The World As I See It

Only a “few” experts refute global warming

Posted by SteveB on May 28, 2009

It is argued by those supporting AGW that there are only a handful of “experts” that deny man’s role in global warming. And those that do deny are either not really experts or are in the pocket of “big oil”. Just thought I would share some stats provided by Joseph Bast, President of the Heritage Foundation; that evil anti-AGW organization.

Joseph L. Bast
The Heartland Institute

Global Warming Is Not a Crisis

If those who are sounding the alarm about a possible climate catastrophe are right, then governments must raise energy costs directly, with taxes, or indirectly, with mandates and subsidies, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year in wealth or economic activity will be sucked up and redistributed by governments.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions even modestly is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S. approximately $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs. Electricity prices would double, and manufacturers would move their factories to places such as China and India that have cheaper energy and fewer environmental regulations.

If global warming is indeed a crisis, billions of dollars taken from taxpayers will flow into the coffers of radical environmental groups, giving them the resources and stature to implement other parts of their anti-technology, anti-business agenda. None of that money will go to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This explains the paradox that even though the scientific community is deeply divided over the causes and consequences of global warming, every single environmental advocacy group in the U.S. (and probably the world) believes it is a crisis.

Here’s how we know this:

Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that says, in part, “There is 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.”A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Some 10.2 percent “strongly disagreed.”A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.The mainstream of the scientific community, in other words, does not believe global warming is a crisis.


2 Responses to “Only a “few” experts refute global warming”

  1. José said

    Reference the 31,000 scientists who’re sceptical of of global warming.
    The main arguments put forward by Warmist climate alarmists, is that many of those scientists dispute that they should be on that list, that many of those who are, know nothing about climate change and are not qualified to comment.
    Warmists have plausible sounding answers to anything sceptics or deniers have to say, they do have most of the science to back them, as sceptical science is underfunded in comparison.

    I have one main reason for disputing anthropogenic global warming come climate change and that is, if global temperature has risen less than 1º F in the last 100 years due to AGW, where do the IPCC and other scientific bodies get their ludicrous figures of a as much as an 11º F rise by the end of this century from, “archaic” computer models?
    Where do they get the idea that sea level rise will accellerate alarmingly, when it never has and probably never will exceed the normal rate of 1 to 2 mm per annum, the same computer models?

    Sea levels have been much higher in past interglacials by around 120 metres and during glacials, 100 metres lower, so it would be reasonable to expect similar changes in the distant future.

    The chance of human emissions continuing at the present rate for the next 90 years is, in my opinion, a ridiculous idea, emissions in Europe have already fallen dramatically over recent decades, with nasty nuclear, wind farms, natural gas and solar energy taking over slowly. In Spain alone, carbon based power generation is already down to 24.7%.
    There’s still plenty of fresh air to breathe and a few extra PPM of CO2 wouldn’t hurt anyone, in fact it would only help by increasing agricultural output, an environmentalist’s dream to save humanity* from starvation.

    Global warming would do more harm than good for most humans on this planet, the alternative cooling would be disastrous.

    *Global population is another discussion, for another day.

  2. dave1r said

    Eh. We’re all going to end up eating global warming hot apple pie: Ugh. We’re all going to end up eating global warming hot apple pie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: