• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Global Warming Debate Goes Cold

    Snow in London (Photo by Newscom)

    As the House of Commons in England was debating global warming legislation, something happened that hasn’t occurred since 1922. Snow started to fall in October. Since the late 1980s, the left has been warning us of impending doom. Liberals say that the Earth’s temperature is rising and that carbon emissions are to blame. Is this really the case? Or are things happening outside of human control?

    The left would have you believe that it is the fault of human intervention. Liberals have even resorted to politicking fear. The warned the Arctic ice caps could melt this summer. That didn’t happen. Al Gore wants you to believe the polar ice caps will melt in 20 years. Why is that?

    The left has long been a proponent of big government, and on this issue, liberals can gain some sympathy in the name of “saving the world.” But do supporters even believe their own rhetoric? When Gore gave a speech in Washington this summer, he urged attendees to take public transportation or ride their bikes. Here is what happened: Gore’s SUV motorcade idled with the air conditioning running for 20 minutes.

    Even under President Bush, the Department of the Interior got into the action. Bureaucrats placed the polar bear on the Endangered Species List despite the fact that its population is increasing. Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to use the Clean Air Act to regulate everything from speed limits to lawn mower emissions. This would cripple the economy as enforcing these regulations would result in higher taxes for everyone. They need to be stopped.

    Conservatives have long argued there should be more debate on global warming. Recent trends in Washington suggest our government could be headed in the opposite direction by giving bureaucrats the power and authority to impose ardous regulations on Americans. That’s one reason we created a website called Stop the EPA to give you the means to make your voice heard.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Global Warming Debate Goes Cold

    1. Scott Jeppesen says:

      If Carbon Dioxide gas is a real problem in global warming, can I make a suggestion that all of the liberal Democrats, Socialists, and Marxists in this country stop exhaling. This would result in numerous positive effects.

    2. Caleb, Texas says:

      Seems like every time they have a big global warming meeting… it snows… lol

    3. Kris (Calexico, Cali says:

      Wow :)

      I remmber a couple of years ago when congress was going to debate global warming. They postponed it because of an ice storm. LOL

    4. Tony Williams, Willi says:

      As an historian, let me add that the earth has naturally undergone cycles of warming and cooling regardless of what man did. The Medieval Warming Period followed a period of cool temperatures, lower crop yields, death, and suffering. The warming period was in turn followed by the Little Ice Age with the same predictable results in early modern Europe. The natural warming period that we are in since the eighteenth century happened to coincide with the Industrial Revolution, leading many to believe that it (and mankind's actions) was responsible. It is possible that this is a completely natural trend, and one that will be reversed within a few hundred years.

      Tony Williams, author

      "Hurricane of Independence"

    5. Roger Vanderlely, Au says:

      There is definitely too much "do as I say, not as I do" coming from our leaders and that is not just in the USA, but in Australia too.

      Lots of talk about reducing emissions but no real action.

      Whether the climate changes are due to humans or cycles of output from the sun, or some other factor we cannot say for sure. What we can say for sure is that our actions will have an effect, and these need to be moderated.

    6. Pingback: The Global Warming » Blog Archive » Global Warming Debate Goes Cold » The Foundry

    7. Marc, Florida says:

      So let me get this straight…one side's argument is about money. And the other is about conservation, or perhaps being a little less wasteful. One side says, "don't pollute", and the other says, "Only if it's affordable." How does that work? That great socialist Kurt Vonnegut said, "We could've saved ourselves, but we were too darn lazy. And too darn cheap." Is it really about conservatism and liberalism? What happened to plain old common sense? So maybe the polar bear population has stabilized (though that information is inconclusive). Regardless, there is still only 20,0000 left. Yet, unless something is valuable in economic terms, it's deemed useless to the world. If that is conservatism, than count me among the liberals. And I now quote that other great socialist, Jesus Christ, who professed that the "meek shall inherit the Earth, the merciful shall obtain mercy, the pure of heart will see god, and the peacemakers will be the children of god." Oh, that pesky socialism…

    8. Davis, Seattle says:

      By opening your article with a statement demonstrating your ignorance of the difference between climate and weather, you immediately undercut any portion of your argument which is based in science. Then again, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between scientists and "the left":

      "The left would have you believe that it is the fault of human intervention."

      No, actually, that would be scientists making that claim, though the left echoes it.

    9. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      Man-made global warming is a hoax. It was put forth by selectively including only the surface temperature derived from ice core that will yield low values for Co2 (and discarding others) for pre-industrial base. Using the scientifically flawed low value data the post industrial Co2 levels (measured atmospherically)were used to claim that the levels were rising. If all the ice core data was used, the Co2 levels haven't changed as claimed by the hoax. That is item one. Secondly, the models that are used ignores the sun spot activity in addition to lack of any negative feedback. As a result, the models lack scientific and engineering rigor. It can not predict the documented effect of Maunder Minimumm of 1650-1700, during which the global temperatures plummeted. Thirdly, the model can not handle the water vapor effect which has a much wider absorption spectrum than Co2.

      The global surface temperature correlate exceptionally well with the sun spot cycles. The surface temperature is dropping since about 2000, following the sun spot cycle. It is not surprising that the winter of last year was colder than usual -places like Beijing experiencing devastating snow storms, tropical places like India abnormally low temperatures. It will probably continue this year. As a matter of fact, not only England experienced unusually cold October, NE United States was also colder than normal.

      Co2 based global warming is not science but represents a collusion of socialists and fellow-traveler scientists distorting it to impose government controls to kill capitalism.

    10. Thomas Gray South Ca says:

      To mark in florida,,

      Not to get to far off the topic of energy,, but the socialist are trying to rule my country not being elected in any way by anyone that I know,

      this Jesus christ did not try to do in his country, and did he not say the life of a man is worth more than the life of many sparrows? or as the case may be polor bears?

      Peace, Tom.

    11. Raymond, Charlotte says:

      To Davis in Seattle:

      The "Left" and your scientists are basically one and the same. They both unite in order to label global-warming skeptical scientists and dissenters as "right-wing hacks."

    12. Sean says:

      The Sun is a 386 billion MegaWatt nuclear fusion reactor making life possible on Earth 93 million miles away. Changes in the Sun’s radiation dwarfs any other source of warming/cooling, which include variations in Earth’s orbit and atmospheric gases. Each day, more energy reaches the Earth from the Sun than is consumed by all mankind in 27 years. A single solar flare can produce energy equivalent to 100 million 10 Megaton nuclear fusion warheads. The estimated average solar energy received at Earth’s outer atmosphere is called TSI or Total Solar Irradiance. TSI is estimated on average to be 1,368 Watts per square meter, but varies based on cyclical Sun spot activity/radiation. Only 70% of the Sun's energy received by Earth's atmosphere (TSI) is absorbed. TSI has increased 0.1% during the mere 25 years NASA has been measuring it, which explains warming. A TSI shift of 0.2% is equivalent to all energy consumed by all humans in one year.

      Solar variation explains the warming and cooling cycles long before fossil fuel consumption, i.e., the “Little Ice Age” where Earth’s temperature was estimated to be down 2 degrees F. However, knowing that non-human activity can swing temperature far more, Marxists blame only the tiny annual 3% human-generated portion of atmospheric CO2 emissions for an alleged 1.33 degree F temperature rise in the past 150 years in response to an alleged 150% increase in CO2. They predict a 2 to 11.5 degree F rise in the next 100 years in response to an alleged estimated 50% to 250% increase in CO2. The amount of gas in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 51 trillion cubic meters weighing 5,000 trillion metric tons. Of this, Nitrogen and Oxygen are 99%, water vapor is 1%, and CO2 is a mere trace gas at 0.038% or a mere 2 trillion metric tons. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen in the carbon cycle. Natural processes involving oceans, soil, plants, etc. emit (and absorb) 33 times more CO2 per year than do all human emissions. Humans contribute a mere 3% (6 billion metric tons) of the 186 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted annually. The other 97% of annual CO2 is naturally occurring, mostly from the oceans that cover 71% of the planet. The amount of CO2 consumed is approximately the same as that emitted, including by humans. Even the annual variations in emission/absorption of CO2 dwarfs emissions by humans.

      Humans can’t even accurately predict long term local weather or mood swings of a solitary person, let alone 100+ years of global temperatures of an astronomically complex system with only a handful of years of accurate empirical measurements. Global warming lunatics consist only of socialists and communists seeking greater control of people and their property. Global warming is asserted as a crisis to try to force quick, uneducated decisions, as all salesmen do to consumers. When government and privateers like Al Gore propose regulation, rest assured there is at least one self-serving scam behind it. Redistribution of American wealth to non-productive Americans and foreigners, with people like Al Gore positioned as an Enron-type “carbon credit” trade middleman skimming money for nothing useful, obviously cannot control Earth’s temperatures. It is not a “solution” to “man made” “global warming,” but that’s their mantra anyway. It is truly us against them and they already declared war on us.

      All that said, most people don't like waste or pollution. We can always clean up and conserve. Like all non-political objectives, this doesn't require socialist wealth redistribution as a "solution."

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.