to anything of course). I don't doubt the the American media and those in Europe do much the same thing.

And lately, most are pointing to the UN's - a political organization, not a scientific one remember - to underpin their latest bout of alarmism.


Here's' an axiom: If the UN says it, its likely to be wrong. In February 2007 the latest UN report on Climate Change reported that over 2,000 scientists agree that they are "90% certain man is to blame for global warming". As far as the MSM is concerned it seems, that is 'debate over'. Personally, given the UN's abysmal track record in world affairs, I would struggle to believe the UN if it was a 100% certain on just about any issue. But hey, don't mind me, I just lack confidence in any failing and corrupt organizations. 2,000 scientists sounds a lot, doesn't it? Until you realize that after a previous UN report made similar climate claims over 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Paper opposing the UN's view and declaring that man-made global warming had "no scientific basis whatever" (and here is the actual paper). The real science debate is far from over, as the evidence on this site shows plainly.


And remember also that an earlier UN report in 1996 was wholly discredited when UN administrators tampered with the concluding affirmations of the report AFTER the scientists had gone home, implying man's responsibility in the global warming debate was more certain than it was. Ask yourself: why would they choose to do that? Unless the science wasn't quite saying what they wanted it to say.


The main issue, however, is that science-fact mixed with far too much science-faith (speculation) may, for some, equal finding a "consensus" view, but, for others, it simply equals science-fiction.

But for those whose minds have not yet been melted by the single-degree of global warming the real facts and evidence reveal that we may well be tilting at windmills (i.e. wasting vastly important resources) fighting a phenomenon that is an mostly natural and cyclical - and entirely unstoppable. Do you really want to stump up your money to pour it into a Black Hole of Green Taxes governments based upon computer-generated apocalyptic visions?

No? Then you owe it to yourself to do some reading - and the material here is designed to help. After all, what use is a 'consensus' if Truth is its major casualty?
Peter C Glover
British writer & journalist and site editor - personal site at www.petercglover.com