"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:f68shp$2fu$1@news04.infoave.net...

"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:LOMhi.8417$bP5.2485@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

Gosh, you mean Global Warming FACTS without any Knee-Jerk Alarmism?

You mean industry funded lies instead of unbiased scientific conclusions?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

Larry

So you're saying that IPCC is lying when they say:

1.. . There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause
damaging climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus
mischaracterize the scientific research of bodies like the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences (NAS).

http://downloads.heartland.org/19381.pdf


Alarm over the prospect of the Earth warming is not warranted by the
agreed science or economics of the issue. Global warming is happening
and man is responsible for at least some of it. Yet this does not mean
that global warming will cause enough damage to the Earth and humanity
to require drastic cuts in energy use, a policy that would have damaging
consequences of its own. Moreover, science cannot answer questions that
are at heart economic or political, such as whether the Kyoto Protocol
is worthwhile.

The Science

Isn't there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad
for us?


1.. . There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause
damaging climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus
mischaracterize the scientific research of bodies like the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

What do scientists agree on?


1.. . Scientists do agree that: 1) global average temperature is about
0.6°Celsius-or just over 1° Fahrenheit-higher than it was a century ago;
2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30
percent over the past 200 years; and 3) carbon dioxide, like water
vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth's
atmosphere.1

Doesn't this mean we should be worried?


1.. . As Richard Lindzen of MIT summarized it in The Wall Street
Journal,2 "These claims are true. However, what the public fails to
grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor
establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has
occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm
are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say
supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model
results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting
catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as
justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming." [Emphasis
in original]

2

What don't scientists know yet?


1.. . Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe
past temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough
data to confidently predict future temperature levels; and 3) at what
level temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life
on Earth.

Didn't the National Academy of Sciences say greenhouse gases cause
global warming?


1.. . The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the
various forcing agents.a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate
long-term trends. 3

Hasn't the Earth warmed precipitously over the past 100 years?


1.. . The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the
bottom end of what climate models suggest should have happened. This
suggests that either the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases
than previously thought or that some unknown factor is depressing the
temperature.4

Don't climate models warn of alarming future warming?


1.. . Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
at the extreme end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty
economic modeling, not science (see economics section below).

What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?


1.. . Both James Hansen of NASA-the father of greenhouse theory-and
Richard Lindzen of MIT-the most renowned climatologist in the
world-agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases,
the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in
the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
0.04°C per decade."5

What about satellite temperature measurements?


1.. . Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests
that the atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory
suggests.6 These measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show
only a very slight warming, show a disparity with the surface
temperature measurements, which cover only a small fraction of the Earth
but show sustained warming.

Hasn't the disagreement between satellite and surface temperatures been
resolved?


1.. . No. There is still substantial disagreement between the mid-range
of the satellite measurements and the mid-range of the surface
measurements. This presents a problem for climate models.

Do other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases influence
temperature?


1.. . New research suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in
warming has been overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot,7 land
use change,8 and solar variation9 all appear to have contributed
significantly to recent warming.

3

The Scare Stories

Is the world in danger of plunging into a new ice age, as in the 2004
movie The Day After Tomorrow?


1.. . No. The scenario presented in The Day After Tomorrow is
physically impossible. While research does suggest that the Gulf Stream
has switched on and off in the past, causing temperature drops in
Europe, oceanographers are convinced that global warming does not
present any such danger.10

Is the world in severe danger from sea level rise?


1.. . No. Research from Nils-Axel Mörner, professor of paleogeophysics
and geodynamics at Stockholm University, demonstrates that current sea
levels are within the range of sea level oscillation over the past 300
years, while the satellite data show virtually no rise over the past
decade.11 The IPCC foresees sea-level rise of between 0.1 and 0.9 meters
by 2100. The Earth experienced a sea-level rise of 0.2 meters over the
past century with no noticeable ill effects.

Another study relevant to this controversy is Zwally et al. (2005),12
which examined changes in ice mass "from elevation changes derived from
10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar
altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1
and -2." The researchers report a net contribution of the three ice
sheets to sea level of +0.05 ± 0.03 millimeters per year. CO2Science.Org
puts this in perspective: "At the current sea-level-equivalent ice-loss
rate of 0.05 millimeters per year, it would take a full millennium to
raise global sea level by just 5 cm, and it would take fully 20,000
years to raise it a single meter."

Weren't recent extreme weather events caused by global warming?


1.. . There is no provable link between weather events like Hurricane
Katrina and global warming. For example, research by German scientists
has demonstrated that the devastating floods in central Europe in 2002
were perfectly normal events when compared against the historical
record.13 Allegations that extreme weather has been more damaging
recently do not take into account the fact that mankind is now living
and investing resources in more dangerous areas. Moreover, the World
Meteorological Organization has acknowledged that increases in the
recorded number of extreme weather events may be due to better
observation and reporting.14 A top expert from the IPCC resigned in
January 2005 in protest that IPCC science was being misrepresented by
claims that last year's hurricane season was exacerbated by global
warming. Most hurricane scientists agree that there is no way that
Hurricane Katrina can be blamed on global warming.


2.. . Recent published research casts extreme doubt on the influence of
warming on hurricanes. Philip Klotzbach15 of Colorado State University
finds that, "The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical
cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a
considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other
basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in
global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in
global Category 4-5 hurricanes from the period 1986-1995 to the period
1996-2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational
technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern
intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface
temperatures]."

Aren't the snows of Kilimanjaro disappearing because of global warming?

4


1.. . That's not the verdict of scientists who study Mount Kilimanjaro
most closely. In "Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of
Climate Change: Observations and Facts,"16 Kaser et al. "develop a new
concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers, based
on the physical understanding of glacier-climate interactions." They
say, "The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and
implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control
the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric
moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic
conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro."

Won't global warming lead to the spread of malaria?


1.. . Climate is not a significant factor in the recent growth of
vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Most experts on this subject
agree that malaria is more closely correlated with other factors;
deforestation, migration of lowland people (higher immunities, yet they
bring disease with them), construction of roads and dams, and the
proliferation of pools and ditches are much more important in predicting
future spread of these diseases.17

Didn't the U.S. Department of Defense conclude global warming poses a
national security threat?


1.. . The Pentagon is not convinced that global warming represents a
major security threat to the United States. The "secret paper" that
garnered much publicity in Europe was a self-admitted speculative
exercise that went beyond the bounds of measured research and had been
released to the press long before the sensationalist stories surfaced in
Europe. Nor did the paper recommend "immediate action" beyond better
climate modeling.18

Haven't recent climate models found that global warming will be much
worse than previously thought?


1.. . The news that Oxford University has found that temperatures may
increase by up to 11°C severely misrepresents the scientific findings.
According to the actual scientific paper,19 the frequency distribution
of the results suggests that the lower end of temperature rises, in the
2°C to 4°C range, is the most likely.

Haven't the National Academies of all the major industrial countries
agreed that global warming is a serious threat?


1.. . Claims have been made that the scientific consensus is
represented by a statement drafted by the Royal Society of London and
signed by the national scientific academies of the G8 countries plus
those of India, Brazil, and China. But such claims ignore the
politicized nature of the statement. The climate change committee of the
Russian Academy of Sciences later said that its president should not
have signed the statement, while the use to which it was put was
condemned by the outgoing president of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, Bruce Alberts, who called the Royal Society's presentation of
the statement "quite misleading."20

Aren't polar bears drowning because of melting ice?


1.. . These claims are overblown. A leading Canadian polar bear
biologist wrote recently, "Climate change is having an effect on the
west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to
panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or
increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be
affected at present."21

5

Isn't there a scientific consensus such that one researcher found no
disagreement about global warming in the literature?


1.. . The research by Naomi Orsekes published in the journal Science in
December 2004 was flawed. She studied about 1,000 scientific abstracts,
but admitted to a sympathetic journalist that she made a major mistake
in her search terms. In fact, she should have reviewed about 12,000
abstracts. Even taking her sample, another researcher who tried to
replicate her study came to quite different conclusions.22 In addition,
the most recent survey of climate scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von
Storch, following the same methodology as a published study from 1996,
found that while there had been a move towards acceptance of
anthropogenic global warming, only 9.4 percent of respondents "strongly
agree" that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic
sources. A similar proportion "strongly disagree." Furthermore, only
22.8 percent of respondents "strongly agree" that the IPCC reports
accurately reflect a consensus within climate science.23

There is scientific agreement that the world has warmed and that man is
at least partly responsible for the warming-though there is no consensus
on the precise extent of man's effect on the climate. There is ongoing
scientific debate over the parameters used by the computer models that
project future climatic conditions. We cannot be certain whether the
world will warm significantly and we do not know how damaging-if at
all-even significant warming will be.

The Economics

Why is economics important to the study of global warming?


1.. . Predictions of global warming catastrophe are based on models
that rely on economics as much as on science. If the science of
greenhouse theory is right, then we can only assess its consequences by
estimating future production of greenhouse gases from estimates of
economic activity.

Is there anything wrong with the economics underlying warming
projections?


1.. . The economic modeling by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is seriously flawed (The Economist called it "dangerously
incompetent"), relying on economic forecasts that show much faster
growth rates for developing countries than is justified.24 The IPCC
economic scenarios show significantly greater economic growth globally
than do other recognized, comparable scenarios.

What will the Kyoto Protocol do to reduce warming?


1.. . The Kyoto Protocol, most observers agree, will have virtually no
effect on temperature increase, as it imposes no restrictions on
greenhouse gas emissions upon major developing nations like China and
India. These nations have publicly refused to accept any restrictions
now or in the future.25

Can't we reduce emissions without affecting the economy?


1.. . Greenhouse gas emissions derive from energy use which in turn
derives from economic growth. Therefore, nations that restrict emissions
are almost certain to reduce their rate of economic growth.

Isn't global warming all cost and no benefit?

6


1.. . No. Even substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to
the United States. As eminent Yale Professor Robert Mendehlson testified
before the Senate in 2000,26 "Climate change is likely to result in
small net benefits for the United States over the next century. The
primary sector that will benefit is agriculture. The large gains in this
sector will more than compensate for damages expected in the coastal,
energy, and water sectors, unless warming is unexpectedly severe.
Forestry is also expected to enjoy small gains. Added together, the
United States will likely enjoy small benefits of between $14 and $23
billion a year and will only suffer damages in the neighborhood of $13
billion if warming reaches 5°C over the next century. Recent predictions
of warming by 2100 suggest temperature increases of between 1.5°C and
4°C, suggesting that impacts are likely to be beneficial in the U.S."

Haven't economic models predicted no effect of reducing emissions on
growth?


1.. . European models of the effect of greenhouse gas emission
restrictions (such as PRIMES) are sectoral models that look at the
effects on only one economic sector and therefore badly underestimate
the negative effects of emission restrictions throughout the economy.
General equilibrium models, which take into account the effects of
emissions restrictions on other economic sectors, show much greater
negative economic effects than do sectoral models.27

What do the better economic models say Kyoto will do?


1.. . Recent research from general equilibrium models suggests strongly
negative impacts on European economies from adopting Kyoto targets (or
going beyond the targets, as in the case of the United Kingdom). One
model shows the economic effects by 2010 of adopting Kyoto targets as
follows (remember that the Protocol achieves virtually nothing in
reducing global temperature):28

Germany -5.2% GDP -1,800,000 jobs

Spain -5.0% GDP -1,000,000 jobs

United Kingdom -4.5% GDP -1,000,000 jobs

Netherlands -3.8% GDP -240,000 jobs

Isn't Europe on track to meet its Kyoto targets?


1.. . Kyoto targets are unrealistic. Regardless of announced targets,
11 of the 15 pre-enlargement EU countries are on course to increase
their greenhouse gas emissions well beyond their individual Kyoto
targets.29

Specific Economic Issues

Isn't President Bush to blame for holding up Kyoto?


1.. . It is not the case that President Bush has unilaterally held up
ratification of the Kyoto treaty. The United States Senate must ratify
any treaty signed by a President. In 1997, during Bill Clinton's
presidency, the Senate (including recent Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry) voted 95-0 not to accept any Kyoto-style treaty
that would significantly harm the U. S. economy and did not include
participation by major developing countries.30 The U.S. President has no
power to impose Kyoto, or any other treaty, on an unwilling Senate.31

Doesn't Russia's participation demonstrate the appeal of Kyoto?

7


1.. . Russia agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol only after being
pressured by the European Union, which held out the prospect of
endorsing Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. Both the
Russian Academy of Sciences and several Duma committees reported that
Kyoto has no scientific substantiation and may harm Russia's economy.32

Isn't global warming a worse threat than terrorism?


1.. . The charge that global warming is worse than terrorism in terms
of damage to the world is hyperbole. The implausible and unsubstantiable
claim of many deaths each year-the figure is often put at 150,000-owing
to global warming ignores the fact that most of those alleged deaths are
due to diseases such as malaria, which have historically existed even in
cold climates and could easily be controlled if the environmental lobby
dropped its opposition to the use of DDT.33 Moreover, that number is
itself dwarfed by the number killed by poverty, which will be increased
if the world decides to suppress the use of energy.

Can't we replace fossil fuels cheaply and effectively with renewable
energy?


1.. . Alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar are not yet
cost-effective and come with environmental costs of their own (the
veteran British environmentalist David Bellamy is leading opposition to
wind farms).34 The only currently cost-effective alternative to fossil
fuel use is nuclear power, which produces nearly no emissions, but which
environmental activists continue to oppose in direct contradiction to
their assertions that global warming is the gravest danger the planet
faces.

Aren't market-based solutions the way to reduce emissions?


1.. . "Cap and Trade" schemes that allow firms and governments to trade
the right to emit greenhouse gases up to certain limits are not
economically efficient. By creating rent-seeking opportunities, they
promote the development of a carbon cartel seeking to exploit the system
to make profits. The recent collapse of the carbon market in Europe
shows how dependent such markets are on political considerations. A
simple carbon tax would be much more economically efficient, although
likely to prove unattractive to voters in democracies.35

Summary

The world faces severe economic consequences from currently proposed
strategies to deal with global warming. These approaches will produce
job losses and consume scarce resources that could be better spent on
handling other global problems such as AIDS or lack of access to clean
drinking water.36 The economic consequences of global warming mitigation
strategies currently proposed will probably be worse than the effects of
global warming itself. Therefore, adaptation and resiliency strategies
should be considered as a more cost-effective alternative. In addition,
"no regrets" strategies that will provide benefits from greater economic