Posted on 08/27/2006 7:13:52 AM PDT by calcowgirl
A magazine news article warned of the impending doom of climate change:
"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production, with serious political implications for every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. ... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
You might be surprised that this gloomy scenario refers to global cooling, and comes from a 1975 Newsweek cover story that helped give rise to congressional hearings that warned of an impending Ice Age that would result in worldwide famine and poverty.
A mere three decades later, climate change is back in the news, and we hear similar predictions of devastation and calamity - yet now the culprit is global warming. In fact, many of the same alarmists who once advocated global cooling now suddenly embrace the theory of man-induced, catastrophic global warming.
There is no doubt that media hysteria is fueling this global warming debate. However, when formulating public policy, it is best to rely on objective science rather than the latest Hollywood movie.
It is generally accepted that the Earth is in a warming trend. However, we are led to believe the cause is human behavior - that it's our businesses, our cars and our power plants that are inducing the change, and that immediate action is necessary to save our planet.
On this point, more than 17,000 national and international scientists have signed a petition to demonstrate the lack of scientific consensus on the theory of man-induced, catastrophic global warming.
The petition reads, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases is causing catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics recently completed a study indicating that a review of more than 200 climate studies determined that the 20th Century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
It must also be noted that our planet is subject to natural, periodic shifts in climate. Just in the last century, we have seen three distinct periods of atmospheric climate change: warming in the early 1900s, cooling in the mid 1900s, and warming toward the end of the century.
This hasn't deterred the environmental extremists in Sacramento, who have blindly accepted the global warming theory as fact, and put forth a package of legislation ostensibly to solve the problem.
The most far-reaching is Assembly Bill 32, grandly titled the "Global Warming Solution Act." It imposes mandatory caps on carbon emissions in California, and gives the Air Resources Board carte-blanche authority to monitor and enforce emission levels.
AB 32 would impose massive costs and burdens on California businesses and devastate our state's competitiveness.
The cement manufacturing industry, for example, is poised to experience a surge in production with the Legislature's recent focus on infrastructure. A hard emissions cap will force these businesses to shift their production to neighboring states, most of which are not as energy-efficient as California. When we consider the additional emissions generated to import the product, the net effect will be harmful to the environment.
In fact, a recent report from Gov. Schwarzenegger's Climate Action Team warns of this unintended consequence of California's "go it alone" approach, stating that "emissions may decline in the state, only to increase in neighboring states." Not surprisingly, the bill's proponents have yet to acknowledge or address this glaring problem.
The proposal would also cripple California's energy market and drive gas and electricity prices even higher. Because electricity generation represents about 40 percent of the state's carbon emissions, it would be forced to incur a significant portion of the cuts. The state is already struggling to keep pace with a growing energy demand, and this takes us down the road to another energy crisis.
Unfortunately, the result of such legislation that is not based on science will leave us with a potential energy crisis, higher taxes, and more businesses and jobs leaving California. And what would we get in return? Very little if any change to the environment.
This is the wrong proposal for California.
There is no scientific evidence that man's activity is causing "catastrophic" climate change. There is plenty of evidence pointing to higher CO2 and methane levels as a cause of some of the warming we're seeing. There is some evidence that if this warming goes on, it will be on balance bad for California. And it is anybody's guess whether the cost of the problem is less than the cost of doing something about it. We have to think and gather evidence on that point.
Its the new Y2K.
I agree. I suspect that in 50 years time some areas of the world will probably be warmer due to more co2, but there is absolutely no evidence that there will be any catastrophy because of this. There have always been natural disasters and I don't see any convicing evidence that slight warming will cause any more than there already are. Huge disasters like anartica melting or sea level rising 20 meters are simply pipe dreams of the media. They might happen in 1,000 years time but by then we will be living in orbit.
It is obvious from you comment, despite your statement that there is no evidence man is causing global warming, that you do indeed believe man is causing global warming. There is no real evidence to point to "global warming" as our weather has been warmer in times past and more extreme also, and none what so ever that any increase in CO2 emmissions, which are good for plant life BTW in case you missed biology in school, that man may be responsible for has had any effect on the weather.
If you believe this crap, and it is obvious you do, then please, stop driving your car, shut off all your electricity and live without it, buy a horse and buggy(good luck on finding a place to keep them)and supplement those with walking(which is good for you). Don't work for any corporation or company that uses electricity, coal or oil to run their business or as part of their business. If all you liberals will do that then I will start taking you seriously. I call you liberal btw, because only a liberal would believe in this obviously fake hype.
As if California doesn't have enough problems...My company just closed down a facility in the Stockton area and moved to Yuma mainly because the costs of doing business in Ca have become prohibitive.Taxes,environmental regs,etc,etc.It wasn't a big facility,but we employed 250+ people for over 20 years.Just imagine how many other businesses have had to make the same decision?These bureaucrats are simply putting Ca out of business.Have they(bureacrats)considered the ultimate result when the tax base leaves the state?
The cost of doing something about it is quite apparent and totally unjustified without conclusive evidence. Imposing mandatory regulation based on arbitrary targets and entering into Kyoto-like trading schemes is just plain stupid and will kill the California economy.
Actually, there isn't.
Plenty of conjecture, but no hard evidence. There have been periods when greenhouse gases were in much higher concentration than now and they came long after, not before or during these warm periods.
Could it be that we might not actually know it all?
Here we go again with the "10 years from now" lines. I guess they think everyone's forgotten all those "we won't be here in 10 years" predictions from Earth Day 16 years ago. If this is truly science, they would have thrown out their theories when the evidence (our existence) proved them wrong. Any science that exists about global warming has been buried under the political BS.
Oops. I misread the article. That was a quote from an old magazine. Never mind. :)
Food production is going to go down due to the lameheaded energy policy.
Tractors are going to be thirsty.
Oops, I forgot. All is not lost. We can use people power to pull the plows and harvesters. We also have scythes and sickles.
no.
Don't forget the Ozone Layer and Save the Rainforest!
All part of the same propaganda to redistribute wealth and reduce freedom.
With declining food production due to "global warming" we need to convert all our vehicles to bio fuel to save the planet.
(oh, wait a minute....what restaurant will be open that i can drive my bio-fueled vehicle to if all the food was converted to bio-fuel?)
Also there was a time when the CO2 levels were 10 times higher on earth than they are now yet that was the Earth's coldest periods and it lasted for thousands of years. See link for details:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Will the GUb give up his cigars as well as a gesture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.