On Feb 7, 4:21=A0pm, "B0N0Z" <B0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ron Ewart
>
> February 6, 2008
>
> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1740
>
> QUOTE: "No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established
> for man-caused global warming. All we have are hypotheses and
> speculations based on computer models."
>
> It is High Time a Joint United States-Canadian Commission on Global
> Warming Be Formed Now, Before Real Damage is Done to Both of Our
> Economies by Unwarranted and Unnecessary CO2 Limiting Legislation
>
> Many groups and individuals in the United States and Canada have
> listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle
> their people and industries with the burdens of carbon dioxide emission
> restrictions, carbon dioxide taxes and the risks of carbon dioxide
> trading, which is an open invitation to massive fraud.
>
> The science of global warming is definitely not settled.
>
> Thousands of qualified, independent scientists around the world now
> question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven
> historical influence of natural solar cycles, the significance of water
> va**** contributions and many other aspects of climate science. Since the
> scientific investigations for the UNIPCC fourth *****sment re****t were
> completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast
> serious doubt on many of the IPCCs conclusions.
>
> It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warming was occurring, the
> strongest warming would be in the upper atmosphere above the tropics.
> Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that the
> "warming" is not being caused by greenhouse gases: [Douglass, D.H., J.R.
> Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical
> temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of
> Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.]
>
> Everyone, from the highest government official to the lowliest taxpaying
> consumer, must realize that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable
> doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no
> justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon
> dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community
> and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them and worse,
> once again, constitutional property rights will be under attack by
> another national and international environmentalist-generated crisis.
>
> No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established for
> man-caused global warming. All we have are hypotheses and speculations
> based on computer models. Governments have a duty, nay an absolute
> obligation, to create an op****tunity for the full range of scientific
> evidence to be examined and evaluated. Any actions or policies
> instituted must not be solely political. This can best be done by
> establi****ng a joint United States-Canadian Commission on Global
> Warming. The new commission must not take on the flavor of the Bali
> conference, which purposely excluded opposing points of view.
>
> Many fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our economy and
> subsidizing expensive and ineffective alternate energy proposals. The
> very high cost to society of the actions being proposed require that we
> settle the science before forcing our two countries into a futile and
> expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. "Doing it just
> in case" is not an option.
>
> Federal and state governments need to vigorously look into the likely
> long-term costs and effects of various legislative proposals for
> reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, a parallel independent
> inquiry is needed into the science to determine whether any action is
> required at all, especially in light of the fact that whatever our two
> countries do will be undone by China and India. So the proposed
> legislative solutions will be anything but global and the citizens of
> our two countries will end up bearing the entire cost for much less than
> even a partial solution, to their own detriment, while other heavy CO2
> emitters skate by scot-free.
>
> The United States and Canada are both heavily dependent on primary
> production and world trade. The entire northern hemisphere could be very
> damaged by the global warming extremism of Al Gore and Old Europe. Al
> Gore is more motivated by extreme Green politics than scientific truth,
> while Old Europe believes that their nuclear capacity protects them from
> the carbon dioxide trading costs they plan to impose on others. Europe
> also has adopted the highly controversial "precautionary principle"
> which essentially says "DO IT, no matter what the cost, even if there is
> no science to sup****t it, just in case, or as a PRECAUTION".
>
> Thousands of scientists believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit,
> not a threat to mankind, and there is no need to launch a massive
> assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non
> problem. Further, water va**** has the greatest effect on global warming
> (95%), where CO2 contributes a fraction of 1% to global warming. The
> following graph shows this relation****p with absolute clarity.
>
> Ron Ewart is the President of the Wa****ngton state-based National
> Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org).
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
> warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
> during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
> Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia
|
