Global Warming Anti-Science

Hello all,

I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html


"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.

For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:

A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?

B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?

C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?

F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.

For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?

G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."

The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."

U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.

If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.