|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 21, 2007 10:44:16 GMT -5
 Global Baloney
by Rob Blackstock
Congress will soon begin "debating" global warming. Nancy Pelosi announced in February that the House would pass global warming legislation by this coming July. "For 12 years," said Pelosi, "the leadership in the House of Representatives has stifled all discussion and debate of global warming. That long rejection of reality is over."
Now let’s see… Congress will soon "debate" global warming, however "reality" will no longer be ignored and legislation will be passed. What happened to the "debate"? Let’s face it: Congress is anti-science.
I do not make such statements lightly. However, we must be clear; little things such as "facts" do not dissuade a political juggernaut once momentum occurs. I remind you all of a study known as NAPAP.
A Review of the Acid Rain Debacle
In 1990, the federal government passed the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Title IV of the CAAA was meant to control electric utility emissions of SO2 in order to eliminate acid rain. Acid deposition (commonly known as acid rain), "refers to a process by which certain types of pollutants chemically transform into acidic substances in the atmosphere and then fall to the earth…. Acid deposition may cause a variety of harmful effects to the ecosystems, agriculture, building materials, and possibly to human health" (Kahn, James R. 1998. The Economic Approach to Environmental and Natural Resources). This definition comes from a standard text in environmental economics.
Like the subject of air pollution itself, acid rain is not a new concept. In 1852 chemist Robert Angus Smith studied the relationship between the increasing amount of soot in Manchester, England and the increased amount of acidity in precipitation. He dubbed this phenomenon acid rain (LaBastille, Anne. 1981. "Acid Rain. How Great a Menace?" National Geographic 160, November). However, it was not until the 1980’s that journalists began to hype the accusation that electricity-producing firms were ruining nature by causing acid rain. In the lead-in to her 1981 article on the subject, Anne LaBastille writes, "Deadly Waters: In an Adirondack stream, brook trout confined in a wire cage succumb to asphyxiation – a result of the water being polluted by rain- and snow-borne sulfuric and nitric acids. Acid rain has eliminated fish in thousands of lakes in Scandinavia and hundreds in the U.S. and Canada. Scientists believe acid rain comes from the burning of fossil fuels..." (ibid.).
As reported by Anderson, "The National Academy of Sciences predicted a hundred-fold increase in acid lakes by 1990 if SO2 emissions were not severely curtailed" (Anderson, William. 1999. Facts, Fiction and the Fourth Estate. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University). This statement was made in spite of the fact that SO2 emissions had decreased by 42% between 1962 and 1981 and by 33% between 1971 and 1981 (Goklany, Indur. 1999. Clearing the Air: the Real Story of the War on Air Pollution). In response to media concerns, "President Jimmy Carter commissioned the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) to examine the damage being caused by acid rain and recommend solutions" (Anderson, 1999). Initially, Carter approved a ten million dollar yearly budget for the study. However, in 1982 President Ronald Reagan increased the annual budget to one hundred million dollars making NAPAP the most costly environmental study in United States history (thankfully, the final cost topped out at a mere $500 million).
In 1987, a report on the preliminary findings of the NAPAP study (known as the interim assessment) was presented to Congress. The initial findings showed no correlation between acid rain and increased acidity of lakes. "The reaction to the interim assessment by the environmentalists and their allies in Congress was fury and the firing of NAPAP’s director, Dr. Lawrence Kulp, and the demand that the new director of NAPAP, Dr. James R. Mahoney, ‘rewrite’ the report and produce ‘an implicit repudiation of the interim assessment’" (Brookes, Warren T. 1989. "The Continuing Mythology about Acid Rain." Human Events 2, September). According to Bast, Hill and Rue, release of the report to the general public was "delayed until after passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (1994. Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism).
The NAPAP study reached four conclusions contrary to those presented by the environmental movement: 1) Acid rain has not injured forests in either the U.S. or Canada; 2) Acid rain has had no observable effect on human health; 3) Acid rain has not injured crops, and may even have a positive effect on some crops; and finally, 4) acid rain has acidified only a very small number of lakes, and these can be restored to health by liming (ibid.).
In spite of the good news presented by the NAPAP interim assessment:
"Congress decided to include the anti-acid rain program in the 1990 amendments without waiting for the findings of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project [emphasis added]. Members reasoned that: (a) scientific evidence is seldom conclusive and the project’s report would leave many questions unanswered; (b) enough information emerged between 1980 and 1990 to know the sources and destinations of acid rain; (c) an opportunity existed to pass a comprehensive clean air bill and it might not last long or occur again soon" (Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., The. 1991. The Clean Air Act Amendments: BNA’s comprehensive Analysis of the New Law).
A similar report states, "Politicians, under heavy pressure from media and the environmental lobby, also chose to ignore the NAPAP report. The U.S. Senate spent just one hour discussing the report for which it spent $500 million in taxpayers’ money. Incredibly, the report was never even presented to the House of Representatives" (Bast, Hill, Rue 1994).
What we can expect…
Congress passed the 1990 CAAA in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The result? Natural gas prices, in real dollars, have doubled since 1990. Very soon, I predict the same fiasco will occur again. Congress, with no semblance of debate, will pass global-warming legislation which will shackle the American economy.
I remind you of the first paragraph of this article. Pelosi has stated that global warming is a reality and that legislation will occur. Our masters in Washington have spoken. Who needs debate?
March 21, 2007
Rob Blackstock teaches economics at Louisiana Tech University and is the Senior Economist for American Economic Services.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com bold text highlights mine --2i2 commentary: quote: " The result? Natural gas prices, in real dollars, have doubled since 1990. Very soon, I predict the same fiasco will occur again. Congress, with no semblance of debate, will pass global-warming legislation which will shackle the American economy. /:endquote. They don't "need" individual's money; They just need individuals to NOT have it (to buy protection/information/etc = retain individual freedom) |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 30, 2007 10:22:08 GMT -5
Global Warming Heresy
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet.
Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.
Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.
There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
Townhall.com |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 30, 2007 10:53:46 GMT -5
10 Questions For Al Gore And The Global Warming Crowd
By John Hawkins
Friday, March 30, 2007
I'll be the first to admit that like most conservatives, I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Is that because I take payoffs from the energy industry, don't like Al Gore, don't like science, or any of the other silly excuses global warming alarmists come up with to explain why people don't buy their theory?
No.
It's because "the Earth-is-going-to-burn-us-alive" crowd cannot answer the most basic questions about the theory that they haughtily insist is so beyond reproach that there should be no more need for debate. In fact, the most ironic thing about the global warming argument is that Al Gore and Company have declared that it's settled, but they have to use scary stories about cities being flooded a hundred years from now and fake tales about polar bears drowning to sell it. If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself? Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
Despite that, like most conservatives, I'm open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming -- but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:
1) The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in the past and many of those temperature swings have been much greater than anything we've experienced so far. So, since we human beings don't really understand why those temperature swings occurred, how can we be sure that the very mild warming we've seen so far hasn't been caused by normal changes in our climate?
2) If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind's production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?
3) We can't accurately predict whether it's going to rain or not a week from now. We can't accurately predict what the weather will look like next year (Remember that in 2005, they were predicting we'd be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming. It didn't happen). Since that's the case, how can we possibly have any confidence in predictions of what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?
4) Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?
5) Back in the early seventies, the in-vogue scientific theory was that we were in the midst of global cooling that was caused by man. Now, it turns out that there was nothing much behind that except that the global temperature was getting cooler. So, where did they go wrong back in the early seventies and how do we know that we're not making the same type of mistake today in forecasting global warming?
6) Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is "scientific consensus" that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Since that's the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is "scientific consensus" on the issue?
7) Even if mankind was responsible for global warming, how would the solutions that are being offered, like Kyoto or carbon credit trading schemes, fix the problem? Big developing countries like India and China are exempt from Kyoto and unlikely to sign on to any deal that hurts their economy, Europe isn't meeting its Kyoto goals, and environmentalists say Kyoto wouldn't fix the problem even if all of its targets are met.
8) In Bill Bryson's book on science, "A Short History Of Nearly Everything," (and yes, Bryson does appear to be a believer in manmade global warming), he notes that,
"For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere." -- P.427
That would seem to suggest that despite everything we hear about the "hottest temperatures on record," the global temperature is significantly cooler than it has been throughout much of earth's history. Since that's the case, is the small change in global temperature we've seen so far really out of the ordinary or anything to be alarmed about?
9) As Carl Zimmer has noted in Discover, at times in the earth's past, we've had considerably more carbon dioxide in the air that we do today, and yet it's debatable whether the temperature was significantly warmer,
"During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today--and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold."
Doesn't this suggest that there isn't anywhere near as much of a close relationship between greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and the temperature as many people seem to believe?
10) Skeptics of manmade global warming have often pointed out that the rise in global temperature seems to track much more closely to increased solar activity than it does to an increase in manmade greenhouse gasses. Doesn't that seem to strongly suggest that the sun, not mankind, is more likely to be responsible for global warming?
Bonus Question) If people like Al Gore believe their own hype and think it's necessary for us to cut back our energy consumption, why aren't they practicing what they preach? If a global warming fanatic like Al Gore can’t get by on less than 20 times the amount of energy that a regular family uses, how can we reasonably expect the average family to dramatically cut their energy usage?
Quite frankly, if you buy into manmade global warming, you should have good answers for these questions or, if you don't, admit that your opinion is based more on faith and guesswork than it is on science.
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine, both of which are conservative blogs. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.
Townhall.com [not an endorsement of the site or the author specific, only the author's offering of facts] |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 30, 2007 11:20:33 GMT -5
2i2,
This is just my thought, so take it for what it's worth.
I think that posting entire articles here on the board is wasteful of our time and space. I'm asking that you consider perhaps only posting a pertinent quote and then a link to the article for those who might wish to view it. Unless, of course, it might be an article which is vitally important and in jeapardy of being taken down from it's current location.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Mar 30, 2007 12:00:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Mar 30, 2007 12:29:30 GMT -5
No one's ever posted one of my articles here.  That's because we all know them by heart!  |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 30, 2007 14:03:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 31, 2007 15:14:56 GMT -5
2i2, This is just my thought, so take it for what it's worth. I think that posting entire articles here on the board is wasteful of our time and space. I'm asking that you consider perhaps only posting a pertinent quote and then a link to the article for those who might wish to view it. Unless, of course, it might be an article which is vitally important and in jeapardy of being taken down from it's current location. - NonE Wow, that's pretty much word-for-word what I had posted about 18 months ago, IIRC... Seems we need period reminders -- I even mentioned the "unless you think the original is gonna go down the memory hole..." concept too. *cue Twilight Zone music* |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 31, 2007 15:35:06 GMT -5
Great minds wallow in the same gutters, apparently! ;D
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 12:00:28 GMT -5
"Global warming is very real and very serious" By Travis Doyle ( This appears to be an anti-ecohysteria essay using a "sarcasm-to-make-a-point" style. Strangely, I found it on this page.)It has recently been brought to my attention that global warming is a very serious problem and that we, as human beings, must treat it with all the seriousity that we can muster. First and foremost, we must destroy all volcanoes. After that, we have to consider the facts. The biggest fact is that carbon dioxide, or CO2, causes global warming. We all have seen this on television, we all have heard the disaster reports, and it really doesn't matter that at times in Earth's history there have been three to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere without the world coming to an end, because now it will cause the world to end. There are no hidden agendas, there is no propaganda in regards to this subject, there are just people dying from global warming. And those people could be you. Another big fact that people should know is that Al Gore supports efforts to reduce global warming, and he was almost president. Why would anyone who isn't president lie to us? Why would his ice core samples show a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and warming temperatures, yet fail to comment on the fact that the correlation is skewed in the opposite direction? Just because CO2 levels in his core samples rise 800 years later than global temperatures themselves have raised doesn't mean we shouldn't believe him. After all, he was almost president.Furthermore, just because in the post-war economic boom between 1940 and 1970, when our nation was increasing its CO2 emissions by the greatest leaps and bounds in history, and global temperatures were lowering, doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening now. Even though the same types of environmental scientists who are propagating global warming now are the ones that were predicting global cooling in the '70s, they have it right this time, and we need to listen to them or die. Look, I know what a lot of you are thinking: ''But I went on Google Video and watched the UK documentary called, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' which clearly points out, with the aid of scientists from around the world, that global warming really isn't feasible.'' Well, there are a lot of scientists supporting global warming as well, and they're getting a lot of grant money for doing it. Who are you going to trust: scientists -- or scientists? I am going to put my life in the hands of scientists. Do whatever you want with yours. And I'm sure that there are some people out there are going to say, ''But I read the article in The New York Times by Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and he said that there were a great deal of omissions in the global warming report shown to the UN, and that scientists who dropped out of the project still had their names added to it, despite the fact that they didn't support the text within.'' Do I really have to ask if you're going to put stock in what the former president of the National Academy of Sciences says about anything scientific? Just because he has all the credibility a man could ever need on the subject doesn't mean that he is right. And he is not right, and if you believe him, you will die. But the real issue that I'm going to encourage people to take up, in writing this column, is to destroy volcanoes. Volcanoes produce more CO2 than any man, machine or industry on the planet combined. Volcanoes are going to kill us if we don't kill them first. Everyone needs to look around, grab something pointy and start stabbing at the nearest volcano. Remember, folks, if you don't agree with me, then you don't believe in global warming. And if you don't believe in global warming, then nobody is going to die because of it, and the world will probably be a better place without all that grant money being wasted and all that media airtime being spent on the same footage of a glacier cracking. - - - Google Video search: The Great Global Warming SwindleAlso check this out -- Kyoto: its presumptions logically scrutinized....and various articles here: www.helium.com/tpc/54403 (boy, I'm impressed with Mankind, since our crazy carbon-based pollution activities are even melting the icecaps on Mars!  )
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 14:05:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 25, 2007 17:46:15 GMT -5
Greenpeace cofounder reveals the real reason why the "eco-extremism" movement took off... simply to promote neo-Marxism and anti-capitalism under a different guise. TGGWS: 40m45s- - - WTG, Martin Durkin! When the truth is with us, who can be against us? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 27, 2007 10:49:14 GMT -5
|
|
)