Words: 1553
The problem is that what is “obvious” often isn’t true. Concern over global warming is overblown and misdirected. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science saying in part, “there in no convincing scientific evidence that human release Of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere show no warming since readings Egan 23 years ago.
These readings are accurate within 0. 01 C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, and often contaminated by heat generated by nearly urban development, and are subject to human error (cited in American policy Roundtable, n. D. ). When it comes to government and industrial leaders, a certain number of these are not being honest to citizens about the amount of pollution the industries and countries create.
According to Exact Weather, room an article called “Hysteria”, all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming, Indeed, just three weeks after the U. N. Ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 1 1 countries has not reported to the U. N. That the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.
Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. Environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists’ replacement ideology for communism/socialism. Elitists who desire to rule other people’s lives have gravitated an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda. (cited in Exact Weather, n. D This is not the first time America’s major media has predicted an impending global climate crisis.
It has happened four different time with each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out r that lower crop yields would mean the billions would die. In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1 sass, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat ; global warming, which continued into the late sass. Then in 1975, the New York Times headlined that global cooling was inevitable.
Then in 1 981, it was back to global warming, with the New York Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude. (cited in Exact Weather, n. D. ). In an article written John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, he believes that not only is global warming the greatest scam in history, he believes some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming.
Other scientists have also jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Mr.. Coleman also believes that any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, ore likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance like anyone, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists about all else.
These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well know and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their ay. These scientists had to strive to be accepted, invited to present and review papers and travel to international meetings of the committee. Otherwise they were a nobody in the field.
When many researchers did climate change studies in the late ass’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like-minded Ph. D colleagues reviews their ark and hastened to endorse it without question (Coleman, n. D. ). Everyone has heard already that global warming is an international problem.
Some say worldwide organizations are needed to address the worldwide issue to make sure all nations adhere to standardized pollution regulations. Some countries and the regions that compromise them have there own rules and regulations set to determine the daily life of how much electricity, coal, nuclear power, and other resources can be used, as well as how cars can be made, how buildings and bridges can be built as to not effect environmental damage. All of this comes at an extra cost to society and put more debt to these countries that implement the regulations.
According to the article “Destroying America to Save the World the Kyoto Treaty is a international treaty designed to cut emissions that already contribute to global warming. The heart Of the global warming dispute remains quite important. Scientists have been debating the reality of climate change and its potential impact for years. Despite extensive scientific opposition, worldwide environmental groups pushed for action that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The pact required reductions in emissions below 1990 levels for developed nations.
When a BBC News report mentioned the estimated cost of the Kyoto Treaty if the United States implemented it, the result would be a damaging US economy with job losses and a increase in the price of energy by $2,000 per family. When the Fox News channel addressed the issue – short, but to the point, it explained the reason for the U. S. Opposition was that the treaty would not force reductions by the developing nations including major polluters such as China, UT it would have cut emissions by about 30 percent beginning in 2008.
Fox also mentioned that the supporters of the treaty believed the cost to American families was about $1 DO a year, while critics claimed it would have doubled the price of energy, costing families $2,700 a year. (Gainer, n. D. ) But this is not just the only example of regions, states, countries, or international communities imposing treaties or regulations that are costly. Arguments against Global Warming also mentions efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to just state budgets.
After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the sass, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless, persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collected $358 millions a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.
All they do is destroy jobs and waste money (cited in American policy Roundtable, n. D. ). There are many developing nations that re beginning to feel the positive impact of economic growth and development. Some of those developing nations have shown high amounts of pollution that is clogging up these countries cities especially in China and India. The Kyoto protocol will not solve the problem because it costs are too much and there is skepticism about it among the international community.
The best way to prevent developing countries from have revolutionary and economic uprisings is not through international public policies. In article called International Clean Energy Initiative from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, using Advanced, low-polluting energy technologies, developed and manufactured in the United States. It is an initiative built on a set of recommendations by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and is directed at leveling the playing field between cleaner U.
S. Energy technologies and services and polluting alternatives. While this technology carries higher up-front costs, and can be risky to decision-makers in developing countries, the real benefits of the initiative will help lay the technical and policy foundation that will allow developing and transition Mounties to build a clean energy future, leapfrogging past the polluting energy technologies used by the industrial countries. (cited in Office of Science and Technology Policy article, 2001, pig. ) The best option for world enforcement of pollution control, economic growth, and political stability is no regrets. Arguments against Global Warming mentions that while the alternative demands for immediate action to stop global warming, the best option is to do nothing. The best option is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometimes in the future if the science comes more compelling. Right now, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.