An inconvenient truth summary driver#
An inconvenient truth summary tv#

What do Americans get in return for this economic sacrifice? Let me put this bluntly: Our political leaders in Washington are going to demand the American people make significant economic sacrifices by paying 4 percent more, 10 percent more or even higher for gasoline and home energy costs in order to 'do something' to address the climate 'crisis.' Bingaman's proposal, 'Gasoline prices could be expected to increase by about 5 percent, electricity costs 4 percent.' The Post article continued by saying that under Sen.

'(Bingaman's) global warming bill aimed at getting bipartisan support in Congress could be implemented at modest economic cost but may do little to address the (climate) threat,' the Post's Jan. The Washington Post in January clearly explained the hot air of Capitol Hill climate politics when it described a proposal by Sen. But the costs would be anything but negligible.Дon't take my word for it. The bills - even if fully enacted - would have a negligible impact on the climate. There are more than half a dozen global warming proposals being floated about in both houses of Congress. Leaders on Capitol Hill are also very late in recognizing this scientific awakening on climate variability. This shift follows a 2006 open letter by 60 prominent scientists to the Canadian prime minister stating, 'If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.'

An inconvenient truth summary tv#

Spann, who has nearly 30 years of experience as a weather expert, said in January that he does 'not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.' In February, a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95 percent of his profession rejects global warming fears. Just ask James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the American Meteorological Society. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but the rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. The usual suspects will still insist that there is a 'consensus' of scientists who agree with Gore.

Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained, 'We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.'

An inconvenient truth summary driver#

New research by teams of international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Meteorologist Reid Bryson has switched from a promoter of the 1970s global cooling scare to a global warming skeptic today. One of Israel's top young astrophysicists, Nir Shaviv, recently reversed his opinion, declaring that the link between emissions and climate variability has nothing more than 'circumstantial evidence.' The United Kingdom's famed environmental activist David Bellamy also recently converted to skepticism. (This coming from a French Socialist, no less.) Recently, prominent French scientist Claude Allegre recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money. report last year found that emissions from cows do more to drive global warming than C02 from cars.ДЄn increasing number of government leaders and scientists are finally realizing that much of the motivation behind the climate scare has nothing to do with science. Even the United Nations, despite all the media hoopla, halved its estimates for sea level rise since 2001 and reduced man's impact on the climate by 25 percent in a recent report.

It's about time the Times joined the growing chorus of scientists criticizing the alarmism.