posted 06-07-2002 08:41 AM            

Global warming is now a "fact."

It's a fact because the Bush administration has conceded it as such to the United Nations.

There's little point in debating the theory any more. Man is altering his environment and creating future disaster scenarios that only computer models and Ph.Ds in earth sciences can predict.

Never mind that only 30 years ago, some of the same scientists were prophesying doom and gloom from a new ice age. They've seen the light since then. There's a new consensus emerging. After all, the scientists who get the government grants all agree that global warming is a real threat.

Now the Bush administration is on board. Who says Al Gore didn't win the election? His political agenda is nearly fully in place.

Is the earth really warming? Maybe. Maybe not. The long-term trends are hard to measure – even the most doctrinaire proponents of the theory will acknowledge that. If it is warming, it's nothing dramatic. Over the last 100 years or so, the average mean temperature may be a degree higher.

But there is no evidence – none whatsoever – to suggest such a minor change has anything to do with the activity of man on planet earth. There is also no evidence to suggest that man has the ability to do anything meaningful to reverse any global warming trend – real or imagined.

That's right. Most scientists not compromised by the desire for government grants to study global warming or some political motivation will tell you there is little if anything man could do to heat up the earth's atmosphere. The earth is just too big. Man's presence is just too small. That's just the way God planned it.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference if we burned up all the oil reserves in the world in a day and a night. There would be no noticeable or measurable impact on the world's temperatures.

So, why all the political hot air?

Because it fits a broad political agenda for further government control – in this case, international government control – over the lives of ordinary people. There is no other explanation for it. The global-warming doomsdayers all believe Big Government is the only answer. We need more centralized power, more command-and-control bureaucracies, more regulations – all of which translates, like it or not, to less freedom.

It's June. It's beginning to warm up in North America. So be prepared to hear more about the imminent global warming threat. The international statist political zealots are going to turn up the political heat. That's why the Bush administration leaked its global warming report to the United Nations this week.

This is a power grab. It's about stealing your liberty. It's about destroying the last vestiges of self-government and imposing international tyranny on Americans and the rest of the world. It's part of a broad scheme to make decisions for you with no accountability – no elections, no representation, rule by a pseudo-scientific elite. Marx would be so proud.

That's why even some of Bush's most vocal cheerleaders have been severely disappointed by the administration's flip-flop on global warming. It is a benchmark decision. It reveals more about the character of the administration than almost anything else we have seen in the last two years. It may not be meaningful in terms of immediate policy decisions, but it sets the tone for draconian actions by unaccountable international agencies.

It's a sell-out of truth. It's a sell-out of freedom. It's a sell-out of what's right.

Less importantly to me – as someone who didn't vote for President Bush and as someone who had no expectations of his presidency – unless personally repudiated by him, this policy will represent his political Waterloo. This is George W.'s "read-my-lips" speech. History is repeating itself. As Yogi Berra would say, "It's deja vu all over again."

The first George Bush was a politically popular president riding the wave of military action in the Persian Gulf. He lost his re-election bid to an unknown clown who will be remembered as the most immoral man who ever served as president.

The Democrats may not have a charismatic leader on the horizon. But George W. Bush just made sure they won't need one to win in 2004.

Added Comments:
Kyoto Paradox I:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
To say we can control it by tweaking a small set of factors is ridiculous on its face.

Kyoto Paradox II:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
You can no more successfully predict the outcome of doing something than you can of
not doing something. In other words, the impact of trying to "fix" a climate problem
is as unpredictable as the impact of ignoring it.

8 posted on 6/7/02 1:46 AM Pacific by My Identity

posted 06-07-2002 10:06 AM            

Last week was embarrassing for global warming worrywarts.

First, protesters were surprised and routed by free-market advocates at ExxonMobil's annual shareholder meeting in Dallas. Then, President Bush backhandedly dismissed the Environmental Protection Agency's sneaky attempt to embarrass his administration about its global warming policy.

And, of course, the global warming-loving media grossly erred in reporting on both events.

Youthful anti-corporate protesters traveled to Dallas courtesy of the Energy Foundation, a global warming advocacy group covertly funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and other left-leaning, anti-business foundations.

But when the protesters arrived at the ExxonMobil meeting, they found themselves amid louder and more numerous pro-free-market demonstrators from the Texas branch of Citizens for a Sound Economy. The free-marketers carried signs proclaiming, "Mother Nature Guilty of Climate Change," "Stop Global Whining" and my favorite, "Get in Your SUV & Drive Home."

The anti-corporate protesters, you see, arrived in a Ford Econoline, a full-sized passenger van rated by the EPA at a rip-roaring 13 miles per gallon. This despite one of the protesters telling CNSNews.com: "We should burn all [SUVs]. They are horrible, they are useless."

Another protester said: "It's unfortunate that we have to drive a van. It would definitely be our preference to be able to take alternative forms of transportation, but unfortunately today, we had a lot of gear with us" (sort of like the vegetarian who had a cheeseburger because, unfortunately, she got hungry).

Shouted down by the free-marketers, the humbled anti-corporate protesters retreated to their SUV-like van and departed.

The protesters were more kindly treated by The Associated Press, which reported their activities but neglected to mention the free-marketers' presence.

Youthful foolishness may be forgiven and forgotten and media bias may be so commonplace as not to excite, but what's the EPA's excuse?

The agency last week sent to the United Nations its "Climate Action Report 2002," blaming humans for altering global climate to cause a number of supposedly impending catastrophic events, including drought, heat waves and stormy weather.

The ostensible scientific basis for CAR 2002 was the "National Assessment on Climate Change," a June 2000 report by the Clinton administration. But the National Assessment was little more than an advocacy document meant to help Al Gore in the 2000 election — as opposed to the unbiased scientific report originally mandated by Congress.

So the non-profit Competitive Enterprise Institute, joined by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., filed a federal lawsuit against the Clinton administration alleging the National Assessment was unlawfully prepared.

The lawsuit was settled in September 2001 by the Bush White House, which agreed to withdraw the National Assessment and acknowledge the report isn't official U.S. government policy.

The EPA apparently didn't get the message. Neither did The New York Times, which ran news of the CAR 2002 on its front page without mentioning the report's background, as if it had caught the Bush administration with its global warming-pants down.

The next day the president dismissed the EPA's effort to embarrass him. "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," sneered the president.

Some media even missed this message.

The Associated Press inexplicably headlined its article, "White House Warns on Climate Change," though the article's first sentence was, "President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment."

Despite more than 10 years of media and activist hype and hysteria about global warming, there remains no credible scientific evidence that humans are altering global climate in any measurable way.
Historical temperature data are not sufficiently reliable to discern slight changes in global temperature trends. Mathematical models used to predict climate change rely on unvalidated assumptions and poor-quality data. They aren't better than crystal balls.

Climate varies naturally; just consider the now-frozen Greenland farmed by Vikings 1,000 years ago.
If we could choose between a warmer or cooler global climate, we'd choose warmer because it's more conducive to life; consider those who starved in famines during Europe's Little Ice Age, circa 1450-1850.

posted 06-07-2002 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

But there is no evidence – none whatsoever – to suggest such a minor change has anything to do with the activity of man on planet earth. There is also no evidence to suggest that man has the ability to do anything meaningful to reverse any global warming trend – real or imagined

---

My name is Steve but allow me to be Frank. That's just ridiculous.

REALITY:

Ionospheric Research Facilities and Institutions

HAARP!! High Frequency Active *Auroral* Research Project.



• The EISCAT
  Tromsø facility in Norway,
  
• HIPAS
  Observatory near Fairbanks, AK,
  
• National Astronomy
  and Ionosphere Center, Arecibo, Puerto Rico,
  
• Swedish Institute of
  Space Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden,
  
• Millstone
  Hill Observatory, Westford, MA,
  
• Ionospheric
  Heating, Liecester University, United Kingdom.
  
• VLF Group,
  Stanford University.
  

posted 06-07-2002 08:35 PM            

Thomas Sowell
Jewish World Review
June 7, 2002

The campaign to stampede the federal government into drastic action to counter "global warming" has never let honesty cramp its style. The most recent ploy has been the release of a study from the Environmental Protection Agency which concluded that human actions were responsible for rising temperatures and that government restrictions on those actions were necessary to prevent various disastrous scenarios from unfolding.

The problem is that all this hysteria was based on a computer model which had been shown to be incompatible with factual data. Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had already exposed the inability of that computer model to account for existing temperature changes before its release to the public was allowed to suggest that it was able to predict future temperature changes.

This is by no means the first time that a supposedly "scientific" report turned out to be a political report wrapping itself in the mantle of science. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, garnished with the names of numerous eminent scientists, which was widely hailed in the media as proving the dangers of global warming. The problem with that particular report was that the scientists whose names were put on display had not written the report nor even seen it before it was released.

One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, publicly repudiated the conclusions of the study on which his name had been displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."

The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in 1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following sentence was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the scientists said.

What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental cult and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.

Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on the rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has great appeal to some. As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature."

Every record hot day is trumpeted in the media as showing global warming. But record cold days are mentioned only as isolated curiosities, if they are mentioned at all. Environmental cults have already stampeded us into recycling programs that studies have shown to be counterproductive -- except for appeasing shrill zealots and allowing them to feel like they are saving the planet.

In the 1970s, the big scare was global cooling -- a "new ice age." And of course drastic government action was needed to head it off. There has to be moral melodrama.

The real question is not whether human beings have any effect on temperature. The question is: How much? And how much can we change the temperature -- and at what price? And what if we do nothing? What will happen? And how dire will it be?

Professor Michaels estimates that most of the global warming over the past century has been due to the sun's getting hotter. If we do everything the Kyoto treaty calls for, it would not lower the average temperature in the world by half a degree over the next 50 years. But it could wreck some economies.

And what if we do nothing? Actually there are benefits to global warming, such as a longer growing season, but we are not likely to see a lot of those benefits because there is not likely to be a lot of warming.

Moreover, it is mostly the very cold places that are getting warmer. As Professor Michaels points out, "Siberia has warmed from minus 40 to minus 28 in January." Is anyone complaining -- other than professional complainers and professional doomsayers.