Most of the world now recognizes that the
claims of catastrophic global warming from
man-made causes are not supported by
scientific evidence. They realize too, that the
policies required by the Kyoto Protocol would
do little or nothing to reduce emissions, but
would instead, create another mechanism for
the redistribution of wealth. In the real world,
people recognize that unfounded claims of
environmental disaster have frequently been
used in attempts to justify radical social
policies. Perpetrators of these deceptions
inevitably destroy their own credibility. In a free society, facts cannot be fictionalized forever.
The scientific facts about global warming have now overtaken the fictionalized fantasies of the
doom-and-gloomers.
More than 4,000 scientists worldwide have now signed the Heidelberg appeal which warned of the inadequate scientific basis for the FCCC. Nearly 150 climatologists and meteorologists have now signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says there is insufficient scientific justification for the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Now, more than 15,000 scientists have spoken publicly:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
More than 10,000 of these scientists hold advanced degrees in the pertinent scientific fields of atmospheric physics, meteorology, oceanography, geology, biology, agriculture, and in relevant engineering specialties. Some of the signers actually participated in the IPCC's work, which clearly demonstrates the absence of a "consensus" among the IPCC scientists. These scientists are not organized around a political agenda, as is the Union of Concerned (Confused?) Scientists. They are independent scientists, responding to an independent survey conducted by an independent scientific institute. And their response is overwhelming: abandon the political agenda the Kyoto Protocol promotes.
Sovereignty to the world
In addition to 15 hours of live radio broadcasts from Bonn to the United States and 80 other countries, World Concerns
and daily news reports are posted on the Internet at <http://www.sovereignty.net>.
No one challenges the fact that certain greenhouse gas concentrations have increased during the last century, nor the apparent correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide and industrial growth. The significance of that increase, however, is severely challenged.
It is an indisputable fact that
global temperatures have fluctuated
widely over historic time, as have
concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Human activity could not possibly
have influenced those fluctuations.
A thousand years ago, during what
scientists call the Medieval Climate
Optimum, the global mean
temperature was nearly two degrees
C higher than the current
temperature, and even higher two-thousand years ago. Four hundred
years ago, the world was in the
throes of what scientists call the
Little Ice Age. Is it not possible that
the .6 degree C increase experienced
during the last century is nothing
more than evidence of nature's
continuing climatic fluctuations? Is it not possible that the General Circulation Model's
projections for the next century describe nature's return to what science and history call the
"Climate Optimum?" Probably not. The
current cycle of natural climate 
variability will
probably not return the world to the "Climate
Optimum." The scientific fact is that for the
last half of the century, the global mean
temperature has been declining slightly (0.07
degrees C per decade). Perhaps nature will yet vindicate Stephen Schneider's and Lester
Brown's "scientific" opinion from 20 years ago when they warned of "floods and droughts"
caused by man-made global cooling.
Global temperature aside, why has the FCCC COP assumed that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide should be reduced before determining whether or not the increase represents a "dangerous" interference with the global climate system? The scientific fact is that there are measurable benefits to rising carbon dioxide levels, and so far, no demonstrated dangers. Plants and vegetation grow faster, larger, and require less water when exposed to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, and grain yields are substantially improved. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide appear to be nature's way of invigorating biological production to balance both the climate and ecological systems.
At what concentrations do greenhouse gases become "dangerous" to the climate system? No one knows. What is known is that over geological time, carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than now, perhaps as much as 20 times higher than the present. During the 18th century, the Little Ice Age, concentrations of carbon dioxide were much lower than at present. What is known, is that 82% of this century's increase in carbon dioxide occurred during the last half of the century, while temperatures declined and vegetation growth increased.
The FCCC COP cannot ignore the now overwhelming evidence that neither current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, nor the levels likely to accumulate in the foreseeable future, are not "dangerous" to the climate system. Indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that a doubling of current levels would enrich biological fecundity and help continue the improved health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people everywhere.
(Those who wish to know the facts should see "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Arthur Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson. <http://www.oism.org>.)
Paul Ehrlich has become a laughingstock, even among the students at his Stanford University. A March 10 article in the Stanford Review, written by Mike Toth, says, "unfortunately for the world, Ehrlich made it his task to bring Malthus' dead-wrong ideas back to life."
"Polar caps will melt, sea-levels will rise, coastal cities will be inundated, and deserts will replace lush forests," all sound like a modern version of the "dead wrong" Malthus-Ehrlich dogma of doom. By the way, who was it that said rising carbon dioxide concentrations would cause the global temperature to rise?
As scientific fact and actual experience
continue to nullify the claims and
projections of the global-warming prophets
of propaganda, it becomes increasingly clear
to the real world that the high purpose of the
FCCC has been hijacked to serve the aims of
the social engineers.
It will probably not take twenty years for
students at Stanford and the other
universities around the world to recognize
that the rhetoric of the global-warming
enthusiasts has about the same level of
credibility as the rhetoric of Malthus and
Ehrlich. Their forays into foolishness were self funded; The FCCC COP is using money earned
by hard-working individuals, taken by various governments, and given to the FCCC to continue
to build a "dead-wrong" legacy.
While free people can, and often do, disagree on policy proposals, action on those proposals is delayed until convincing evidence, presented openly, persuades a majority to vote one way or the other. Each officials's vote is a matter of public record, and those who are governed can hold each official personally responsible.
In America, the people -- those who are governed -- are speaking out robustly about the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. Senate -- elected by those who are governed -- has already responded to their electors by adopting a Resolution that sets forth the minimum requirements any Protocol to the FCCC must contain if it is to have the support of the American people. The Kyoto Protocol fails to meet those requirements.
Current discussions regarding NGO participation appear to be heading in the opposite direction -- to limit public participation.
It may well be inconvenient to have NGO representatives clamoring for documents and competing for space to present their point of view. It is an indispensable part of the policy-building process nevertheless -- if the policy is to be supported by the people who are affected. Policies adopted by non-elected officials, without regard for the wishes of those who are affected by them, can only be implemented by force and coercion. Individual freedom is the cost of such policies. When such policies are the work of international bodies, the cost expands to include national sovereignty.
Jessica Mathews, a former appointee to the U.S. State Department, recognizes that the Kyoto Protocol "will penetrate deeper into national sovereignty than any previous pact." China, and the G-77 countries apparently recognize that fact and have refused to make any commitment that infringes their national sovereignty. Those people whose national sovereignty is infringed will not likely stand idly by and let the rest of the world dictate policies that cost both individual freedom and national sovereignty. Nor should they!
Expect to hear that
1998 has begun with a
global-warming bang; do
not expect to hear that the
cause is related to the
largest solar flares in
history. On January 20,
1998, CNN reported a
"Coronal Mass Ejection"
that knocked out Telstar
401 Communications.
On April 8, 1998, CNN
reported solar flares "the
likes of which scientists
have not seen before."
According to Art Poland, senior scientist with the
Solar and Heliosphere Observatory (SOHO) at the
Goddard Space Center, the flares sent a "shock-wave"
toward the earth that takes only two days to reach the
earth's atmosphere. NASA reported that the
explosions produced plasma temperatures in the range
of 1 million to 1.5 million degrees.
The highest global temperatures ever recorded by the satellites correlate directly to the solar flares observed by scientists around the world.
The correlation between solar flares and fluctuations in global temperature comes as no surprise to the scientific community, though largely ignored by the propagandists who promote "human activity" as the primary cause of global warming.. Note the correlation between the temperature (dark line) and the solar flare activity (light line) over the last 250 years. According to Arthur Robinson, et al, "It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity." The current surge in global temperature is nothing more than verification, again, of the "natural" variability of global temperatures.
This year, 1998, may well be the warmest year in recent history, but is unlikely to return the
world to the Medieval Climate Optimum, and certainly not to the temperatures that plagued the
earth 3000 years ago. Interestingly, during a
period when there is much recorded history,
there is no evidence of melting polar caps,
unusually intense storms, or flooded coastal
cities.
During a time when the known temperatures were as high, or higher than those projected by the alarmists, life on earth progressed, even prospered. If the FCCC COP is really concerned about future warming, perhaps a Protocol banning solar flares would be in order.