• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Hype of Global Warming Far Scarier Than Science Shows

    Global Warming hysteria

    The following Q&A with The Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman is cross-posted from The Washington Post’s Planet Panel:

    Q: As the controversy swirling around the IPCC deepens at the same time some are questioning the significance of global warming now that large portions of the U.S. are buried under record-breaking snow, what kind of information do policymakers need to make decisions about climate change?

    Any risks of global warming need to be weighed against the risks of global warming policies. Policymakers must have accurate information on both sides of the equation in order to avoid measures that do more harm than good. Most of the recent proposals — the Senate’s Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill, a new UN treaty, EPA’s regulatory scheme — fail to accurately weigh the risks because they are based on the false premise that climate change is a dire threat.

    Simply put, global warming is not a crisis and should not be addressed as one. The recent wave of climate science scandals — climategate, glaciergate, hurricanegate, amazongate, others — have exposed a number of efforts initially crafted to hype the issue into something far scarier than the underlying science actually shows. Climategate — the release of internal emails from scientists with key roles in the UN’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report — largely centered around the strained attempt to portray temperatures in recent decades as unprecedented throughout recorded history. The researchers had to go to extreme lengths to create this impression — grafting one data set onto another to manufacture the desired “hockey stick” effect, using computer programs that add warming to the underlying temperature data and then destroying that data before others could see it — which speaks volumes about the weakness of their case.

    To his credit, Phil Jones, the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit who had to step down pending the climategate investigation, recently conceded that temperatures have been statistically flat since 1995 and that the Medieval Warm Period may have been as warm as modern times. Slowly but surely, the hype and false certainty is being replaced by a more accurate picture of what the science really tells us about the earth’s temperature history.

    Similarly, most of the IPCC Report’s apocalyptic claims about the consequences of global warming – that Himalayan glaciers would completely melt by 2035, that damage from hurricanes and other extreme weather events has increased, that African agricultural production is poised to plummet, and that the Amazon rainforest is under grave threat – have been shown to be far-fetched speculation devoid of scientific support. Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official, has just announced his resignation, in part due to the fact that so much so much alarmist junk made its way into the IPCC Report.

    There is a reason proponents of costly measures to address global warming have so exaggerated the risks – they essentially had to for there to be any chance the public would accept the high price tag for action to ratchet down carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Once the gloom and doom is replaced by a more accurate assessment of the risk, such measures as the Senate’s Boxer-Kerry bill, a new UN treaty, or EPA regulations look like an especially bad deal.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    30 Responses to Hype of Global Warming Far Scarier Than Science Shows

    1. Leonard Tachner, Irv says:

      Phil Jones, the main man at East Anglia U., says that there actually hasn't been any significant global warming for the past fifteen years. Everyone also knows that there was no global warming from about 1940 to about 1975. That means that over the last 70 years, 50 of those years have seen no global warming (natural or man-made). Over those same 70 years, CO2 was continually increasing. (About 30% by most accounts). Just think, over the last seven decades, there's been no global warming 70% of the time even though atmospheric CO2 has steadily gone up by at least 90 parts per million over that period. Seems like Al Gore was right, the debate is over and the science is settled. Man-made global warming is a fantasy. Cap and trade would be a giant new tax serving absolutely no useful purpose. Never before in American history have so few tried to fool so many into paying so much for so little. Leonard Tachner, Irvine, Calif.

    2. Leonard Tachner, Irv says:

      Phil Jones, the main man at East Anglia U., says that there actually hasn't been any significant global warming for the past fifteen years. Everyone also knows that there was no global warming from about 1940 to about 1975. That means that over the last 70 years, 50 of those years have seen no global warming (natural or man-made). Over those same 70 years, CO2 was continually increasing. (About 30% by most accounts). Just think, over the last seven decades, there's been no global warming 70% of the time even though atmospheric CO2 has steadily gone up by at least 90 parts per million over that period. Seems like Al Gore was right, the debate is over and the science is settled. Man-made global warming is a fantasy. Cap and trade would be a giant new tax serving absolutely no useful purpose. Never before in American history have so few tried to fool so many into paying so much for so little.

    3. ghenjisjohn.blogspot says:

      IT MUST BE AT LEAST APPARENT TO POTUS AND ADMIN THAT THE HUGE CONSERVATIVE HAMMER IS COMING DOWN,,EVERYONE I TALK TO EVERYDAY IS SAYING THAT "FRAUD,WASTE AND ABUSE" IN THIS CONGRESS AND ADMIN (BOTH HOUSES AND BOTH PARTIES) IS OVER..YET SOMEHOW 15BILLION IN EARMARKS SLIPPED BY AGAIN UN NOTICED BY CONGRESS?? LIKE HELL..THE DAY OF RECKONING IS AT HAND.. ghengisjohn.blogspot.com

    4. Pingback: Hype of Global Warming Far Scarier Than Science Shows | The … | the world cares.com

    5. John Walsh says:

      There are a number of things about Climategate that I find particularly disturbing. First, that so many people were so easily duped and converted into promoters for the global warming cause. Almost as effectively as a virus does its work when invading an organism. Why did ordinary – and many not so ordinary – people go along with the vilification of carbon dioxide, a trace gas essential to plant respiration and a basic building block of all life? I'm beginning to understand how the German public went along with the problem of their day – that there were too many Jews. They, too, could have and rightly should have questioned their masters when they were fed propaganda. Gosh. If Jews are so bad, how come so many of them excel in the arts, the sciences, law, medicine, and have one of the lowest incarceration rates? If only they would have taken the time to think!

      Secondly, exactly what DOES it take for governments to back off their plans to legislate against carbon dioxide? A British High Court (aka Supreme Court) judge already ruled in 2007 that the link between CO2 and global warming is inverse, not direct. FIRST comes global warming and THEN, about 800 years later, CO2 levels rise. The same judge ruled that Gore's 'documentary' was "materially false" in 11 major areas and was "partisan political propaganda". What? Our leaders are unaware of court rulings such as this? And are they equally unaware of the BBC documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which again exposed the entire 'warming effort as a fraud? If I can find "Swindle" then they certainly should be able to!

      The fact is, governments WANT to implement legislation using carbon dioxide as the scapegoat. Regrettably, they are going to have to be prevented from doing that. The Texas Governor who is suing the Feds and the EPA is on the right lines.

      Finally, okay. We know about Climategate. The fraud. The deceit, lies, manipulation, bullying, intimidation, vilification, slander, etc. My question is, was Climategate the only fraud perpetrated on a gullible and ignorant public? I think not. I suspect we've been had on a number of very major issues. We just haven't found out about them yet!

    6. Weatherbot, Oregon says:

      I am undergoing an analysis of various cities around the US. So far I have analyzed Portland, Oregon and Kodiak, Alaska. Neither city shows any trending up or down in temperature. Most data points appear to fall within a rather normal distribution. See results on weatherbot.blogspot.com.

    7. Andrew30 says:

      At the bottom of this page:

      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

      From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.

      It includes:

      British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’

      Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’

      The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’

      Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’

      UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’

      Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’

      Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’

      Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’

      Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’

      KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

      World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’

      Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’

      You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

      So can you climate scientologists please stop with the skeptics in the pockets of Big Oil thing, it’s getting old. These companies have been funding the CRU for years and years. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were in there right at the start in 1974.

      I wonder where ‘charities’ like Greenpeace International (Storms, Hurricanes, Floods, etc will get worse, false, retracted by IPCC) and the World Wildlife Fund (Glaciers will melt by 2035, false, retracted by the IPCC) get the money to fund climate research.

      In unrelated news…

      February 16, 2010 1:45 p.m. EST:

      President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.

      Obama’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants to over $54 billion, the White House noted.

      You should be hearing about off-shore Liquefied Natural Gas off loading platforms shortly. You already have the whole ‘Food to Ethanol’ program.

      This of course will all have to be paid for somehow.

    8. Pingback: Hype of Global Warming Far Scarier Than Science Shows « carboneutralnow

    9. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    10. Steve Farrell says:

      Even if the "crisis" was real it was an especially bad deal — because it is based on the dialectical model for transformation: that is a thesis (such as limited government and national sovereignty under the United States Constitution) meeting the anti-thesis (an 'unforeseen convergence' — global warming, so some other unexpected change, e.g. the first attempt at this transformational game: Wilson's excuse, submarine warfare on the open seas against neutrals — something he claimed had no precedence, as if he had forgotten such things as the Barbary Pirates attacking great neutrals on the open seas), and that we now have a "crisis" that creates a transformational moment (that is something that totally negates the past the give us a new thesis), and thus, at first, unelected, and therefore largely unaccountable regulatory agencies that not only subvert legislation by representation but also violate the separation of powers doctrine, and later, international agencies that subvert sovereignty as well.

      Woodrow Wilson once stated — before he did just the opposite — that in the face of belligerents, great nations never maneuver, but that the belligerents must maneuver. This turns every crisis not into a crisis (and thus a transformational moment) but rather into a test of our metal and our values. Making the question, how do we address the problem at hand without abandoning fundamental principles, or even better, in a way that strengthens our sustaining of those principles?

    11. John B. San Diego says:

      Where is that Al Gore anyway I have not heard anything since his poetic diatribe about some of us having some sort of tools? That was around the New Year 2010. Why have we not yet seen or heard his rebuttal to the mess he was instrumental in creating

      Global Warming; it’s more like Global Taxing, Global Government Control and making us pay through the nose for our demise as free people. What is going to happen when Brussels is in charge of weapons regulation and registering, and the amount and types of energy we consume and our healthcare (who lives or dies); this is not about “Global Warming” it’s “Global Control”

      Smart Grid …Yeah Right……I meant Yeah Wrong!

    12. Babs in Stone Mtn says:

      This is another good product from Heritage. It's not only good info, but also has the links to other related articles.

      I've always thought that global warming was a lot of "bunk". More & more the data seem to bearing that out.

    13. John A. Jauregui says:

      Do you see any of these stories on television news after two decades of relentless press coverage of Global Warming with no questions asked? The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there's a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, "What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?" Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn't you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media's conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.

    14. Rick Rico, Coeur d&# says:

      The global warming hoax should have been realized long ago, just look at who is promoting it. The biggest hypocrites on the planet from around the world. Oh yeah and they all just happen to be some the wealthiest people on the planet as well and profiting greatly from it. At our expense, of course.

    15. Geoff, PA says:

      So what are the "risks of global warming policies?" Your answer has a lot of information meant to discredit scientists studying this issue, but not one mention of the risks of proposed policies. Do you have sources for any peer-reviewed, scientific assessments of these "risks?"

    16. Hoss in Texas says:

      Why would we need an offshore loading(unloading) platform for LNG? we have enough natural gas production in 4 or 5 counties in north Texas to heat every home in the United states for 5 years. There are discoveries of natural gas in NW Louisiana and Arkansas that have better production than the north Texas field. There are also discoveries in Pennslyvania and other states that should have huge production numbers for years in the future. Keep out dollars at home. Purchase American energy products.

    17. Ed Kimble says:

      Back to science, CO2 levels have doubled and are increasing. Furthermore, while we don't exactly know what this means we have fossil records that suggest this could accompany large scale environmental changes. Worse, this trend is probably not fixable by anything we can simply do as the human race, i.e. cap and trade is both dumb and wasteful. However,the consequences of pollution, SO2, NO2, acid rain, PAN, and other toxic chemicals can be seen by driving down any highway. Loss of species is measurable. Paving over the environment is visible and ongoing. Carbon resources are precious and dwindling. So what's the problem? Public pressure is needed to effect a change to clean sustainable energy sources and yet, because of the overzealous, because of the fascist, corporate, and socialist agendas (and the greed of the state has become the biggest greed of all), because of bad science, because the Europeans have a technological lead (in nuclear, wind, and geothermal)… we need to start funding alternate power sources. My suggestion is to start funding university energy the way we funded health sciences over the past 40 years and to cut health sciences (ouch!!), to offer grants and tax exemptions to alternate sources, and to encourage green energy sources by having power customers participate in green power funding. Mainly, we need to start funding actual mistakes on a city wide scale. Big govt. and big business. is not the answer because right now we need to make lots of little mistakes so they don't turn into giant fiascoes!! Are we strong enough, do we have enough medium scale risk takers? Is there enough scientific pixie dust? Or do we cave in to the greedy overzealous agenda mongers like Obama, Arab oil, or the UN climate squad?

    18. Pingback: The cost of climate alarmism 3 « TWAWKI

    19. robertg222 says:

      It's time to call for jail time for those behind the global warming scam. Mann, Hensen, and Gore need to be the first one behind bars. People will now longer except the excuse of "mistake" as a cover-up for fraud.

    20. Jeff Smith, Charlest says:

      The global warming hoax is exposed:
      http://factcheck.org/2010/02/climate-science-slip

    21. Dave, Minnesota says:

      Let's be frank, Hype is a falsehood. More clearly, a lie!

    22. Bill - Forney, TX says:

      The infamous "hockey stick" chart was widely publicized in papers years ago with its dire warming predictions. Not ONE of the "expert" scientists predicted what has actually occurred since it came out in the late 90's. I have yet to see the same chart with the actual updated data of the subsequent years shown. Publishing this would do more damage to the global warming (aka "climate change") crowd's case for a need to cap carbon emissions than any article on the fraud that has been uncovered this past year. Intelligent people would look at the same chart that started the cry for change and see with their own eyes that the "experts" were wrong and that the science is not settled. But as stated, the media is already in the bag for carbon reduction policy. The Dallas Morning News, not known as one of the more liberal papers, stated in their "New Year's Resolutions" this year that they wished to help in the global carbon reduction cause. The obvious means for them to do so is in the selection of stories they run. Another year or two of the current temperature trends will put more pressure to report the facts in the media. We must make sure that any significant economic changes in the face of "climate change" is forestalled until then.

    23. Jared, New York says:

      Anyone who claims with a straight face that the snowfall in Washington DC is evidence that global warming is not real, and is not a crisis, is either lying or ignorant. The science is clear, and there's a reason "global warming" is actually and more accurately termed "global climate change". Increased surface temperature of the oceans leads to increased atmospheric water content leads to increased precipitation. Increased atmospheric energy leads to changes in the jet stream which leads to changing weather pattern. Turn on your TV and listen to the reporters at the Vancouver Winter Olympics… They don't have enough snow. They had to delay the alpine events to wait for snow, and when it fell there wasn't enough. The conditions on the course were so slushy that it was dangerous. On Saturday, it was 50 degrees on the downhill course. Now look at Vancouver on a map. Don't tell me global warming isn't a problem because it snowed in Washington. That's dishonest and insulting.

    24. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      One reason for increase in CO2 is the foresting of this country, builders clear the land, removing a vegitation and usually scraping the fertile top soil off before building. In 1954 we bought our first house, the builder left all trees that were there with exception as to where the house would be. Just in case some of you missed science in school CO2 is needed by trees to give off O2, WE BREATHIN THE o@ AND EXHALE co2 I've tried to explain to people for yrs. that the worl goes in cycles, Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, was once lush and green and Danes went there to farm as they had used their land bably, not rotateing crops etc. then came an ice age and they all but abandoned Greenland. My cousins in Denmark farm and in e-mailing back and forth find they do about the same as us when it comes to small gardens, planting tomatoes and garden veggies, they say they are doing the same as has been going on for generations. Al Gore needs to return his medal and the money, he is the biggest hippocrit and a disgrace to the office he once held.

    25. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      "Made Madg Global Warming" has never been real. Increases in CO2 levals

      (if it is true) have no affect on our climate nor environment.This entire issus was

      composed to allow government to futher control ever aspect of our lives by imposing higher taxes, that will cost us more and more, just to live our lives without government assistance. Their goal is for everyone to be dependent

      on government for everything. That is the essence of Socialism.

    26. Drew Page, IL says:

      It's sad to think that those who have cried "wolf" over non-existent global warming have now jaded us from believing in the more real threat of air pollution. Our planet does suffer from pollution of poisonous gases and chemicals emitted by steel mills, refineries and other industrial processes. What will the public think when real data emerges about pollution? They will think it's just more hyperbole and won't take it seriously.

      Industrial poisons emitted into our air and water are the serious threats that the EPA should be monitoring and dealing with. None of us want poison dumped into the air we breathe or into the water we drink.

      Nuclear energy can go a long way toward cleaning up our air and water quality, but strict controls must be established for the treatment, reduction of, and disposal of nuclear waste. Further, I believe that the development and funding of nuclear power plants should be left to private industry. The Nuclear Reulatory Agency should oversee the safe construction, operation and waste disposal of nuclear power plants, but the government should not own such power plants or pay for their construction with tax money.

    27. Sam, WI says:

      Despite Obama allocating funds to build power plants in Georgia, they aren't going to be built. The NRC makes it its job to not allow any new nuclear power plants and they do their best to keep existing ones from having a license.

      But that's not all, there is a particular nuclear plant in WI that had been going through a process to change or upgrade some of the equipment there. This process had been going on for a few years, except recently the NRC steps in and said that they had to do it a different way. Among the things they have to do is replace all the insulation on the reactors with some made by a specific company. Guess where the company is headquartered. Here's a hint, a young senator from there got elected president of the United States.

    28. Pingback: Morning Bell: The Edifice Falls « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian

    29. Aaron, Santa Cruz, C says:

      I say lets drill, mine, waste, and pollute as much as possible. I mean, who do these people think they are taking away our freedom to conspicuously consume while the global south toils to bring these products to the market. I mean, I was born in America! America! Yeeeee Haw! Freedom!!!!! Anyone up for a tea party, I'm sick of the idea of people getting health insurance too.

    30. bob usa says:

      just because heritage uses scientists that are funded by oil companies does not mean that their conclusions are mistaken.

    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.

    ×