Thus, the most important debate is global warming research today is the same as it was 20 years ago: How will clouds (and to a lesser extent other elements in the climate system) respond to warming, thereby enhancing or reducing the warming? These indirect changes that further influence temperature are called feedbacks, and they determine whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability.
It turns out that “all 23 climate models tracked by the IPCC now exhibit positive cloud and water vapor feedback.” Spencer believes that there is a “mix-up between cause and effect” that results in a positive bias in temperature change. According to his research, publication forthcoming, the feedback is actually negative. In his words, “The negative feedback was so strong that it more than canceled out the positive water vapor feedback we also found.”
He concludes:
While there are a number of other potentially serious problems with climate model predictions, the mix-up between cause and effect when studying cloud behavior, by itself, has the potential to mostly deflate all predictions of substantial global warming. It is only a matter of time before others in the climate research community realize this, too.
Currently we’re being asked to accept huge increases in taxes and energy costs all in the name of saving the planet from global warming. It’s already started, as our local electric utility in Wichita has had to ask for several rate increases to support its efforts in renewable energy — costs it would not have incurred if not pressured by threats from politicians.
Now it turns out that the science behind these decisions is likely wrong.
The problem of global warming, to the extent it truly exists and is caused by man, is a problem with a very long time horizon for its solution. We need to slow down and make sure we truly understand the problem and its causes before we make drastic policy changes that will harm our economy and our prosperity.
Kansas customers served by electric utility Westar are facing another rate increase.
It’s a “follow-up” rate increase, coming after several other recent rate increases. The purpose is to pay for “the second phase of its Emporia Energy Center and two Westar-owned wind farms.”
The rate increase is 1.5%. It amounts to around a dollar or so per month for the average residential customer.
Westar has described the Emporia plant this way: As a ‘peaking plant,’ Emporia Energy Center is intended to operate during Westar Energy’s highest customer demand conditions, primarily on hot summer days.” Also from Westar: “Our Emporia Energy Center is excellent for following the variability of wind production.”
This rate increase plus its predecessors are evidence of the fact that renewable energy is expensive. Not only must wind farms be built — that’s the primary expression of renewable energy in Kansas — backup generation must be provided, too.
That’s because wind power suffers from variability, as Westar admits. In particular, the time when when we need it most (hot summer afternoons) is precisely the time when the wind is least available. So we must plan for how much electricity we will want to have available, and then build conventional generating capacity to meet that need. Wind and solar power can’t be counted in this calculation.
So it’s just a dollar a month. What’s the problem?
The dollar per month is just for a residential bill, and just for this rate increase, which is just one of several to pay for wind power. Commercial electricity bills are rising too, which increases costs to business. That means that firms will try to pass along costs to customers. Or firms may look to look to reduce their costs, which usually means layoffs.
Last year Westar proposed a rate increase of $10 per month for the average household in Kansas. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, at that time campaigning for the Kansas Senate, was quoted as saying “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.”
Below, Wichita Geophysicist Dennis Hedke explains the problems with the beliefs held by radical environmentalist Rev. Richard Cizik. This is the unabridged version of a letter that appeared in the Wichita Eagle.
I was in attendance Wednesday evening where Rev. Richard Cizik spoke to an audience largely supportive of his view of “Creation Care” (Wichita Eagle, May 28, 2009). I too, am an Evangelical Christian, and I take issue with a number of his suppositions. I would immediately cite Genesis 1: 26-29, wherein the Creator gave man specific dominion over every creature in the animal kingdom, as well as that of the entire plant kingdom. He certainly charged man to be a good steward of all that He assigned for man’s dominion, and we must not take that responsibility lightly.
Rev. Cizik mentions the “snake oil of climate skeptics”, and I will oppose any notion that mankind is largely responsible for earth’s dramatic decline, because the scientific evidence is far and wide in dispute of such a proposition. We have real problems and real pollution to clean up. However, the current drive to legislate fossil fuel-based emissions control is utterly out of touch with scientific reality. The legislation (HR 2454), which has now passed out of the House Committee on Commerce and Energy for Senate consideration, would strive to achieve the following: more than 80% reduction of “anthropogenic CO2”, as compared to 2005 benchmark
levels. It is projected that if they could accomplish the feat, which I suggest will be impossible, the net temperature “savings” by year 2050 would be about 0.18 degree Fahrenheit. By some estimates, the price tag would exceed $11 trillion (Science and Public Policy Institute, May 19, 2009).
Rev. Cizik writes that major segments of Earth are dying as a result of these emissions issues, yet he provides no facts, nor any data to support his contention. You need to know this: the CO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere is 385 parts per million (ppm), less than 0.04%. The CO2 concentration in US submarines routinely reaches 8,000 ppm, and no officials are rushing to rescue the American sailor “enduring” that terrible climate. What the actual data tells us is that the hoped for “greenhouse signature hotspot” over the Tropics related to CO2 is nowhere to be found. That’s right, it does not exist, and it has been hunted for years.
Rev. Cizik also stated, via James Hansen, a NASA scientist who is unfortunately becoming well known for making outlandish, unsupported statements, “carbon dioxide that we put in the air … will stay there … more than 500 years”. That simply is not true, in reality it dissipates in 5 years,or less, according to some 50 independent researchers.
The population of this planet now exceeds 6.6 billion people. Does man have influence on climate? Yes, but a substantial body of data tells us the influence is minimal. The approximate 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150 years is dominated by oceanic and land-based carbonate (limestone) sources, which are very specifically derived from the sun’s enormous influence on heating the entire planet. We have been experiencing a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1750 AD.
I would respectfully recommend that all mankind pay special heed to 2 Timothy 4: 3-4. We have no more room for myths, and the truth is scarce, indeed.
Washington, DC — Spain’s decade-long program to subsidize the creation and continued existence of so-called green jobs through a massive infusion of taxpayer resources “has cost many jobs,” former President Bill Clinton admitted to a Spanish audience at the European University of Madrid this week, according to the Spanish daily newspaper El Mundo (a translated version of the piece can be found below).
The statement mirrors closely the findings of a recent study authored by Professor Gabriel Calzada of Spain, a report that has attracted attention in the United States as the current president continues to cite Spain as a model to be followed in promoting a similar green jobs plan here at home.
In response to former President Clinton’s comments, Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement:
“Though efforts continue to be made in the United States to discredit the Spanish green jobs study, and even personally attack its author, President Clinton’s affirmation of its core findings serves as just the latest reminder that the facts are what they are — and they aren’t pretty. More than 10 years and nearly $40 billion in public investment later, Spain still only acquires less than one percent of its power from solar, and the vast majority of the so-called green jobs created by the government to support that industry are no longer in existence today. If this is the model for near-term economic growth and long-term energy security that President Obama envisions for our country, we may be in for a longer, more severe recession than we know.”
Please find below the translated version of the El Mundo article:
–
Clinton: Green Energy “Has Cost Many Jobs”
J. G. Gallego/C. Caballero
El Mundo, p. 46
May 23, 2009
Madrid — Former US President turned ecologist Bill Clinton is aware of the impact on employment by the development on renewable energy. Even though he is, as a former dweller of the White House, one of the most visible supporters in that industry, the US Democrat recognized yesterday that clean energies “have cost many jobs” in Spain.
Though without citing it directly, Clinton was acknowledging yesterday during his conference in Madrid that the study about the impact of public support on renewable energies, released by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has very valid conclusions.
That report, which has received enormous coverage in US media and been used against Barack Obama’s energy policy, argues that every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Bill Clinton recognized yesterday that “this commitment to clean energy has cost many jobs” while at the same time calling for Spain to intensify investment in this industry to be able to turn high costs into new jobs.
Update: Let your elected representatives in Washington know about this legislation. Send them a message by clicking here.
Earlier this week I reported on legislation being considered by Congress that would, under the lofty goal of national security, impose a huge burden on the American chemical industry. (Chemical security law goes beyond protection)
For example, the legislation “proposes to mandate the government to take a large measure of control over products and processes in the chemical industry, much like it has taken over leadership, compensation and control functions at some banks, insurance and auto companies. … A government bureaucracy would be given power to mandate product substitutions, formulation changes and changes in processes … But interference with product formulation and the complicated processes worked out scientifically over years of research and experience is not the proper purview of government security regulators or environmental activists. It is a separate issue from security and terrorism. Such interference is more likely to create new manufacturing and worker safety hazards.”
This article gives us a hint at what may be the real motivation behind this legislation: “Interestingly, it is environmental activist groups, many of whom oppose mainstream agriculture’s use of any chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuels to produce America’s robust food supply, who are pushing this legislative reach to mandate private industry’s products and processes.”
Wrapping an extremist environmental agenda in the trappings of national security may be an effective scare tactic, but it’s not a good way to formulate national policy.
The recent decision in Kansas to proceed with the building of a coal-fired power plant still generates discussion. Today’s Wichita Eagle carries a letter to the editor that deserves discussion of its claims.
The main focus of today’s letter is that we as a state missed out on an opportunity to “produce thousands upon thousands of new jobs in the green-energy manufacturing and operation sector.”
This writer has obviously bought into the notion that creating jobs for the sake of reducing carbon emissions is a good thing. So we first need to look at the worthiness of the goal of reducing carbon emissions. When you do that, you realize that mankind’s contribution to global warming is minor at best, and that even the most ambitious plans to reduce carbon emissions would produce changes in temperature that are so small, they’d be difficult to measure.
This tiny reduction in carbon emissions would come at a great cost to our economy, as the writer rightly notes, although inadvertently. It’s true that the shift to a so-called green economy would require many new jobs to be created. These jobs would create no more energy than we presently produce. But the cost of energy would increase, and that would lead to a decrease in wealth.
The new “green” workers are merely an illusion that masks what’s really happening, which is that they displace other workers.
Unfortunately, it is highly questionable whether a government campaign to spur “green jobs” would have net economic benefits. Indeed, the distortionary impacts of government intrusion into energy markets could prematurely force business to abandon current production technologies for more expensive ones. Furthermore, there would likely be negative economic consequences from forcing higher-cost alternative energy sources upon the economy. These factors would likely increase consumer energy costs and the costs of a wide array of energy-intensive goods, slow GDP growth and ironically may yield no net job gains. More likely, they would result in net job losses.
If we really wanted to turn our energy policy into a jobs creation program, we could do what George Reisman suggests, somewhat tongue-in-cheek:
Or is it the case perhaps that this problem is to be taken as an opportunity for even greater gains in employment in connection with wind and solar power? These might be achieved if, in all those times when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, human beings were employed in rotating copper-clad generator shafts, in a manner similar to that of rotating a grindstone in a gristmill, only in the presence of surrounding magnets, so that electricity could be produced by the rotation. (I don’t know how much, if any, electricity might actually be produced in this way. But it would provide at least the appearance of employment in the attempt, which is all that many other “stimulus” programs accomplish.)
The best energy policy is one that provides the energy we want at a low price. Anything else reduces our country’s wealth.
Today Wichita Geophysicist Dennis Hedke is in Arlington, Virginia to testify before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the science of global warming, or climate change.
Hedke says “The EPA’s findings present serious conflicts and discrepancies with very well documented data related to such issues as the human-induced contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse gas mix, recent temperature history of the earth and projected temperature / CO2 linkages, projections of sea level rise, oceanic pH conditions projected to disrupt calcification and coral growth, misinformation with respect to projected hurricane intensity and overall precipitation events. These opinions reach further into the political domain, implying national security to be at risk if we do not act immediately to curtail the impacts of their climate change predictions.”
Earlier this week Wichita Geophysicist Dennis Hedke delivered a lecture on the science underlying global warming. He also covered the severe economic impact that the ill-considered war on carbon dioxide emissions will have.
SOME FUNDAMENTALS OF GLOBAL WARMING & ECONOMICS The age in which we are living is fraught with significant misconceptions, however, in my opinion, none are more egregious than the subject of this discussion. Improper handling of matters related to these issues has the potential to bring the United States of America to its “business knees,” and I suggest to you that is exactly where we are headed, IF we allow the current “settled science” to dominate. I have every intention, along with thousands of other scientists, to make sure that the real science is allowed to come loudly and clearly to the forefront. You have been taught by certain entities that “carbon” and “fossil-fuel” are bad components that must be eliminated from our energy mix. You have been told that if we don’t take immediate action to divert those energy sources related to those “bad” materials, the earth will suffer catastrophic climate change. I have two main points I feel compelled to leave with you. Point one: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. I offer as evidence this listing of actual pollutants per the website of the EPA: Aerosols, Asbestos, Carbon Monoxide, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Criteria Air Pollutants, Ground Level Ozone, Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), Lead, Mercury, Methane, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM), Propellants, Radon, Refrigerants, Substitutes, Sulfur Oxides (SO2), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Notice that CO2 is nowhere to be found in that list. Yet, we have a decision from the United States Supreme Court (MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.) dated April 2, 2007, which charged the EPA with the responsibility to determine whether or not “Greenhouse Gases” cause pollution, with particular focus on automobile tailpipe emissions. Since the Supreme Court ruling, (which was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito strongly dissenting), the new administration’s EPA has taken it upon itself to find that the group of greenhouse gases, unless strenuously controlled, will cause “endangerment” to mankind. I strongly disagree. Greenhouse gas “pollutants” include water vapor, by far the dominant contributor, at about 95% of the greenhouse mix, CO2 at about 3.5%, others less than 1%, and methane about 0.5%. Methane and some of the “others” do show up in the EPA’s list of actual pollutants. Point two: Global temperature, melting of the glaciers, and rising sea level are all related to perfectly natural phenomena, and I am including data below to support this fact. This is not theoretical, modeled expectation. These facts are tied to data from around the globe, and cannot be ignored or passed of as propaganda. The global temperature has been measured since around 1740, but we can use “proxies” to further extrapolate aspects of the climate record. The figure below describes, with very strong support from the earth historical record, temperatures dating back to around 1200 BCE. Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value. One of the fundamental points to be drawn from this figure is the FACT that earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing since the end of the “Little Ice age. We are now at about the place where we match the 3000-year average, about 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than conditions at about 1000 BCE. The next figure below speaks to the misconception that “human-induced global warming” is responsible for the melting of the glaciers. Again, bear in mind that global temperatures began a marked increase around 1700 CE. The introduction of fossil fuels into man’s energy mix is not responsible for the advance / retreat of glaciers. This natural process will continue to fluctuate with routine global cycles. One other major point that is continually emphasized is that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of the natural temperature increase we are experiencing. That contention is simply not supported by the data. There is also the belief that the uptrend of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, currently around 385 parts per million (ppm), or about 0.04%, is also mostly, if not exclusively, due to humaninduced activity. I would agree that human activity, including agriculture, transportation and power generation from a variety of sources contributes somewhat to the overall mix, but to suggest that human activity dominates the concentration is ludicrous. Here’s a calculation: The CO2 fraction of the greenhouse is about 3.5%. Man’s contribution to that number is estimated at 5% of the 3.5%, or less than 0.2%. That translates to between 6-7 ppm due to human activity. Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature in crease by about 20 years, so it pre dates the 6-fold in crease in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend. Further support of sea-ice conditions is presented below, actual data from 1978 – 2009. During this period, global sea-level is believed to have risen perhaps 6 inches, but the uncertainty in measurements precludes a definitive statement on this issue. Below, I present actual temperature data from just the Arctic region to show the obvious correlation between temperature and solar irradiance. Now, compare the same temperature record with an overlay of CO2 concentration during the same period. I submit the correlation is non-existent. The figure presented below shows actual satellite temperature data for the period 1979-2009. Note that the absolute maximum globally averaged temperature occurred during 1998. The smoothed curve indicates a continuing downward trend in globally averaged temperature. Source: University of Alabama-Huntsville, (Christy, Spencer). It is also very interesting to note the significant impact on global temperatures that occurred as a result of a single volcanic eruption, that of Mt. Pinatubo on June 15, 1991. The maximum net temperature drop was about 0.6 degrees C, or about 1.2 degrees F. Climate Prediction Accuracy? Given the substantial amount of effort directed toward climate research, it is interesting to test just how good predictions of today’s climate happen to be. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN group that has been largely responsible for attempting to lead the world in a better understanding of its complex climate. While the common perception is that the IPCC statements are substantiated by high credibility science, the reality is that in many cases, the science gets lost in translation by political policy makers. In some cases, scientists have had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed as “reviewers” due to the fact that they strenuously disagreed with statements that ultimately made their way to the public. To be sure, there are some reviewers engaged at IPCC who have very high credibility. Unfortunately, many of their findings and opinions do not survive the “vetting” process of IPCC review committees. The figure below, available in a report from the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), demonstrates the painful reality of inaccurate models, and the net result of very poor predictability. Bear in mind that this model attempts to predict a 6 year trend. The IPCC’s longterm predictions associated with temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse buildups, etc., reach to the end of this century. In my opinion, this figure speaks volumes with respect to the need to considerably broaden the scope of analysis of the complexities of earth’s atmosphere. It also speaks loudly and clearly to the lack of accuracy which prevails in modeling these complex, interconnected systems. The truth of the matter is that many, many researchers engaged in this complex and challenging undertaking fully understand the uncertainties associated with these model predictions. However, it is far more important to their funding goals and project longevities to neglect the emphasis of uncertainty, replacing it with, in many cases, incredible hype. I suggest to you that we are on to them, and that “we” will be placing them under increasing scrutiny, scrutiny that has been materially increasing each and every year since some of the early fraudulent indications started to become known. One of the most egregious examples of blatant fraud and misrepresentation is presented below. The upper portion of the graph is the representation of global temperature history which was very prominently displayed in Gore’s academy award winning film. The “scientist” who produced the graph is Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now at Penn State University. That graph appeared in the IPCC’s report in 1997. Researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre sought the data used in Mann’s “construction job,” and found that it contained very significant processing errors. Their research resulted in a revised temperature history resembling that reproduced in the lower portion of the graph. Mann’s model completely ignored vast historical data and viable proxies that corroborated the Medieval Warm period which maxed at about 1200 AD, as well as the also well-known Little Ice Age that is corroborated in virtually any encyclopedia. Al Gore knew about the misconstruction before his 2005 movie hit the screens of America and the world. Today, it is illegal to show that movie in Great Britain without a significant list of disclaimers related to inaccuracies on a number of issues. Finally, I conclude with a diagram you may already be familiar with, that of relative costs of energy delivery, based on data from Great Britain, which is comparable to the basis in the United States. It is very clear to see that energy delivered from wind and solar based sources is at the most expensive end of the scale. Added Cost – Redundancy The cost basis for wind power is actually understated, insofar as redundancy must be constructed from alternate sources, such as nuclear, coal or gas, to offset downtime for wind generation. • Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. The Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (39 cents/Kwh). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it a “terribly expensive disaster.” • • References related to these charts and figures are included below. In this time of significant economic stress, the last thing we need to be doing in this country is dismantling the most efficient energy system the world has ever known. Yet, that is exactly where we are headed under current Obama administration / EPA policy recommendations. Dennis Hedke May 16, 2009 Wichita, KS References Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Robinson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149164. Robinson, A., Robinson N., Soon, W., Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. National Petroleum Council, Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, July 18, 2007. University of Alabama-Huntsville, Earth Systems Science Center, Dr. John Christy, 2009. Would CO2 Emissions Cuts Save Arctic Ice and Reduce Sea-Level Rise?, Science and Public Policy Institute, Christopher Monckton, April 20, 2009.
Speaking at a recent meeting of Libertarians of South Central Kansas, Wichita Geophysicist Dennis Hedke provided much useful information about the scientific basis of climate change science.
The presentation included a lot of data, with many charts and illustrations. This is important, as the global warming alarmists — I’ll call them “warmists” — base their case on data. Following are some notes from the talk.
Much of the data the warmists use is not credible, Hedke said. Some key points to remember:
We’ve been looking for the greenhouse gas “signature” for years, and it hasn’t been found.
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant warming.
The satellites that measure temperature all say that the recent warming trend ended in 2001.
Ice core data shows that in the past six global warming periods, the temperature rises occurred, on average, 800 years before an accompanying rise in carbon dioxide. This has been known, without dispute, since 2003. Yet Al Gore presented this evidence in his 2005 movie in support of carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming.
Other charts and graphs show that there is not a relationship between levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperature.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and it provides a powerful warming effect. It is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Carbon dioxide is 3.5% Further, it’s estimated that human activity is responsible for just three to five percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
What drives temperature? The sun. The level of sunspot activity has a tremendous impact on temperature, more than any greenhouse gas effect.
The number of tornadoes is decreasing. So is the number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall, and their windspeed, too. Warmists use increases in these as something bad that global warming will cause.
The famous “hockey stick” chart, the one that shows a very rapid rise in temperatures in recent years, is based on erroneous data.
The goal of radical environmentalists is to get rid of hydrocarbons, Hedke said.
Looking at the sources of energy, renewable sources such as solar and wind play just a tiny role in our nation’s energy supply. Even with these sources rapid growth — subsidized by government — they will continue to supply a small fraction of our entire energy needs.
Nuclear power holds the possibility of energy security for the United States. Currently, that is just a promise, as political considerations, not technology, hold back development of nuclear power.
In Denmark, which has relied heavily on wind power, electricity is the most expensive in Europe. Heavy reliance on wind there is now recognized as a mistake.
Cap-and-trade will be very expensive for consumers. Costs will skyrocket and will be passed on to consumers — according to Barack Obama while on the campaign trail last year.
The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade efforts will result in temperature reduction of just a tiny fraction of a degree. This would occur at a very high cost to the American economy.
Hedke recommends that we adopt these policies:
Permit and build coal-fired power plants.
Build nuclear plants, too.
Open offshore waters open to gas and oil exploration and production.
Eliminate subsidy to wind power production.
Eliminate trying to manipulate greenhouse gases, as we can’t do much to impact the levels.
Cancel the idea of cap-and-trade.
31,000 American scientists have signed the petition at Global Warming Petition Project, which reads “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 gasses 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.”
Hedke speaks about his topic with a great deal of passion and energy. He presents a lot of data, which is important, as our policies need to be based on a sound and thorough understanding and discussion of the science underlying climate change.