global warming myth

THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING: DOC
format file: Microsoft Word
global warming myth - Some politicians know that they can gain more control over our lives through programs designed to remedy global warming. We need to be vigilant to see this does not happen. We can make better use of our energy; that just makes good sense and helps each one of us. But, most of the suggested programs from wind farms to solar energy to hybrid automobiles will cost almost as much energy to produce as they actually save.

Common sense demonstrates that this great planet has survived many changes in climate and will do so again. Government programs to help would be far better directed toward clean water the world over, as well as better sanitary conditions and food production. Even control of such things as malaria would be a greater help to mankind than any effort to control global warming. Besides, most of what you hear about global warming is a myth.


CLIMATE CHANGE: MYTHS AND REALITIES: DOC
format file: Microsoft Word
Which leads me to the second myth: Even if the earth is warming, that may actually help us more than hurt us. Here’s the reality: In the short-term there will be winners and there will be losers. For instance, farms and forests will be more productive at some latitudes, but less productive at others. In the long term, though, any possible benefits from global warming will be far outweighed by the costs.

You may have heard about a new climate report that the United States submitted recently to the United Nations. The President tried to distance himself from the report, even though the White House had approved it, because some of his supporters didn’t like its implications. But the “bureaucracy,” as the President put it, actually did a very credible job of presenting what we know about the likely impacts of global warming here in the United States.


The Global Warming Myth: DOC
format file: Microsoft Word
The Global Warming Myth - For a long time we have been bombarded with just one side of the story. We have nodded in agreement as politicians and score of ‘experts’ both here and abroad have persuaded our Government to sing up to the Kyoto Protocol, Carbon Credits, Eco Taxes and Environmental subsidies. Many world citizens have been left with little doubt that the greatest threat to this planet’s survival is the seeming inevitable consequence of “Global Warming”.

Those pushing the ‘Myth’ have recruited a large proportion of the worlds scientists, masterminded by and organization call the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and told them to prove that global warming is man-made and that carbon is harmful. The are all computer scientists who are paid to generate climate models. How can they predict climate 50 years out when they can’t even predict the weather a few weeks from now?


Debunking Global Warming: DOC
format file: Microsoft Word
In fact, before global warming bewitched the World into signing useless treaties, the global cooling scare threatened the lives and livelihoods of millions of the Earth’s citizens. It’s time to debunk the myth of global warming once and for all.

According to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the United States government spends approximately $4 billion on climate research every year. There are many other problems where this money could be more beneficially spent on than global warming alarmism and research. Fixation on the anthropogenic global warming model takes away from the attention needed to resolve real, addressable problems such as soil contamination, the budget deficit, national debt, poverty, the war on drugs, problems with agricultural subsidies, or the impending energy crisis.


Myth, its Evolution, and the Problem of Perspective: DOC
format file: Microsoft Word
In similar kind, the Nazi’s obsession with an Aryan grand narrative was responsible from some of Hitler’s most contemptible political decisions. Myth then, rather than religion, could be held accountable for the mistakes which Dawkins, Harris and Dennet oppose. Is it possible for secular society to draw equally powerful myths in the support of rationalism and moral progress? Or is myth actually incompatible with the empirical and theoretical sciences?

The rhetoric of ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Global Warming’ is a case in point. During the past few decades as evidence has mounted in support of the link between human activity and an increase in global temperatures, the language used to discuss the issues of climate change has taken on a fervent, almost religious, zeal. Labels such as ‘catastrophic’, ‘irreversible’ and ‘chaotic’ have quenched the thirst of environmental campaigners in search of an all encompassing, apocalyptic narrative.