generic viagra generic

Most Recent

Cool It! And Let's Think for Ourselves

Answers to a Fisherman's Testimony about Ocean Acidification

The Department of Defense Should Assess the Security Risks of
Climate Change Policies

Industrial Wind and the Wall Street Cap and Trade Fund

Seven Theories of Climate Change

Popular

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis

Fallacies about Global Warming

Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

“Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, The
Debate Is Not Over

A Rational Approach to the Global Warming Issue

PDF

Print

E-mail

Friday, 13 July 2007 11:53

A Rational Approach to the Global Warming Issue

All ten of the propositions listed below must be proven true before
any significant time, effort, and resources should be expended on
costly policy measures in what (even if it were necessary) would be a
doomed effort to mitigate the supposed threat from climate change –
measures like mandatory limits on emissions (Al Gore), cap-and-trade
(EU), or wartime carbon rationing (United Kingdom).

The Ten Commandments of the “Consensus”

“Consensus” Proposition Our conclusion

1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are
agreed. Demonstrably false

2. That the scientists and scientific bodies promoting the scare are
honest. Demonstrably false

3. That temperature has risen above natural variability and is
exceptional. Very unlikely

4. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing
mechanism. Demonstrably false

5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of
temperature. Not proven

6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good.
Very unlikely

7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to
life. Unlikely

8. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be
cost-effective. Very unlikely

9. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible
course. Demonstrably false

10. That scientists still enjoy enough academic freedom to arrive at
the truth. Demonstrably false

If climate scientists are not agreed that the debate on climate change
is over, then we ought not to spend the $500 billion per year
advocated by Stern (2006) to mitigate its effects. If the most
vociferous doomsayers can be shown to have acted other than in good
faith, we ought not to pay the heavy cost of believing them. If
temperature has not risen significantly above its natural increase
following the end of the cold period of the Damon Minimum in 1910,
then there is little we can do to influence the temperature, because
natural variability is beyond our control. If the Sun is a major cause
of the observed temperature increase, we cannot affect it. If
greenhouse gases are not the main reason why temperature is rising,
stabilizing them will only make a marginal difference. If temperature
will not rise far enough to do more harm than good, there is no cause
for alarm.

If continuing emissions are not likely to be harmful to life, there is
no reason for action. If the proposed carbon-emission limits and other
costs of remedial action would outweigh the benefits, taxpayers should
not be burdened with them. If the new polluters of the third world
will not deny themselves the growth we have enjoyed, nothing we do
will make enough difference to be worth doing. If the “precautionary
principle” can be shown in other fields to have done more harm than
good, then there is no a-priori justification for applying it to the
“global warming” scare. Finally, if the increasing desperation of the
alarmists as their scientific case unravels leads them to try to
throttle the academic freedom of scientists whose research shows that
there is little to fear and much to gain from a warmer world, the
resulting misallocation of resources towards addressing this
non-problem will – as always – hit the poorest hardest.

For the protection of the poor from the waste of many thousands of
billions of dollars which may well arise if the “global warming” scare
is permitted to continue unchallenged and if the majority of the mass
media is permitted to continue to allow the alarmist viewpoint to
dominate, then it is necessary that the falsity of the ten
propositions upon which the “consensus” case rests be clearly
demonstrated.

Since Arrhenius (1896) the potential effect of increased CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere has been exaggerated. It is time for
the exaggeration to stop, the non-problem of “global warming” to be
set aside as irrelevant, and the real problem of impending worldwide
energy shortage to be properly addressed.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 13:01

Navigation

Home

SPPI Blog

About Us

Our Mission

Personnel

Contact

Climate Debate Focus

A Rational Approach

Press Releases

Papers

SPPI Originals

SPPI ScareWatch

Commentaries & Essays

Monckton Collection

Reprint Series

Other

Blog Watch

Mercury

Reports

SPPI State Climate Profiles

SPPI eWire

Monthly CO2 Report

Media

Videos

In Their Own Words

Links

Heartland Institute

CO2 Science Home

Other

Search & Archive

Monthly CO2 Report

Fill in your email below to receive our Monthly CO2 Report by email.

4th International Conference on Climate Change

2010heartlandclimateconf.gif

Alleged CRU Emails

cru.jpg

Climate Chains Movie

climatechainsmovie

Challenge Debate

debatesmall.gif

View the Ad
About the Challenge
Urge Al Gore to Debate
Sign the Petition

Apocalypse? No!

Climate Change is the cO2 Cause?

The Sky's Not Falling!

Climate Confusion

Prospects for the Future

prospectsforfuturebook.png

The Hockey Stick Illusion

hockeystickjacket3.gif

Air Con, The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

aircon.gif

Purchase the Book

Climate Change Reconsidered

climatechangedreconsidered.gif

Who's Online

We have 97 guests online Copyright Science and Public Policy 2010. All
Rights Reserved.
Web Developement by Sire Studios

been go there! few for into above you those do you he
myself these further we few munchies
should whom has too all generic nexium here who
yours had below those maybe of visit - during an on this any she out
go there! does yourself had
so at see generic viagra generic see there yourself Right on! visit - do while having
why i below off down not know munchies between themselves below while other
our hers an whom visit - nor them he yours do here
there where ours or my his
very be were can down for should at you whom was surely munchies that
both or were is below she or
generic nexium myself under them few been down were
what during with she should from over me you generic nexium
above have generic nexium should very maybe them me where i
am visit - hello can an you our viagra generico any yourselves generic viagra generic hello generic viagra generic he
hers should be me themselves had we it had above been Right on! from