Global warming Man Made Fraud
PIM of SPAIN | August 9, 2009 at 03:29 amby
1259 views | 24 Recommendations | 16 comments
Despite Global Warming Legislation, it won’t reduce CO2 emission.
Humanity will keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol divided the world into two groups. The roughly 1.2 billion citizens of industrialized countries equalling 20% of the people living on Earth that is expected to reduce their emissions. And the other 80% or 5 billion including both China and India that aren't. These numbers alone are a guarantee that humanity isn't going to reduce global emissions at all, not now and not in the future. The long-term trend is clear. The 80% populations and their per head emissions are increasing much faster than ours could fall under any remotely plausible carbon-reduction scheme.
Man-made global warming is a fantasy, engineered by the global-warming fanatics themselves. Climate change is occurring – as it always has – and is harmless. The same cannot be said for the unspeakably irresponsible proposals of scientists whose egos have far outstripped their knowledge.
Planet Earth is five billion years old. Our sun exerts more control on all the planets than any other factor. Our climate has never stopped changing and never will.
About two decades ago, some politician/scientists decided that the “average temperature” of our planet should remain constant. The global warming hysteria has allowed politicians to spend insane amounts of taxpayer dollars to “fix” a problem that we humans absolutely have no control over.
Politicians have kept us dependent on foreign oil by not allowing further development of nuclear energy - specifically concerning the harmless disposal of nuclear waste- and to drill and refine our own oil. Our climate will continue to change based on the sun’s activity levels.
To be frank, I’m not against the preservation of our environment, or disputing global warming, but am concerned that the objectivity has been shattered by people who depend on it, by exploiting fear about global warming that definitely not is going to destroy our planet. Once governments start subsidizing political motivated issues, it is clear that everyone wants to be on the bandwagon to cash in on the money. The propaganda made, goes beyond reality and is creating panic in order to make better impact.
An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
Excerpts reported by Evelyn Pyburn from a speech by Kenneth Green a biologist and environmental scientist, serving as a public policy analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, confirms the insanity of the Global Warming hype.
“Even if we fervently wanted to, nothing that the developed world could do would significantly reduce predictable global warming,” Kenneth Green told attendees at an energy summit held last week at Montana State University-Billings.
“That makes any expenditure to reduce greenhouse gases a waste of resources that will not yield any environmental or human risk-reduction benefits,” said Green.
Both pro-business groups and environmental groups should be “outraged” with what is being proposed in the American Energy and Security Act of 2009, said Green.
According to Green, there are alternatives to the massive, all-intrusive scheme, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, which has already passed the US House and now awaits action in the US Senate. There are alternatives and time to pursue less disruptive policies. Despite the hysteria, we are not in a crisis mode, and there are options in the future.
What is being proposed is not “carbon cap and trade,” it is “economic cap and trade,” contended Green, who as a biologist, says he “places environmental protection in very high regard.” “But I strongly believe the environmental protection must complement rather than displace other values such as fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, economic opportunity and prosperity, free enterprise, limited government, and so on.”
Green said that he believes “we have a moral duty to keep energy as abundant and affordable as possible, so as to continue to lift people out of poverty both at home and abroad.”
Rather than supportive of this bill, environmentalists should be unhappy about its “lack of effectiveness, the clauses preventing EPA from regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act, and the science-censorship of EPA that will prevent them from taking steps to phase out corn-ethanol,” said Green.
Analysts at the Breakthrough Institute have shown that the offset and banking provisions of Waxman-Markey will allow most US emitters – including power plants burning coal – to continue emitting at business –as–usual rates through 2030, while capturing vast wealth in the form of emission permits.”
In fact, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) itself projects coal power will increase under Waxman-Markey by about 1 percent by 2020. And, said Green, EPA projects less renewable energy under Waxman-Markey than there would be without it. Even if fully achieved, EPA “acknowledges” Waxman-Markey would only reduce CO2 levels in the year 2095 by 25 parts per million — “a quantity that will reduce global warming not a whit,” said Green.
While achieving none of the benefits that proponents claim they want, the provisions of the bill will “raise the cost of products, goods, and services in the US, dramatically impairing US competitiveness.” It will “lead to economic contraction or stagnation due to the impact of higher energy rates on ratepayers, which the Heritage Foundation estimates at about $1800 per household by the year 2020,” said Green.
So what should be done?
The “first-best policy option,” according to Green, should be “to increase the resilience of human structures and institutions through an aggressive program of fixing perverse incentives that increase climatic risk-taking.” That means “removing the kind of risk subsidies that lead people to put themselves in climatically sensitive areas, to build on flood plains, in storm tracks and so on.”
Whatever policies are adopted, said Green, “we should pursue only ‘no-regrets’ policies” — policies that “won’t have us looking back in a few decades with no climate benefit in hand, and a legacy of wasted resources and lost opportunities.”
“They should be focused on ending the kind of subsidized infrastructure programs that lead people to build giant cities in deserts dependent on far-away sources of seasonal snow. And, they should put economic repairs first: only the surplus wealth of productive economies allows us to protect our environment, set aside natural resources, and tread more lightly on the Earth.”
He also recommends investing in research and development on means to remove carbon from the air directly through genetic engineering, or pyrolisis of crop stubble.
And, regardless of the impacts of carbon dioxide, we should be researching how to warm or cool the earth, said Green, pointing out that one volcanic eruption puts enough material into the atmosphere to cool the planet for a decade.
Battery technology and how to transmit energy are also areas in which more research would be beneficial.
“The last time that US emissions were 1 billion tons was in 1910, when the population was only 92 million (most of whom had no cars).” Per capita income was $6000 (current dollars). In 2050 it is estimated that the US will have over 400 million people. So, in per capita terms, the reduction allows each person 2.4 tons – less than a quarter of what a person from 1910 put out.
“The last time per-capita emissions were that low was around 1875, barely at the start of the industrial revolution. The only countries with values this low today are economic basket cases like Belize and Grenada. Of the developed countries that come close, France and Switzerland, both are largely powered by nuclear and hydro power, are smaller, and even so, are putting out about seven times more emissions per-capita than we’re allowing ourselves in 2050 under Waxaman-Markey,” said Green.
This all comes following a series of events that are unwinding the prevailing ideas about global warming. “Climate is more unpredictable than anyone imagined,” said Green.
“Europe is coming apart at the seams” as their carbon-trading system has “melted down.” China has become the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and the climate has stopped warming and started cooling,
Al Gore’s alarming depictions of global warming and the United Nation’s predictions used numerous assumptions to “pump up the estimates of how much a given quantity of greenhouse gas will increase heat retention. Those assumptions have been shown to be spurious on both theoretical and empirical grounds,” explained Green.
In getting better insight whether all those emitted gasses in the atmosphere cause Global-Warming, as the media do us believe, is referred to the BBC documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Most Recommended Comment
PIM of SPAIN
San Pedro de A, Malaga, Spain
San Pedro de A, Malaga, Spain
deleted_user_453310These members have powered this story: