|
Pete's Environmental Information |
Safe, reliable electricity everyday. P. C. Power on windy days
The U.S. is helping build power plants in South Korea on our dollars.
The environmental wacos would like the U.S. to use wind mills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,”
MORE: Scientist the have reversed the belief in Global warming
|
|
Facts
disprove warnings about global warming
by
William Robert Johnston A long time ago kings and rulers might be advised by magicians, astrologers, and other charlatans. These mystics would prey on leaders--and through them, on entire societies--by using the false superstitious beliefs of all involved. These people mostly went away with the advent of science. But they're back--this time using the name of science. A vocal minority of the scientific community, with the help of unqualified outsiders, has persuaded many politicians to pursue plans that would be economically devastating. The story this time is global warming. The "global warmers" produced the Kyoto treaty of 1997. However, the facts completely disprove what these people are saying about climate change. We've all heard the stories, reported as indisputable fact: The last century or decade is just about the hottest the world has ever been. Carbon dioxide from burning gasoline and coal is blamed. Unless their solution is enacted right now, temperatures will rise terribly in the next century. Icecaps will start to melt, coasts will flood, storms will get worse, diseases will spread, animals will die, and more. And it's all because of us Americans. The best lies contain a measure of truth. Yes, carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last century due to the use of fossil fuels. Yes, global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F in the same century. Unfortunately, the temperature increase came first: most of the temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a "scientist" who said the result came before the cause? There are other problems, as well. Solar activity may be the cause of the world temperature changes. The global warmers can't explain why satellites show no temperature change in the past 20 years. The computer models that predict disaster in a century have been completely wrong for the past 20 years. And no one can agree on the side effects. Scientific facts actually helped unravel the treaty last year. Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by various natural and manmade processes, and world leaders couldn't agree on how to credit for this. No one wanted the U.S. to get credit for removals of carbon dioxide, so negotiations faltered. Most scientists use facts and logic to reach conclusions. It's no surprise that over 17,000 scientists and engineers have signed a petition calling for rejection of the Kyoto treaty. This overshadows any collection of scientists that have endorsed the treaty. The global warmers have failed to prove that man has caused a problem. This hasn't stopped them from demanding we act, and act now. The Kyoto Protocol called for the U.S. and other western nations to shoulder most of the limits on fossil fuel energy use. Developing countries suffer little or no restrictions. Those countries are obviously enthusiastic. The economic powerhouses would have their hands tied, while would-be competitors like mainland China would not. President Bush has sided with the scientific facts in recently declining to implement the Kyoto limits. After all, the treaty is so bad the Senate opposed it 95 to zero. Bush and Congress must go further. They should refuse any regulation of carbon dioxide emissions whatsoever. Consider the impact of the restrictions still promoted by some. The U.S. would have to put a 50 to 100 % tax on gasoline, heating fuels, and most electricity. Local farmers and landowners will face bureaucratic restrictions hindering the use of land. In south Texas, the result would just be massive inflation and unemployment. In the developing world, suffering economies would cause starvation and death. And for all this, the restrictions can't be shown to make any difference to world climate. The primary advocates of global warming remain the environmentalists. They propose a drastic solution to a non-existent problem--a solution which is, amazingly, the same political policy they have unsuccessfully sought to impose for decades. Many of their leaders oppose free markets and seek to limit human development, and global warming is currently the best means to these ends. If people are hurt in the process, so be it. The current power supply problems in California are a perfect example. They are not a consequence of true deregulation, but of environmental and anti-free market restrictions on power production. This is the same thing proposed in Kyoto, and the same thing still promoted by some Washington leaders. As you watch your gas and electricity bills go up, recognize this as only a taste of what could have been under Kyoto--and what could still be, if environmental politics and big government win out over free markets and scientific facts. |
|
INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT: The Issue of the Potential Impacts of
Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry"
May 24, 2007
Contact:
Marc Morano 202-224-5762
Matt Dempsey 202-224-9797
SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT
Thursday May 24, 2007
[ Read highlights of witness hearing testimony ] Thank you for having this hearing today, Madam Chairman. I have to say, however, that we seem to have hearing after hearing after hearing on climate change – indeed, this is the Committee's second one this week alone – but we don’t seem to actually discuss legislation. While other Committees without jurisdiction on this issue attempt to write our nation’s global warming policies, this Committee sits idly by talking about tangential issues. I believe that if we do wrestle with actual legislation, then the folly of cap-and-trade carbon legislation will become apparent. The recreation industry’s true threats come not from climate change – which has always changed and will always change – but from the so-called global warming ‘solutions’ being proposed by government policymakers. Misguided efforts to ‘solve’ global warming threaten to damage the travel and recreation industry. In short, it is a direct threat America’s way of life. If we cannot fly to remote locations, and if few automobiles are capable of pulling boats, jet skies, and campers, and if RVs become a thing of the past as environmentalists would like, then minor climate fluctuations will have little impact on recreation because Americans will not have the means to recreate. I will not belabor my views about the scientific underpinnings of global warming alarmism, other than to make a few observations. The fact that climate fluctuates – changes – is nothing new, and should not be feared. It has always changed, and unless the processes of the planet suddenly stopped, it always will. There is little disagreement that it warmed in the Northern Hemisphere from about 1970’s until 1998, and that since that time, temperatures flattened. And there is general agreement that some human activities such as the building of cities and expanding agriculture, have contributed to this. But there remains much debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to the many factors which may influence climate that is of importance to the question of whether climate fluctuations are natural or caused by humans. But regardless of that debate, a healthy functioning planet means constant changes in our climate. There are winners and losers as climate fluctuates. A warming period could be a boon for warm weather destinations like beaches and lakes and a cooling period like we experienced from 1940-1970s could be beneficial for cold weather recreation like skiing and snowboarding. This past winter saw record snows in the Rocky Mountain region as well as an unusually cold spring in Alaska. Currently, we are seeing a Memorial Day snow advisory for the Colorado Mountains. Wyoming being buried in a May snowstorm and parts of Canada are still enduring winter. In addition, South Africa just set 54 new cold weather records with some parts seeing snow for the first time in 33 years as snow and ice continue to fall. And I am not finished. A massive snowstorm in China has closed highways and stranded motorists. And finally, winter has arrived early in Australia as the snow season is off to a promising start for the winter recreation industry. But the most verifiable threat to the recreation and travel industry is the unintended consequences of misguided government policy and environmental activists. The chilling effect of guilt that the climate alarmists are attempting to instill in Americans for owning four wheel drive vehicles, flying in an airplane and enjoying travel is enough to harm the industry. For examples of this promotion of misguided policies and guilt, you need look no further than a proposal in April by the UK-based Institute for Public Policy Research, which called for tobacco-style health warnings on airplanes to warn passengers that the plane flight may be contributing to a global warming crisis. The group proposed posting signs on airplanes which read “flying causes climate change.” Another example of unintended consequences by climate crusaders was the recent proclamation by a UK grocery store announcing it would usher in ‘carbon friendly’ policies and stop importing food from faraway nations. This proposal may have been popular with wealthy Western environmentalists, but the idea did not sit so well with poor African farmers. As a February 21, 2007 BBC article details: “Kenyan farmers, whose lifelong carbon emissions are negligible compared with their counterparts in the West, are fast becoming the victims of a green campaign that could threaten their livelihoods. A recent bold statement by UK supermarket Tesco ushering in ‘carbon friendly’ measures - such as restricting the imports of air freighted goods by half and the introduction of "carbon counting" labeling - has had environmentalists dancing in the fresh produce aisles, but has left African horticulturists confused and concerned.” The BBC article continues: “Half of this produce goes to the UK's supermarkets, generating at least £100m per year for this developing country. The dependence on the UK market cannot be underestimated, says Stephen Mbithi Mwikya, chief executive of FPEAK. For Kenya, horticulture is the country's second biggest foreign exchange earner after tourism. ‘This announcement from Tesco is devastating’, says Mr Mbithi.” The recent announcement by travel guru Mark Ellingham, the author of the Rough Guide travel book series, that he was now recanting his promotion of worldwide travel is another blow to the travel and recreation industry. Ellingham now says that our addiction to ‘binge flying’ is killing the planet. This kind of alarmism should concern the travel and recreation industry, not natural climate fluctuations which mankind has no control over. There is even more proof showing that the dangers facing travel and recreation are coming from climate hysteria. The Associated Press on May 16, 2007 reported that ecotourism --the type of travel you would expect environmentalists to endorse--is no more Earth friendly than regular travel due to the long plane flights necessary to bring vacationers to exotic locales. The Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey is now warning about long distance travel. "Long distance travel — especially air travel — is a challenge to all of us. We know that it has serious impacts on the climate," Bjoernoey said. I cannot think of a more devastating sentiment to the industry than that. Reduce air travel because of unfounded fears of climate doom. That is the authentic threat not only to the travel industry, but the developing world which depends so much on tourism to improve the life its residents. Clearly, the unfounded fears of a man-made climate catastrophe and the proposed solutions represent the gravest threats to the industry. Thank you.
|
