• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Man’s Contribution to Global Warming

    Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

    Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

    Man's Contribution to Global Warming

    Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

    The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling.

    Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

    There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

    Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

    That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it’d be a little different.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    74 Responses to Man’s Contribution to Global Warming

    1. Tucson, Az says:

      It is encouraging to read truth about global warming. My kids attend a school which teaches this as fact and something that should not be questioned. I have informed the school that I would not tolerate such action and have stated that if it continued my kids would no longer attend their school. I am grateful to those that are out there gathering the information necessary to combat the false global warming alarmism, that threatens our society and economy for no reason.

    2. Barb -mn says:

      As is factually noted, the positives outweigh the environmentalists/government's manipulative scam of repetitive deception on the government's deceit of man-made global warming.

      Who's authoritative position is it to reveal all facts without manipulation to all the public? Who's authority is it to stop the government deceit? Why isn't the job being done?


    3. Terry H, New Brunswi says:

      Everyone knows that figures and numbers can be invented and misconscrewed to benefit whoever is doing the posting. Such as here. The 3.4% figure used here is pure bunk. There is no way they can prove it. If they could, they would see it probably closer to 50%. I HATE sites like this that cna't look at the science unless it is from their own people. Kinda like the ciggie companies in the 70's, 80's, and 90's but we all know different now eh? Just like we will know about climate change numbers.

      • Glenn Monson says:

        lol you first state the 3.4 figure is bunk, and your reasoning is they cant prove it, so after you make the outrageous claim that it would be 50 percent if they could, well which is it they cant prove how much was caused by man or you can. lmao now thats some real liberal logic. lets forget for minute man made vs volcanos, the ocean, natural occurrence in the atmosphere and all other causes of co2, Venus has an atmosphere of 96 percent co2, yet the temperature at 1000 millibars (thats sea level) is the same after calculating consideration for closeness to the sun as earths actually from 200 to 1000 millibars (thats atmospheric pressure) all the temp readings arent changed a bit, no evidence co2 does anything, Ice core samples dating back 600.000 years show co2 follows heat increase, geologic record in rocks show co2 in the atmosphere at 1500 ppm (parts per million) and temperatures about the same as today in the carboniferous period millions of years ago. and if that wernt enough, in the 4.6 billion years the earth has been around co2 in the atmosphere has always been more than now at 380 ppm. if you ever bothered to do even a little research and use just a little common sense, it would be so obvious just from looking at the ice core charts that the ice ages and warming trends are uniform, and happen in timed intervals, this can not be caused by an anomaly it must be a cyclic event, and is most probably astronomical like rotational variations or precession, the earth does not just simply rotate in a perfect circle around the sun, and its on a tilt (the reason for seasons) . all these other scientists also know this, they are lying for grant money (federal dollars). but the real clincher here is we are always coming in and out of an ice age, its been happening for over 3 million years, the last one was 12 to 15 thousand years ago which is about the normal warming trend from the last 3 ice ages, which means if co2 does cause global warming, we should be pumping all the co2 we can find into the atmosphere to keep it warm, because the ice ages last much longer and are not survivable by man, how do you like them apples?

    4. AntonioSosa, Florida says:

      More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/35

      Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

      "Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

      If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

    5. AntonioSosa, Florida says:

      We are grateful to The Heritage Foundation for having the courage to state the truth about the global warming scam, knowing that the brainwashed mobs are ready to burn on the stake anyone disagreeing with their dogma.

      The real threat to our future and to the future of our children and grandchildren is not global warming but the global warming hoax. Based on a hoax, billions have already been wasted, and Obama is getting ready to use the scam to limit development, increase the cost of energy, and impose socialism on us. If the scammers get their way, unemployment, poverty and loss of freedoms will multiply. We must stop them.

      Dogmatic environmentalists have already done more damage to the environment and to humanity than many terrorist groups, and they want to do even more! That’s why Vaclav Klaus, president of the European Union, says, “environmentalism is the new communism and climate change is a dangerous myth.”

      And Lord Christopher Monckton says, "The environmental movement has to be outlawed, because their policies have murdered 40 million people, mainly children, with the ban on DDT." He added, "They have caused mass starvation and food riots with their nonsensical drive for bio-fuels. The forces of darkness in the environmental movement want create a new dark age in which humanity is pushed back to the Stone Age and without the right to light a fire." http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090310climate_

    6. Michael Searcy, Unit says:

      What the article fails to mention is that the "one to two percent" of the atmosphere that is comprised of greenhouse gases is critical for maintaining a temperate and hospitable climate on the planet. It also neglects that while water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, water vapor is incapable of driving climate change due to its wide variability and very short atmospheric lifetime. Humidity varies greatly from one place to the next, and water cycles through the atmosphere in only a few days.

      CO2 on the other hand is well-mixed both laterally and vertically and remains in the atmosphere for 100 years or more. So its effects are global and long-term. The article dismisses off-hand anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as minuscule without the common sense understanding that returning a GHG to the atmosphere in a matter of decades what nature took millennia to sequester is far from benign.

      As for the relative amounts, let's say you have a scale with 5,000 pounds on each side. Then one day, you add one pound to one side. The next day you add an additional two pounds to that same side. The next day, three, and so on.

      After 30 days, when you observe the unbalanced scale, is it due to the 5,000 pounds with which you started or the nearly 500 pounds you added?

      • Thatguyoverthere says:

        What makes you think that any increase in atmospheric CO2 has any effect on temperatures at all? The concentration of CO2 has varied enormously over time and has been an order of magnitude higher than now during the last glaciation.

        Just because you can measure something doesn't mean it has relevance.

    7. Pingback: John Larson: Government Should Compel Consumers to Use Alternative Energy | Jeffrey A. Setaro

    8. Pingback: Man’s Contribution to Global Warming at osmoothie

    9. Paul says:

      This opinion piece is misleading and typically simplistic. Which isn't surprising from an economists and political commentator (those people that have messed up the economy) who use a blinkered model of the world to do calculations in their own profession, thus consistently getting the economy wrong!

      It is amusing that the Nick Loris (who is that??) measures the impact of something based on quantity! Is this not typical of someone that works with money, wealth etc. rather than science and the real universe?

      In the world of science a tiny black hole can cause havoc with massive suns and planets, a tiny amount of chemical poison can kill hundreds of thousands of people. So should we really accept a naive economic/political view of CO2, being a small proportion of the atmosphere, as a reliable opinion?

      • Thatguyoverthere says:

        No, but you should look at the mechanism being promoted. In the case of CO2 the effects are minuscule at these concentrations.

    10. Mike D, Baker, LA says:

      My question is, how can these extremist be stopped and true logic take place to equally distribute what is really going on with this so called global warming??? I guess the biggest trouble is, most Americans sit back and, consumed with making a life, just don't take the time to get involved and work to make a difference. Thus, you end up with politicians like our current President! Sad.

      • hunter F says:

        the only thing that is happening mike is that people use most automoblies and they produce more C02 in the world we can stop it by going green and not to use cars and use bikes

    11. Phillip, Chicago says:

      How arrogant they are, those proclaiming "crisis" with such certainty! We are fortunate if our daily weather prognostications are half correct.

    12. Phil Ray, Winter Spr says:

      Hmmm. The graph showing the 2% of the atmosphere that is made up of greenhouse gases, the 3.2% of them that is carbon dioxide, and the 3.4% of the carbon dioxide is hauntingly similar to the footprint on the ANWR for extracting crude oil.

      Didn't William Shakespeare coin the phrase, "Much ado about nothing?"


    13. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    14. Bettye Jo Georgia says:

      I wonder why there is not an out-cry about what plastic is doing to the environment. It can be proved that plastics, styrofoam, etc. can last forever in a landfill. Why can't we go back to less destructive packaging? This seems more critical to me that "supposedly" global warming, yet I don't hear anyone warning about this contamination of the planet.

    15. Kenneth Himes French says:

      I can not believe any christan can be led to belive in the hoax of global warming. As a christan I believe God controls this earth along with all the rest of his creations. Give these people pushing global warming a test, ask them if they can make rain can they stop rain. Can they cause or prevent earth guakes, can they cause or stop tornados. I could go on and on asking guestions about what power God has given man relative to his great creation. The only power I beleive he give man, is to live our lives in the manner laid out in the Bible. God has provided with the knowledge and materials to survive, along with the beauty of all he has created to help us complet our jorney here on earth. I can not beleive and will beleive we can ever have any effect on any changes to this great earth.

    16. GracefulConsonance, says:

      More people need to demand that their local, state, and federal politicians, plus local and national journalists/news anchors to be objective and have an open-mind to what the “real” data tells us versus computer generated scare mongering that does not reflect a holistic representation of our highly complex climate system.

      It is refreshing to see more posts and information that counters global warming alarmism.

    17. Blair W. says:

      The majority of Global Warming has been proven to be the HOT Air coming out of Washington,D.C..

      All scientists agree on this theory and the need for discussion is unnecessary.

    18. John Bossolt says:

      Remember Hitler's obsession with the supposed roots of Aryan supremacy, to be found in ancient mystical texts and rites? His Third Reich collaborators traveled the world supposedly compiling "proof" of Germany's racial superiority. This all came to nothing, but this did not stop the Nazis from promulgating the "fact" of Germanic supremacy.

      All sound familiar? Tell a lie often enough, loudly enough, confidently enough and treat opposition with contempt, ridicule, and threats, and the lie becomes truth.

    19. Stuart Blaber, Oakle says:

      As per usual skeptic articles attempt to pervert the science and this one is no different. It may be true that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is very low but then try drinking a glass of water with the same percentage of Chlorine in it. Oops, dead. Even if the changes are not man made we have a major problem because the changes are going to kill billions of people and starting very soon.

    20. Dr.Tipp Bear Lake MI says:

      This article "Mans Contribution to Globle Warming" is a scary reminder of the blind mentallity of the environmentalist.

    21. Henry Bosma, WA Stat says:

      Thank you for this timely info. I am currently reading Fox News' "UN Climate

      Change Plan" as well as the actual 16 page un report and Stern's paper, all mentioned in this report. I am scared to death of how we are all being totally deceived by our leaders, and I am 70 years old. We need Fox and others to give us a lot of the info that came from the Hearland Institute's conference in early March.

      And this info needs to be repeated for several months to educate voters before the Copenhagen Accord.

      Thanks again for this info.

    22. Frank Pleasant Hill says:

      The concept that man has any significant control of climate change is grossly puerile, bordering on the unhinged ! It defies intellectual comprehension and common sense !

    23. J House says:

      I'm not a proponent of the global warming alarmism crowd, but the article leaves out the possibility that, although CO2 makes a small percentage of atmospheric gases, a small increase nevertheless may cause significant effects to the planet.The question is, is it man causing it or something else? In the past, a global temp. rise also caused the level of CO2 to rise as well…we could be seeing a similar effect now.

      I think the notion that earthlings can somewhow control the earth's climate and its biodiversity is human arrogance at its finest.

      Had we been around 150 million yrs ago, would Al Gore call for a global movement to lower the earth's temp and save the dinosaurs?

    24. Robert from Californ says:

      I wish Global Warming was an alarmist fairy-tale, but it's very much the truth. We are causeing the acceleration of Global Warming and you don't have to be a scientist to figure it out. One doesn't even need to be educated. Simply go to the San Bernardino Mountians in California and watch the valley below fill up with car exhaust everyday. It blows out to the deserts in the evenings and starts over again the next day. We are talking about 20 plus million cars filling up an area roughly 1/3 the size of California every single day. I lived there and witnessed it myself for decades.

      I've also witnessed the tree line moving up the mountains of California and snow falls becoming less and less dense and melting months earlier than they use too. I've seen trees killed by air pollution, people killed by air pollution and entire eco-systems wiped out by urban-sprawl.

      Wonder if man-made global warming turned out to be a crock? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had cleaner air to breathe because we changed our habits and technologies? I believe that embracing man as the cause of global warming and changing out ways to clean up the environment is win win situation.

      • Maldives says:

        Dying of trees because of smoke is not global warming. Global warming is the process that increases the temperature of earth due to green house effect. If the air is polluted it will kill the trees, but there is no relationship between the gases and global warming.

    25. David, St. Louis says:

      Good to see Heritage getting involved in the global warming fight. I know for a while the attitude was "it's science, Heritage doesn't involve itself in science" – but it's pretty clear it's like 5% science. Our progressive friends simply decided the best way to get wide assent to their policies was to call them science instead of politics.

    26. Lee-White Tanks AZ says:

      A brief well written article. It is clear to just about anyone with a grain of scientific or engineering background that AGW as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is simply unsupportable.

      There is no reliable empirical evidence or chemical, thermodynamic or physics indicators to support the existence of some hereto-for unsuspected "catalytic" style characteristic causing CO2 to act in some manner far beyond what its minuscule presence might dictate.

      All this is of course meaningless. Follow the money, right out of your pocket and into the international socialist/globalist interests fronted by such as ALGORE

      Pay particular attention to the 16 page UN document just released as a "teaser" for the upcoming "Global Warming aka Climate Change" treaty negotiations. Next to this the Kyoto Accords is child's play.

      In a sane world none of this would even be happening.

      PC is Thought Control


    27. Dr Robert L Rickenba says:

      How do we get Congress to listen to reason? Al Gore has the world bluffed and is doing an astronomical amount of damage to the USA and world. Every Congress person should get a copy of the above article. A good example is producing fuel out of corn. A bad product that cost more than gasoline and is worse for the environment.


    28. Pingback: Earth Day Hour Pfftttt « catscratchins

    29. Louis T Luca Jr - says:

      I can't believe that there are that many gullible (I wanted to use the word 'stupid')people out there

      that believe in global warming. If they think that

      people breathing has caused it, maybe they ought to look at Washington, D.C. Climate has been changing for millions of years. Do they think the dinosaurs

      changed the climate back then. Could be their cars and industry did it.

    30. Marcus, Pittsburgh says:

      One good thing that has come out of this whole "Global Warming" controversy is an entire population of Scientists. All of a sudden everyone is an environmentalist! Lets pay attention to the opinions of the real experts. (Kind of like St. Patties Day. Everyone's Irish to enjoy the party.)

    31. SENTRYMAN, FL, USA says:

      I was thinking this morning as a cold front swept over the nation and

      a local downpour here in Florida knocked out my satellite viewing of the non-religious Sunday socialist CBS showing of "Sunday Morning" without Charles Kuralt,

      that, very soon the "powers at be" will also usher in an era of total governmental domination of another freedom: the television airwaves,

      if they didn't already ration out those freedoms as slim as they are,

      thus making my back-up portable TV, along with (milllions and milllions) of portables all over America totally obsolete,

      who's bright idea was this again?

      One of my prize possessions as a boy in the 50s was my fire engine red, little 6" screen portable black & white television that I could carry anywhere,

      like to school when the teacher would let us watch a little of the

      (pre-steroids) World Series.

      That was when we valued simpler things in simpler times. If I didn't have my TV with me I had my new tiny turquoise 7 transistor radio to listen to the game.

      Controlling the RADIO-WAVES will be next, but that's for another rant.

      But now, as the weak-minded eagerly genuflect to their Masters in Washington

      and turnoff their lights Saturday evening in homage to Green Gods,

      the epiphany is actually counterproductive to the Power Grind

      that cranks up to compensate for the anomaly,

      We've all gone nutz and I don't want to live here anymore.

      This country sucks and I want to move to another planet.

      One of those billllions & billllions that Dr. Carl Sagan used to speak about so eloquently

      (A Billion Seconds ago) on Johnny Carson.

      But I won't be able to leave this earthy mortal coil because Barack is cutting funding to the Billions of stars for Space Travel,

      to funding the Thousand's of Stars in Hollywood and Millions of Muslims

      by opting to finance more AmeriCorps, Census volunteers and ACORN sycophants

      to scourer the countryside, traveling the bye-ways and back-roads like Jehovah's searching for Noviciates and turn them to the "Green-side," Obi-Wan.

      And just in time too, since Our new Global Currency won't be worth the Yellow-Journalistic paper it will be printed on and won't buy anything in the future that we're not allowed to buy, nor preserve Our freedoms or Our Sovereignty,

      as the "UN" feeds it's insatiable appetite and plots with Barack's Collectivism to cut up this country like a Butcher's Beef Cutting Chart

      with the last of the American taxpayer's Greenbacks

      (no Pun intended),

      before their GLOBO-Dollar, "G-D"

      (Pun intended),

      and will fuel (Pun Intended) their incredible egos to empower and

      Lay-Hands upon "Mother Nature" for their own designs;

      conquer the Sun and quiet the volcanos,

      hold back the tides and perfect storms,

      shackle the winds and bestill the hurricanes,

      harness the tornados and

      change the course of the Mississippi and Red Rivers,

      under their pretentious presumption that only "THEY" possess the intellect and wisdom, the divine right with good intention to enslave a nation,

      neither weak-minded nor enslavable,

      but asleep once again like

      December 6th, 1941 and

      September 10th, 2001,

      that only they have "The Word,"

      "The Answers" for Our Salvation

      if We just relinquish Our wills, anything Holy, sacrifice Our Morals,

      give over Un-To-Them and SUBMIT.

      For People That Despise and Challenge Church W/ STATE,

      they're awfully Reverent and Apostolical in their Deliverance

      (Pun Intended)

      Just check your intelligence at the door like most of Journalism around the Globe,

      and submit to the Jim Jones on Pennsylvania Avenue;

      the junior senator from Illinois that's never accomplished anything tangible,

      other than getting;

      *someone else to pay for his extremely expensive education,

      *arrange to clear the field and scuttle any opponent he's ever run against,

      *Ghostwrite his 2 books,

      *funnel money to a Slumlord that subsidized his mortgage,

      *create a BS job & overpay his wife with a quid-pro-quo

      *and profligate devotee's to donate to "The Cause",

      "So I Hear",,,,,,,,

      and Who's been told exactly How & What to say on the TelePrompTer,

      by whom??

      "From What I Understand"……..

      "Only My Opinion"………

      as I hide in my basement from enemies, foreign and domestic!

      Maybe begins with "S" and the only person to make any money this past year without a bailout?

      I don't want to be here anymore, just like in the movies;

      Fahrenheit 451, the Postman, The Omega Man, Planet of the Apes, The Last Man On Earth, I Am Legend,

      you get the point

      and I bet you could come up with some of your own,

      but, like those Sci-fi movies of the 50s there are probably even bigger A-Holes waiting for us on some of those Billllions & Billllions of planets out there anyway

      and they would undoubtedly "charge Us" (an arm and a leg) literally,

      for some Oxygen anyhow!

      Hey, there's an idea for the future Barack. Squirrel that away in that cash register of a mind for another day.

      So, here we sit in the dark, no electric, no TV, no heat, huddled together, shivering rabbits (making more environmentally unfriendly bunnies) since abstinence

      (we've been told)

      and the leaves don't function for contraception,

      since now all we have left are Chinese-made, but the Lead does give firmness (Pun Intended),

      we're afraid of the food

      (with our government peanut-brained inspectors),

      we're afraid of the air

      (with our government's 16 blends of gasoline and catalytic convertors

      and expensive Green fuels and plastic containers and smokestack caps and Carbon Credits all to solve those issues with our government oversight),

      and we're afraid of

      too much coffee, not enough coffee, aspirin, not enough aspirin, megavitamins, unregulated vitamins,

      we're afraid of pesticides in foods

      but not pesticides in foods from South America (with our government oversight,)

      we weren't afraid of peanut butter (with our government oversight,)

      but now

      we're afraid of peanut butter in the USA but not outside the USA,

      we're afraid of frozen hamburgers (with our government oversight,)

      we're afraid 3rd hand smoke:

      (that's someone who grew-up around or knew someone that smoked at one time, who's children once viewed someone smoking in an old magazine ad and comes down with cancer, but couldn't be the Botox though),

      afraid of EMFs, carpal-tunnal Texting, bovine craziness, vegan impotence, rock-n-roll, rap music, or even afraid of our neighbors.







      But, we trust and love and blindly obey the people in Washington

      who have never made any contrary decisions by mistake or design, against the will of the people

      and do everything according to the rules and The Constitution

      because most elected officials are Attorneys, right,

      (that might tell You something),

      who all swore an oath & placed their hands on "The Bible",

      they neither respect or believe in

      but only have the best intentions and our welfare at heart,

      (with our government oversight)

      and WHO just won't stop meddling in our lives or leave us alone

      and let us live our lives in peace and stop asking us for money and when we say: "NO"

      they go into our wallets and purses and steal our credit cards,

      Yeah, those guys:


      They're kind of like a sick minded adolescent, hopped-up on drugs and perceived power, stealing the keys to the car, driving 120 mph down the highway in the wrong direction,

      tool'n down the Coast Highway, Texting on Twitter, eating a greasy burger, headed for a big curve with rocks or midair on either side

      and you know this ain't going to be pretty and what's playing in their heads:

      "Bush is an idiot,

      I can do what ever I want with my body,

      that Ho's a S&^#k and

      It's all someone else's fault!"

      So, what are we to do with these petulant civil servants?

      Choose: Communism or Islam, Collectivism or Totalitarianism,

      both sides of the same coin!

      It ain't Democracy or Free Market Capitalism or Freedom by any stretch of the imagination people.

      Did any of You Drama or Liberal Arts students every take any History or Econ. classes,

      or all you took was Sociology or Women's Studies, Ethnic Empowerment and the Beatles?

      Oops, forgot who'd be teaching those classes anyway….

      Forget I asked the question.

      *Dissent isn't allowed at Columbia!

      Ever watch the movie "V" but that's too violent?

      Patience and Incrementalism got them here without a shot fired and a willing Supreme Court,

      but your Guns are the next thing They're coming for.

      Funny, for people that don't honor The Constitution they surely utilized the Law to steal and usurp a government and a nation.

      I think that was the premise of The Judgment at Nuremberg,

      but some would say the wrong guys were Sitting on the Bench and they live in the 57 States!

      Bad Boys, Bad Boys,

      what'cha gonna do,

      what'cha gonna do when they come for you

      and you haven't any ammunition left

      because they outlawed it since they couldn't find Your Guns?

      Elections Have Incremental Consequences, Take "Eminent Domain,"

      I rest my case Your Honors!



      "Aide toy, Dieu te aidera". =

      "Help yourself and God will help you" -

      the medieval French equivalent of –

      "God helps those who help themselves"


      Patrick Henry, May 1765,……. (paraphrased March 2009)

      "Caesar had his Brutus -

      Charles the First, his Cromwell -

      George W., the 4th Estate

      and Barack Hussein Obama – ('Treason,' cried the Speaker) … may profit by their example.

      If this be treason, make the most of it."


      Patrick Henry

      March 23, 1775

      "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"


      Me donner la Liberté Ou Me Donne Mort.

      Patrick Henry, le 23 mars, 1775


      Maximilien Robespierre 1758 – 1794

      April 24, 1793 –

      Declaration des droits de l'homme

      "Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law"

      "Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil"

    32. Pingback: Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming? « Global Warming is Unfactual

    33. Paul Vogel Avon Ind says:

      It seems that scientists that support global warming theory get immediate notoriety and grant money to continue their

      work. Though they have never been recognized for their work

      by peers in the past they become household names and become part of Al Gores consensus group. What a deal !

    34. Mike, Chicago says:

      I don't think this article is being simplistic, but instead trying to help people to reconsider popular "Global Warming" thinking. It's trying to point out some facts that get brushed under the rug. Plus there is a link in this article to a 40 page "Global Warming Primer" published by the National Center for Policy Analysis which goes further in presenting facts and figures.

    35. Pingback: Quick Facts That Debunk Hysterical Global Warming Claims « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT

    36. Pingback: Global warming is a made-up crisis to justify socialism « Wintery Knight Blog

    37. Alicia, New Haven CT says:

      For Terry H in New Brunswick Canada:

      First, you don’t appear too intelligent from your post, but apparently you do understand how data can be manipulated to state desired results. Remember that data can be manipulated on BOTH sides. While you state that the data in this article is “pure bunk”, there is also no way that the global warming alarmists can prove their data, especially the hockey stick increase in predicted temperature based on their flawed, greenhouse effect scenario.

      This is the whole point Einstein…. GW has not been conclusively proven as scientific theory–remember that scientific theory is not consensus.

      Based on extensive research on this topic, there is enough doubt in my mind as to if global warming precedes CO2 emission or vice versa, as well as to what degree mankind can alter this phenomenon. That doubt, and the lack of a proven theory, concerns me regarding the misallocation of resources which will adversely affect human health and welfare.

      As to Robert from California- what you state about pollution and litter is absolutely true. And you’re right; you don’t have to be a scientist to see how destructive we are to our earth. But you do have to be a scientist to declare that these things lead to and cause global warming and therefore if stopped, would prevent global warming.

      How can we be so ignorant to think that man can control our global temperature? That’s analogous to thinking that our current administration can control the global economic demise.

      I want the Indian back— You know, the one with the tear in his eye when he sees people littering his land. Had all the money and media been spent on respecting our Mother (Earth) -conserving our resources, not polluting, not littering—instead of creating hysteria over manmade global warming, we could have agreed sooner to take care of our planet.

    38. Pete, Colorado says:

      Even if they are right, I contend that it doesn't make any difference.

      300 years from now when people in a place like Richmond Virginia are sitting in their oceanfront houses, sending their kids off to school with a glass of Ohio orange juice, who will care that they once grew oranges in Florida? People will do what they have always done- adapt.

      It's arrogant to believe that somehow we must preserve the planet exactly as it is now, or that it is even possible given the climate change the Earth has gone through in the past.

      All I know is that Al Gore's carbon footprint is much bigger than mine, but I'm working hard to catch up!

    39. Pingback: RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Dems Proposed "Green Policies" Will Cost US At least $3 Trillion & Accomplish Nothing

    40. Pingback: causation « RockStarKevin

    41. Lee, Rochester Hills says:

      Why is Greenland named Greenland? No, not because the name Iceland was already taken. In the period from 900 to 1300 the climate in the southern part of that place was warm enough for farming and herding. so much so they named it Green Land.

      Guess what the climate changed back to the frozen place we know of today. But why the warming that led to the warm time in about 900? Till you can answer that by blaming mankind, I remain a strong believer that the global warming idea is a giant hoax

    42. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      It was man-made global warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming first. It was based on modeling that can not even come close to a good engineering model. When it is all said and done, the crude model can not be validated by being able to predict Maunder Minimum effect. So, it is not science as science requires independent validation.

      The Earth's temperature is actually cooling and it has been since 2000. NASA's Hansen doctored the data to appear the temperature was still going up and was discredited. So, in spite of all the CO2 being dumped, the earth's temperature is not accelerating up as the "hockey stick" theory would have you believe.

      To those postings saying the argument against global warming is based on some kind of trickery, please prove with your model Maunder Minimum effect. The so called catalytic effect of trace element controlling everything, please show the effect through not only thermodynamic but total system dynamics. Otherwise, please stop heaving BS at us. You don't need the stupid crutch of the effect cigarette smoking as an argument for the CO2-global warming bond that is far greater than the solar energies and their variations. By the way, you should be careful when you drink soda or beer as it contains the much-despised CO2 dissolved.

      Since all those arguments have fallen by the wayside, the global-warming nut jobs have shifted gear in calling it a climate change. Has the climate ever remained fixed on earth? or on Mars? The whole thing is the biggest scam.

    43. Ron Woostown, NJ says:

      Write or call your congresspeople and register your complaint against the plans for the Cap-and-Trade debacle which, hopefully, will not be instituted. However, since a bundle of $$$$ stands to be made by those involved in C&T, there are those who will push for vigorously in the future. Tell those in power "Just Say No".

      Global warming, now called climate change (hasn't it always?), is a hoax. Up until 1988, I was teaching about the New Ice Age.

      Since this scare is based on computer modeling as opposed to sound science practice, I hope that it sooner than later passes on the archives of history.

    44. Chuck Sproull, Sprin says:

      During the late 60's and early 70's I was involved in deep ocean surveys (with the Naval Oceanographic Office) collecting many kinds of data from sea water and bottom; and was impressed with how much ocean water temperatures were affected by the tectonic processes under the oceans, and how much they in turn affected the atmospheric weather patterns and climate above the oceans. Also, look at the enormous effects natural surface processes like volcanoes and forest fires have on our atmosphere. Therefore, I believe that global warming activists are "FULL OF HOT AIR" and for there to be a better political climate in America, they should just "COOL IT."

    45. Pingback: Green policies with cost hundreds of thousands of jobs per year « Wintery Knight Blog

    46. Arnold L. Morin,The says:

      Would someone please tell mt. redoubt to quit spewing greenhouse gas,and while we're at it you should all refrain from farting to.don't mess with mother nature the effects can cause your head to explode

    47. Pingback: Dirty Democrats » Democrat’s Proposed “Green Policies” Will Cost US At least $3 Trillion & Accomplish Nothing

    48. vesey,spokane,wa says:

      The problem with most computer models of potential global warming affects for the future are that they rely on informational imput to come up with those models. If the assumptions used for input are inaccurate so are the anticipated affects. There is way too much disagreement on what the causes of global warming are to be smugly acceptant of every alarmist prediction. Science driven by profit ,power, acceptance by peers and ideology ceases to be science and just becomes another opinion………

    49. Pingback: Malaysiakini Letters - Global Warming: Don’t Naively Believe Everything « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT

    50. Pingback: Watch Report 05-20-2009 « Ourfreedomwatch’s Blog

    51. DB, New York says:

      This is an easy call: the data shows that the earth is cooling. If global warming is real, then why is this so? Besides, the ridiculous bill that was just passed in the House will do NOTHING to combat carbon levels. What a joke this administration is.

    52. Jim, Michigan says:

      We must take responsibility for our environmental actions. The repeated claim that humans cannot cause the destruction of our planet is "delusional". For those claiming it from a Christian basis, be reminded that God gave us free will. For anyone else in denial, consider Bopaul, India, Love Canal,NY, Times Beach,Missouri,Chernobal and many developing industrial centers in Asia. Ironically many of you that deny that we have the power to destroy our Earth are also the most vehement about refusing to reduce any of the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads we posses. It seems to me that God called on us to be good stewards of the Earth, but I guess only when it aligns with our politics!

    53. Dr Jose Sanchez, Atl says:

      Another case of the right-wing media deceiving the public about the climate change debate!

      First let understand that the opinions of ordinary people do not matter. Idiots will always be idiots. Only the opinions of the people who have published on topic matter, since they are most informed on the subject.

      So the question is, how many authors of scientific papers are deniers in comparison to how many are believers?

      Yes, there are some deniers, but that fact is that they are the vast minority. Here's something the author of the original article does not want you to see: a list of the "Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science", and their viewpoint on the "debate". The list is here:

      And let me emphasize this very clearly:

      "of the top 500 most cited authors in the larger list, just 23 (4.6%) have signed any climate skeptic declaration, while 184 (37%) — nearly ten times as many — have signed an 'activist' statement (aside from the IPCC reports themselves.)"

      Yes, 1 out of 10 of the most acclaimed authors on the subject are deniers, while 9 out of 10 are believers! Sounds like consensus to me.

      To any rational person, this would be the end of the debate. Alas, you right-wingers are not at all rational, so keeping on giving your lists of names that don't matter!

    54. Pingback: The climate debate goes on - Techlog

    55. Pingback: Dirty Democrats » The climate debate goes on

    56. Dr Jose Sanchez, Atl says:

      DB writes: "This is an easy call: the data shows that the earth is cooling."

      Sorry, DB, but the only data that shows the earth is cooling is data from the right-wing blogosphere that has no scientific basis. Here are the facts:

      Now, given that you have the facts, please tell us a little more about the "easy call".

    57. Pingback: Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » The Ongoing Global Warming Debate

    58. Pingback: Let’s not Forget Cap and Trade « Random Musings

    59. Gerry Beauregard, Si says:

      The chart says that "3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity", but that's extremely misleading.

      The source of the figure is:

      "A Global Warming Primer"

      And indeed on page 7 it says that humans contribute approximately 3.4% of annual CO2 emissions.

      To arrive at that figure, you need to divide the human emissions by the total emissions from all sources. So what are all those sources? The bibliography at the end of the Global Warming Primer points to this document as the main reference for the chart on page 7:

      "Sense and Sequestration: The Carbon Sequestration Cycle Explained"


      Look at Table 1 on page 9, specifically the column "Estimated carbon flux into atmosphere". The total is 217.1 Pg C/yr. The human contributions are 5.5 from Fossil fuel burning, and 1.6 from Forestation/deforestation, for a total of 7.1 Pg C/yr.

      So the percentage from human contributions is 7.1 / 217.1 x 100 = 3.27% (close enough to the 3.4% in the chart).

      But think about it: it's a meaningless number, as it fails to take into account the fact that the largest natural sources of emissions are also the largest *sinks* – as is made very clear from the right hand column "Estimated carbon movement out of atmosphere" of Table 1 on page 9 of "Sense and Sequestration".

      To draw an analogy: suppose two people, Henry and Nancy, open a joint bank account. At the start of every month, Nancy deposits $1000, but also withdraws $995 dollars during the month, so her net monthly contribution is $5. Meanwhile, Henry contributes $45 each month and makes no withdrawals. Over the course of one year, the bank balance goes up by 12 x $50 = $600.

      Now, suppose you ask what percentage of that $600 increase is attributable to Henry's activity.

      Well, since the net total monthly increase is $50, and $45 of that is from Henry, Henry accounts for $45/50 x 100 = 90% of the increase. Obvious.

      Suppose you have an accountant who decides to ignore the withdrawals and only take into account the deposits. Here's what you get:

      Henry's total deposits = 12 x $45 = $540

      Nancy's total deposits = 12 x $1000 = $12000

      Total deposits = $12540

      Fraction of increase due to Henry = $540 / $12540 x 100 = 4.3%

      I would fire that accountant, wouldn't you?

      But what's been done to arrive at the 3.4% figure in the chart. It uses the source values ("deposits" or flux of CO2 into the atmosphere), but ignores the sinks (the "withdrawals" or movement of CO2 out of the atmosphere)!

    60. Do not take I lye so says:

      You know what the skeptics have convinced me. The earth is here to be exploited and no matter how much we throw at it it can take it. For example why do we spend so much on disposal of harmless radioactive waste. We should save money and just chuck it in the ocean. It will take up just a tiny fraction of the worlds waters and will be so diluted that it will be near invisible. In fact why bother paying for the disposal of anything, let's just chuck it all in the ocean.

    61. Pingback: Carbon Dioxide Regulations Display EPA’s Arrogance » The Foundry « Half Art + Half Science

    62. Pingback: Carbon Dioxide Regulations Display EPA’s Arrogance | Conservative Principles Now

    63. MRB says:

      One to two percent? Actually, it's less, but this problem is not about quantity (as others have already written). If it was, then it could be easily solved. Climate models are exceeding complex and require the most robust computers to simulate. Let's not over simplify.

      BTW – Greenland lies where the North Atlantic meets the Arctic Sea, and didn't get its name from lush vegetation but rather from a deception by Eric the Red (Leif’s daddy). That (moderate climate) geography populated by Norsemen in the Middle Ages is on Western shore and represents a very small part of the total (very cold) land.

    64. Pingback: global warming

    65. S. Brown, New Jersey says:

      People keep trying trying to answer scientific questions with political answers. What I would like to know is this: are all the climate scientists leftists? That certainly is what the political right is implying: that climate scientists are commies who have created this false fear in order to dominate the world. Well, anything is possible, but it seems unlikely. I suspect that many climate scientists are in many ways conservative. This I am sure of: if I have a question about climate, I'm not going to ask a lawyer or a TV or radio entertainer. Lawyers and entertainers and conservative forum writers know zilch about climate. Like me, they couldn't pass a single college-level test on it. Yet all these people, despite an almost complete lack of knowledge, have strong opinions. And by voicing their opinions they have managed to so confuse the issue that it seems unlikely that anything will ever be done to reduce the pollution that may well be causing the earth to heat up. If the scientists are Nazis or commies or some other type of totalitarians, then let's expose them. But conservatives do the debate little service by pretending to understand the science and by playing around with the data. This is coming from someone who failed high school chemistry. I know my limitations. Do you know yours?

    66. Leanne says:

      So most people will read this and be like "oh man i totally agree". Really? one article is enough for you? do more research. Understand science. don't be so determine to be ignorant on a subject. Be unbiased. Also just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean its not happening. I strongly recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 and see if your arguments are still valid.

    67. eric says:

      Let's get this straight, carbon dioxide has different radiative processes than air, it heats and cools more quickly than air and has 50% more mass than air, thus making it much more dense, and thus it does not blend well in the atmosphere, and water vapor makes up 400 TIMES MORE OF THE ATMOSPHERE THAN CO2. Also remember that the oceans have 1000 times as much energy as the atmosphere, which means that OCEANS DRIVE CLIMATE, which is why you see a warming trend from 1979-1998 during the warm PDO, and a spike in global temperatures in the late 1990s when the AMO also turned warm. But now the PDO is cold and the AMO is cooling, we have actually seen a decline in global temperatures since 2008. With the expectation that by 2020 the PDO and AMO will be cold, expect global temperatures to plummet by then, and with a very low upcoming solar cycle, it might get even colder than that.

    68. Glenn Monson says:

      to be more precise, i think what my friend eric here is trying to convey to the many other unbelievably ignorant comments about co2 and global warming, is this. first climate is the change in temp. over time (geologic time millions of years) stop thinking like we are going to moderate the climate, as most geologists, myself included will tell you we are always coming in and out of an ice age, (at least for the last 3 million years we have) with long cold spells and shorter warming trends, These extreme changes are cyclic, they are uniform and occur at timed intervals, this completely negates any possibility of co2 playing a role. co2 is not a constant variable and does not follow a cyclic pattern. The earth’s orbit changes from being nearly circular to slightly elliptical (eccentricity). This cycle is affected by other planets in the solar system and has a period of around 100,000 years. (this matches all the ice core samples perfectly)
      The angle of tilt of the earth’s axis changes from 22.1° to 24.5° (obliquity). This cycle has a period of 41,000 years.
      The direction of the tilt of the axis changes (precession) on a cycle of 26,000 years. The last ice age was about 12 to 15 thousand years ago, which is the average warming trend after ice ages, the last one brought terminal moraine (the very front of a moving forward glacier) all the way to kansas. Now lets talk about short term climate change, thousands to hundreds of years, many things influence the climate in this range, plate tectonics and continental drift,(the ever moving land masses and how they affect the oceanic circulation, insolation (incoming solar radiation) increased sunspot activity, el nino la nina the pacific ocean covers over half the earth and plays a major role. All of these influences are 10 times more vital in climate change than GHG (green house gases) one of the biggest problems with GHG's is trying to measure them, you cant use a closed system and trying to determine what each does at different altitudes with different atmospheric pressures is impossible, now try and factor in all the other major climate influences and youve got chaos, So anyone who tries to tell you they know how much that, or how many this is lying, Cause and effect are the only empirical tools you can use, so lets take a look at that. Charting co2 changes over time isnt that difficult using sediment layering, fossil records and carbon itself, In the carboniferous period co2 levels were at 1500 PPM and it had temperatures comparable to todays, as a matter of fact co2 was at times 20 times higher than todays, co2 has been decreasing steadily for nearly 600 million years or more and at no time since the holocene epoch was it ever under 400 PPM, today its is roughly 380 PPM, another problem with measuring co2 is the air sampling method they use, they take a random sample, not one form the upper atmosphere, they then take out the watervapor to negate it influences, and measure how much is co2, a small problem with this,was found by replacing a sample with watervapor again and finding the co2 level decreased, http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/20… Lets be perfectly clear, while climate over time has changed drastically in both warming and cooling cycles, and finally all the ice core samples have shown co2 to lag temperature increase by 600 to 800 years. Temperatures have been falling for 65 million years. And so have co2 levels, I have seen attempt after attempt from global warming alarmists using highly dubious science to try and validate the co2 casual effect, yet not once has any of them ever produced a result , so let me end by saying this, if we are in the final stages of the warming trend 12 to 15 thousand years since the last ice age, and it is cyclic and has been proven with ice cores, math, geologic fossils and sedimentary layers which all concur, we will slide back into an ice age within 2 to 4 thousand years, so if co2 causes warming then we should be pumping as much into the atmosphere as we can, because man will not survive an ice age.

    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.