The Leipzig Declaration states: > As scientists, we...are intensely interested in the possibility that > human activities may affect the global climatge; indeed, land clearing > and urban growth have been changing local climates for centuries. > Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs--warmer > periods, such as the medieval =91climate optimum,' playing an important > role in economic expansion... > > Contrary to conventional wisdom... there does not exist today a general > scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from th= > e > rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now > accept the fact that actual observations from Earth satellites show no > climate warming whatsoever... Further evidence that we seek out the "scientific facts" that suit our needs. This group of "100 scientists" represent but a small fraction of the world's scientific population, we don't even know what they're scientists of. Furthermore, given that sattleite imagry is a relatively new technology, they is not (IMHO) enough baseline data to draw an accurate conclusion by merely observing (not measuring temperatures, etc) sattelite images. Finaally, these "scientists" ominously warn us of the possible consequences of limiting the greenhouse gasses...which is simply ridiculous. The only consequence mentioned is that of "restraints on economic growth" and that has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with justifying the current paradigm of short-term profit from the degradation of our world. > "The Declaration notes that the Global Climate Treaty arising from the > 1992 =91Earth Summit' in Rio De Janeiro calls for stabilization of > atmospheric greenhouse gases-- and that this stabilization would requir= > e > a 60 to 80 percent reduction in the use of fuel worldwide. > > In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any > restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be view= > ed > with caution. For this reason, we consider =91carbon taxes' and other > drastic control policies--lacking credible suport from underlying > science--to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, an= > d > likely to be counterproductive. This part would be laughable it if weren't so sad. Very clever to call poverty a "pollutant," this identifies it as something that needs to be "cleaned up." Of course, there is no shortage of wealth in the world, the problem lies in the way the money is distributed. Economic growth that forsakes the health of the environment has done far more damage than any efforts to curtail levels of pollutants such as the greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, we would not even have higher fuel-efficiency in our cars if the auto industry were not manfated by federal law to comply. Efforts at alternative fuels such as hydrogen, propane, etc., are minimized and even sabotaged by the those who profit from the status quo. This "declaration" is perfect fodder for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his followers--to call it science is a farce. Bret Diamond Oregon, USA
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0