The "global warming" scare could be one of the most
important public policy issues of this century, because
government will be given massive powers
to radically diminish our industrial civilization, causing poverty
and mass death
Global Warming advocates are asking government to coerce Americans
into dramatically cutting their emissions of gases which are alleged to
create "global warming," whether by their businesses or their
homes and cars. Some groups are calling for the government to force you
to stop using using your car 3 or 4 days a week. You may also be asked
to cut back on your air conditioning, or to use your refrigerator only
for "essential" foods. Industries may be required to cut back
production significantly, thus raising the prices of the goods they
produce and you use. Is the "cure" worse than the disease?
According to some climatologists, the planet is still emerging from
the "Little Ice Age" of hundreds of years ago. That's
"global warming" in some sense. Notice this chart:
picture is worth more than a thousand words. If you want words, here's
the source: Analyzing
Global-Warming Science. Sure, there's been global warming: for
the last 500 years! And we're still below normal for the last
Compare the picture above with the one here
-- which ignores the big picture -- and especially consider their
that an immediate 70–80 percent reduction in current carbon
emissions is necessary to mitigate further climate change.
Any sentence that begins (or implies) "All scientists
believe" is probably a lie. There is no
consensus on global warming. But beyond the "consensus"
question, the larger question is, what will
be the cost to you of an 80% cut in technology and industrial
The global answer is, poverty and mass-death. It's really that
What would be the effect on your life if you and the rest of the
• heat your house only on Sundays,
• receive hospital care for an injury or disease only on
• drive your car or operate farm equipment only on Tuesdays,
• operate your refrigerator only on Wednesday,
• heat your water only on Thursdays, and
• use electric lights only on Friday?
Answer: you would commit suicide on Saturday.
Either that or after a few years, you and probably 2 billion other
human beings would die from our inability to grow enough food and
provide safety, shelter, and medical care for billions of people.
want the political
power to destroy industrialization and return us to a more
"natural" lifestyle, even if they have to kill you, or control
you, or simply profit off your consumption of energy by taxing and
Energy is the key to human survival. That is to say, consumption
of energy -- large amounts of energy, increasing amounts
of energy -- is the key to human survival and the flourishing of human
The continued rapid cooling of the earth
since WWII is in accord with the increase
in global air pollution associated with
urbanization and exploding population.
—Reid Bryson, “Global
Ecology; Readings towards a rational
strategy for Man”, (1971)
This [cooling] trend will reduce
agricultural productivity for the rest of
—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the earth’s
weather patterns have begun to change
dramatically and that these changes may
portend a drastic decline in food
production—with serious political
implications for just about every nation
on earth. The drop in food production
could begin quite soon… The evidence in
support of these predictions has now begun
to accumulate so massively that
meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up
—Newsweek, April 28,
This cooling has already killed hundreds
of thousands of people. If it continues
and no strong action is taken, it will
cause world famine, world chaos and world
war, and this could all come about before
the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The
If present trends continue, the world
will be about four degrees colder for the
global mean temperature in 1990, but
eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.
… This is about twice what it would take
to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on
air pollution and global cooling, Earth
The battle to feed humanity is over. In
the 1970s, the world will undergo famines.
Hundreds of millions of people are going
to starve to death in spite of any crash
programs embarked upon now. Population
control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The
Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England
will not exist in the year 2000.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life
in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of
coastline will have to be evacuated
because of the stench of dead fish.
—Paul Ehrlich, Earth
Before 1985, mankind will enter a
genuine age of scarcity…in which the
accessible supplies of many key minerals
will be facing depletion.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
The only hope for the world is to make
sure there is not another United States:
We can’t let other countries have the
same number of cars, the amount of
industrialization, we have in the U.S. We
have to stop these Third World countries
right where they are. And it is important
to the rest of the world to make sure that
they don’t suffer economically by virtue
of our stopping them.
Environmental Defense Fund
There is no evidence that during times of medieval warming, or
warming over the last few millennia, where rates of warming were ten
times greater than they are today, that plants and animals and human
beings suffered. Agriculture -- trees and plants -- thrive in
high levels of carbon dioxide.
And obviously, automobiles, nuclear power plants, and refrigeration
of food and indoor air were not causes of the Medieval Warm Period or
any other global warming
over the last 3,000 years.
2007 was a relatively cold year. Many climatologists are now saying
we are in a period of global cooling (although this could still be a
period of cooling within the larger period of global warming that has
been going on since the "Little Ice Age" half a millennium
There is also a growing opinion (but not yet "consensus")
that CO2 is not the cause of the
warming of the last few hundred years. (In fact, stated that way, there
is probably universal consensus that that human emission
of CO2 is not the cause of our emerging
out of the "Little Ice Age").
These are the questions that policy-makers should be asking:
Is temperature increasing?
Is that a bad thing?
What is causing the warming?
What are the costs of eliminating these causes?
What are the benefits of eliminating these causes?
1. Some scientists say earth's climate is growing warmer. You may
have heard stories about ice and glaciers melting, but you probably
haven't heard from those scientists who claim Antarctic
ice is increasing. Some scientists believe that the Middle Ages
(e.g., when Greenland was discovered) were warmer than today. Other
scientists were predicting in the 1970's the
danger of an imminent ice age! If you don't trust your
TV weatherman to tell you if it's going to rain tomorrow, can you trust
him to tell you if it's going to be warmer 50 years from now? Perhaps
global warming in the next 100 years will mitigate the effects of an
inevitable period of global cooling 100 years after that, and
diminishing global warming in the near future will result in disastrous
global cooling in the more distant future? Who knows?
2. If scientists can't predict the weather, how can they predict the
long-term effects of "global warming?" Some scientists
predict that warmer temperatures would be good for agriculture, and
since plants breathe in CO2, perhaps
"greenhouse gases" will increase food production and end world
hunger. Others predicted that global warming would cause 2006 to be a
year full of Katrina-type hurricanes; something
that didn't happen.
3. If scientists are right about the Middle Ages being a warmer
period today, then global warming couldn't have been caused by human
technology. Where's the proof that today's alleged warming trend (as
opposed to the alleged "cooling trend" scientists warned about
30 years ago) is not caused by the same factors that raised temperatures
in the Middle Ages, before human beings had cars and air conditioners?
4. The costs of observing such policies as the Kyoto accords would be
enormous. The costs of cutting back our industrial production in order
to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions by 80% would be a huge
change in your lifestyle, all to avoid a temperature increase of several
fractions of a degree during your lifetime.
5. How will your life be better if the average temperature is a
couple of degrees lower, but you can't drive your car, use your
refrigerator or air conditioning, or build a simple house for less than
$2 million dollars (even in an area without a real estate bubble)?
Kevin Craig is not convinced that if there is actually a recent
warming trend, it is caused by human technology. In any case, Kevin
Craig does not believe that destroying industrial civilization to avoid
bad weather is prudent. Industrial civilization is keeping billions of
people from starvation, and destroying industry to curb its emissions of
"greenhouse gasses" will not save us from global warming, but
rather make us more vulnerable:
If we destroy the energy base needed to produce and operate the
construction equipment required to build strong, well-made,
comfortable houses for hundreds of millions of people, we will be no
safer from bad weather than if we retain and enlarge that energy
If we destroy our capacity to produce and operate refrigerators
and air conditioners, we shall be no better protected from hot
weather than if we retain and enlarge that capacity.
If we destroy our capacity to produce and operate tractors and
harvesters, to can and freeze food, to build and operate hospitals
and produce medicines, we shall destroy our food supply and our
health services capacity just to avoid the speculative possibility
of warmer temperatures and a longer growing season.
The entire direction of global warming advocates is wrong. This is
because the fundamental character of those organizations that are
orchestrating the global warming scare, and which are being picked up by
the media, are anti-human
and anti-Christian. In a word, they are "environmentalists."
the website that completely knocks the wind out of the
enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that
global warming is a lie with no scientific basis
The global warming
hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It
lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and
population reduction advocates. The United States is very
close to adopting an international agreement which would
have devastating consequences.
The Scientific Evidence does not support the idea that human acts
are significantly raising the earth's temperature.
Even if the "Greenhouse Effect" becomes reality, what
will be the harm? A longer growing season? More abundant vegetation?
Fear is a tool of totalitarianism. "Global warming" is
useful for the political ambitions of a wealthy elite, like Maurice
The poor and middle classes of the earth will
be annihilated if we destroy industrial civilization in order to
protect ourselves from a non-existent threat of bad weather.
Good Riddance to Enron And its Green
Citizens for the Integrity of Science debunk pseudoscience as
well as misinformation that gets passed along as scientifically factual
in the media. Among the active and extensive coverage are food issues,
global warming, the environment (do Midwest emissions pollute states on
the East Coast?) and medicine.
Global Warming Fundamentalists
With every earthquake or other natural disaster, Christian
"fundamentalists" tell us "end times" prophecy is being
fulfilled; earthquakes are "Signs
of the Times. Tribulation has begun, earthquakes in diverse places."
This has been repeated without letup since at
Similarly, whether the temperature goes up or down, whether
precipitation goes up or down, whether storms come or go, for
Global Warming fundamentalists, anything that happens is
a fulfillment of Global Warming prophecy.