A long time ago kings and rulers might be advised by magicians, astrologers, and other charlatans. These mystics would prey on leaders–and through them, on entire societies–by using the false superstitious beliefs of all involved. These people mostly went away with the advent of science.

But they’re back–this time using the name of science. A vocal minority of the scientific community, with the help of unqualified outsiders, has persuaded many politicians to pursue plans that would be economically devastating. The story this time is global warming.

The “global warmers” produced the Kyoto treaty of 1997. However, the facts completely disprove what these people are saying about climate change.

We’ve all heard the stories, reported as indisputable fact: The last century or decade is just about the hottest the world has ever been. Carbon dioxide from burning gasoline and coal is blamed. Unless their solution is enacted right now, temperatures will rise terribly in the next century. Icecaps will start to melt, coasts will flood, storms will get worse, diseases will spread, animals will die, and more. And it’s all because of us Americans.

The best lies contain a measure of truth. Yes, carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last century due to the use of fossil fuels. Yes, global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F in the same century. Unfortunately, the temperature increase came first: most of the temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a “scientist” who said the result came before the cause?

There are other problems, as well. Solar activity may be the cause of the world temperature changes. The global warmers can’t explain why satellites show no temperature change in the past 20 years. The computer models that predict disaster in a century have been completely wrong for the past 20 years. And no one can agree on the side effects.

Scientific facts actually helped unravel the treaty last year. Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by various natural and manmade processes, and world leaders couldn’t agree on how to credit for this. No one wanted the U.S. to get credit for removals of carbon dioxide, so negotiations faltered.

Most scientists use facts and logic to reach conclusions. It’s no surprise that over 17,000 scientists and engineers have signed a petition calling for rejection of the Kyoto treaty. This overshadows any collection of scientists that have endorsed the treaty.

The global warmers have failed to prove that man has caused a problem. This hasn’t stopped them from demanding we act, and act now.

The Kyoto Protocol called for the U.S. and other western nations to shoulder most of the limits on fossil fuel energy use. Developing countries suffer little or no restrictions.

Those countries are obviously enthusiastic. The economic powerhouses would have their hands tied, while would-be competitors like mainland China would not.

President Bush has sided with the scientific facts in recently declining to implement the Kyoto limits. After all, the treaty is so bad the Senate opposed it 95 to zero.

Bush and Congress must go further. They should refuse any regulation of carbon dioxide emissions whatsoever.

Consider the impact of the restrictions still promoted by some. The U.S. would have to put a 50 to 100 % tax on gasoline, heating fuels, and most electricity. Local farmers and landowners will face bureaucratic restrictions hindering the use of land. In south Texas, the result would just be massive inflation and unemployment. In the developing world, suffering economies would cause starvation and death. And for all this, the restrictions can’t be shown to make any difference to world climate.

The primary advocates of global warming remain the environmentalists. They propose a drastic solution to a non-existent problem–a solution which is, amazingly, the same political policy they have unsuccessfully sought to impose for decades. Many of their leaders oppose free markets and seek to limit human development, and global warming is currently the best means to these ends. If people are hurt in the process, so be it.

The current power supply problems in California are a perfect example. They are not a consequence of true deregulation, but of environmental and anti-free market restrictions on power production. This is the same thing proposed in Kyoto, and the same thing still promoted by some Washington leaders.

As you watch your gas and electricity bills go up, recognize this as only a taste of what could have been under Kyoto–and what could still be, if environmental politics and big government win out over free markets and scientific facts.

How about the body of int’l science put forth by the UN’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change?

How about our US-based prestigous climate research institutions?

How about the CEOs of some of the major Fortune 500 companies (eg, GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, PG&E, Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, etc)uniting to form the US Climate Action Partnership to issue a call to action re: climate change? see http://www.us-cap.org

They are all in accord on how man-made pollution has driven and is driving climate change at an alarming rate.

What is wrong with creating a new economy based on cleaner and renewable energy? We just have to get the petroleum and transportation industries on board, which will be the fnal and ultimate challenge.

Congrats to Mr Gore and the AIT producers for taking the risk to make this film.

The other question is if these countries put a brake on thier growth, what effect it will have on the economies of the developed world like USA, UK, Australia and the OECD nations which see these countries as the market for their goods and depend on them to increase thier exports.
Not to forget the Big Oil Companies which take their raw material from much of the developing world and whose final products contribute to the pollution and global warming to a great extent. Will they or their stake-holders be ready to accept a big fall in their income/profits for the sake of improving the atmosphere and lessening the harmful emissions.

This is a classic catch-22 situaton where the speeding train cannot be stopped without a break-up, but continuing to speed ahead may take the train to disaster.

The only solution may be managed slowing down of the world economy, which requires consent and co-operation by all the major players. A system of compensation for the developing and undeveloped nations from the already developed nations may be required for this managed slow-down to take place. This requires sacrifice by every one. How this will be agreed to and implemented and who will supervise the same? Will the United Nations grab the leadership on this critical issue?

Already USA is proving to be difficult to realise its role in bringing the world to the present desperate state, and is refusing to contribute in any meaningful way. Who is strong enough to bring USA to the realisation that it has a big responsibility in leading the world out of this crisis. Will it be its friends like UK, Australia or its critics like France, New Zealand and other OECD countries which are part of the developed world as of today? Or will it be the new giants like India, China and Brazil etc which themselves are dependent on continued growth in their export markets in the developed world.

This is a very complicated situation and just more and more talk will only create more hot air and hard feelings. The time has come to think of radical solutions like massive transfer of wealth and aid to feed and clothe and maintain the undeveloped nations like those in Africa. A mechanism will have to worked out to tax the developed nations and use the funds to slow-down and manage the economic growth in other countries.

Time is running out fast and the train is hurtling towards an unknown land and uncertain future. Who will grab the throttle to manage a safe ride and arrival for the passengers?

“Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.” – Tennessee Center for Policy Research