Global Warming is a Hoax

In Thursday’s debate Rick Santorum listed a laundry list of reasons why he was a better candidate than the rest. One of these included how he didn’t believe in the “global warming hoax.” This response caused many reactions and thought that maybe he was crazy. This is expected with the numerous reports that the media throws down our throats regarding this matter. Global warming is apparently an important subject, and a candidate must have a response on what they plan on doing about it. Santorum, along with a growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that there is need for a plan and drastic actions aren’t needed.

Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever, who supported President Obama in the previous election, resigned from the American Physics Society in September because of their policy statement that read, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” This happened after “climitegate” where leaked emails from prominent American and British climate researches, had lines including, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.

What it comes down to is that global warming is becoming “politically correct” but maybe not “factually correct”. It is reported that there are many young scientists who disagree with global warming, but are too afraid of the consequences for displaying their opinion. This was seen when Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, wanted to publish an article with a conclusion that global warming is a hoax. The International Climate Warming establishment called for his removal shortly after. If global warming is a hoax, then why are there organizations still pushing for it? Reasons include excuses for bureaucratic growth, funding opportunities, excuses to raise taxes, and increased subsidies.

Sixteen of these prominent scientists and engineers recently came together and had a message for the candidates:

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

 Yale additionally released a study that showed a policy of 50 years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas control yields the highest benefit-cost ratio compared to many other common policies.

The scientists ended with:

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

 

A list of the 16 scientists who backed this theory can be found at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • jmerhit  On February 1, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Whether global warming is occuring or not we’re still emitting a huge amount of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it is going to have some effect on the enviroment. It doesn’t matter if that effect is global warming or somthing completely different. I think we shouldn’t just keep doing what we’re doing and leave this problem for future generationsto deal with…. I mean we’ve all had experience cleaning up someone elses mess. it’s not very fun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: