This is a copy and paste I have found...
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, 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.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite
readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists
predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming
since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to
within 0.01ºC, 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, are often contaminated by heat
generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not
historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions
that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to
“flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of
doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global
warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations
organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s
latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about
predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics
is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in
initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the
detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in
the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the
forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such
predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our
ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD),
which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland,
were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The
period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was
even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first
civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study
for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer
climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our
own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the
year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher
energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million
jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household
income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would
decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales,
and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by
all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year
2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s,
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, collects $358 million 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.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global
warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in
atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the
future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime,
investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such
investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy
is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration
has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each
year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American
businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for
reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
