A Project Report For the Partial fulfillment of NATIONAL ECONOMIC PLANNING

Economic impact of global warming is more of a hoax (For the motion)

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Ankit Ghai (NEP Faculty) IIPM Gurgaon

SUBMITTED BY: Gauri Mathur Heena Mehendiratta Manish Nagill Mayank Samdiya Sankalp Khatri Vivek Dwivedi

IIPM GURGAON
Global Youth Brigade Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported all of us during the preparation of the presentation. We are deeply indebted to Prof. ANKIT GHAI (NEP Faculty) for his constant support, guidance and inspiration in completion of this presentation and preparation of this report. We would like to express my sincere gratitude to IIPM (Gurgaon) for giving us an opportunity to complete our presentation and report. We also extend our heartfelt thanks to our family and well wishers.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 2

ABSTRACT

Global warming is not about a scientific problem that found political support; it is about activists and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control.

Given that so much is at stake, it is essential that people better understand this issue. As Dr. S. Fred Singer states, Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam Warming Hysteria Is Religion, Not Science The Original Climate Science Fraud #1: Stephen Schneider Original Climate Science Fraud #2: James Hansen Human Health Benefits From Warmer Temperatures Most of Modern Warming Is Due to Natural Causes The US & Climate Change Politics and Global Warming A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming End of Little Ice Age Means Warming Kyoto: Economic Pain for No Climate Gain Media Coverage of Climate Change Economic Implications of global Warming Conclusion Bibliography 5 8 10 11 14 24 25 28 30 32 36 37 38 41 50 56

INTRODUCTION
Global Youth Brigade Page 4

Global Warming is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the worlds population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974. Despite the strong consensus from climate scientists of man-made global warming, a vast portion of the mainstream media and public remain skeptical. How did we get to such a situation? While the exact percentages arent as important as the overall trend that is shown, the answers to this question involve years of politics. Accompanying the concerns of climate change and global warming is the media spin, propaganda, and special interests. For many years in some countries, scientists and environmental groups raising concerns about climate change faced stern opposition, and at one time, ridicule. Initially, many big businesses and countries such as the United States were openly challenging concerns of climate change. Industry coalitions and lobby groups have also been accused of misinforming the public or pressuring media into false balancing. In recent years, many large businesses have distanced themselves from those previous positions and some have even openly accepted climate change and global warming concerns, even asking for governments to provide regulation and guidance on the matter. Yet, even into the mid-2000s by which time climate change and global warming had finally been accepted as real by the most suspicious governments, some such as the then USs Bush Administration were accused of silencing those who spoke
Global Youth Brigade Page 5

out about the problem, including leading government climate scientists who warned of consequences from global warming. Increasingly, a number of governments such as those from the US, Australia and elsewhere have become fearful of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that they have long been subjected to (but not ever achieved) if large developing countries such as China and India are not subject to them as well. Developing countries correctly note that they were not the ones who pumped most of climate change-inducing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during the last few decades and centuries. As further reports regarding climate change impacts reveal a bleaker future, there are concerns that there will be accompanying fear-mongering by

environmentalists, green washing by some business interests, and spin by governments to show reductions in emissions. Some feel global warming is one of the biggest frauds of our era, with some even believing it is designed to harm the US economy and make the UN more powerful. Others feel it is simpler than that, and instead, climate scientists are able to make a lot of money by using fear as a tool to earn more research grants. Such a vast, global conspiracy of scientists, the United Nations and environmental groups/lobbies does seem a bit far-fetched given that far more resourceful, powerful and immensely wealthier corporations and governments (with their access to, and influence on, the media) would surely be able to counter such a tactic (and have indeed been involved in their own spin/propaganda attempts, which, even with their resources, are failing to hide the reality).

Global Youth Brigade

Page 6

A lot of time appears to have been wasted, and political spin on issues such as describing a reduced rate of greenhouse emissions as an actual reduction, risks is a false sense of hope and achievement.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 7

THE AMAZING STORY BEHIND THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institutes areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelles mind was most of the time. Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nations bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting. Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh
Global Youth Brigade Page 8

out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 9

Warming hysteria is religion, not science.

If global cooling is known to be the real and impending danger, why is it that even with the onset of cooling, most climatologists are raising hysterical alarms about global warming? Because they are not actually concerned about global temperature at all. They are environmental religionists who believe that human economic growth is gobbling up the natural world. Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity, and in that way save the planet from human encroachment. Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology. If only the sun had stayed aboil for one more solar cycle, the religionists would have succeeded. When the inevitable cooling did come, it would still pull the curtain off of their global warming hoax, but by then it would be too late. Economic restrictions would already be fixed in place, under UN bodies that the religionists control.

Alas, it was not to be. Their game is up.

Even a temporary dip in global temperatures will be enough to expose the scare about human and CO2 based global warming as a fraud. There hasnt been any dip in CO2, so a dip in temperature will explode the alarmist claim that global temperature is CO2 driven.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 10

The original climate science fraud: Stephen Schneider

In the 1970s when the earth seemed to be cooling, Dr. Stephen Schneider, now at Stanford, blamed cooling on human burning of fossil fuels. Particulates were blocking the sun, he suggested, calling for dramatic pullbacks in human population and economic activity. (Schneiders 1976 book The Genesis Strategy is an apocalyptic neo-Malthusian fantasy.) When the temperature signal changed from cooling to warming in the early 80s, Schneider again blamed the human burning of fossil fuels, and again called for drastic restraints on economic activity. As cooling becomes apparent this year, expect him to again blame cooling on fossil fuel burning, and again call for drastic restraints on economic activity.

In 1997 Senate testimony, Schneider objected to any presumption that the warming of the earth after the Little Ice Age (1600-1850) was natural:

We know that humans started changing the land surface and started changing the atmosphere, which we began to do significantly in the 18th Century, so we cannot actually rule that potential influence out yet. Dr. Schneiders fellow global warming alarmist, Dr. Eric Barron of Penn State, jumped in to clarify their position:

The objection occurs when [it is said that] the world is bouncing back from an unusually cold period. It's just as possible, because of the way natural variability
Global Youth Brigade Page 11

works, that it was in the midst of bouncing to an even colder century and therefore we have an even bigger problem than we're thinking.

Schneider and Barron correctly identified the only possible circumstance in which fear of global warming could conceivably be rational. They know that for the last million years the earth has alternated between ice ages of about 100,000 years and interglacials of 10 12 thousand years. Our current interglacial started about 11,500 years ago so it is reasonable to think that at any time, natural temperature effects could carry us into the next ice age. If Schneiders speculation is right--that if not for human interference the next ice age would already have started--then human warming influences really are dominating natural influences, and if they remain unchecked, they really could create runaway warming. But this speculation is absurd. We know what the main natural driver of global temperature has been doing since the little ice age. Solar activity has been through the roof!

Telling the Senate that natural forces might have been in the cooling direction since the Little Ice Age was professional malfeasance, but this was the only way it could possibly make sense, on the geological eve of the next ice age, to worry about humans causing the observed global warming, so this is what Schneider pretended.

Schneider stated his attitude towards scientific honesty in a 1989 interview with Discover Magazine:

Global Youth Brigade

Page 12

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

This calculated dishonesty does not apply only to the magnitude of alarmist claims, but also to their direction. The alarm that Schneider is looking to raise is not over any particular climate change. Neither cooling nor warming actually matters to him. The alarm he wants to raise is over human activity.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 13

Original climate science fraud #2: James Hansen

Other leading climate religionists indulge in similar demagoguery. A later but more central figure is NASA climatologist James Hansen, who took the global warming scare public by testifying to congress in 1988 that:

Global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

Hansen just assumed that whatever warming was taking place was due to human release of CO2. That was bad enough in 1988, before the effects of solar weather on global temperature had been much studied, but Hansen was still pulling the same scam in 2005, when competing theories of natural warming were well established.

When ocean temperature data amassed in 2005 showed a warming trend, Hansen declared the data to be a smoking gun that proved human production of CO2 was heating the earth. In fact, the data did absolutely nothing to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic warming. Hansen deliberately misrepresented the implications of the data in order to advocate for his actual objective:

Hansen calculated the energy retention could be eliminated only by halting all humancaused emissions of methane or by somehow removing half of all the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 14

Of course this prescription would require drastic curtailment of human economic activity, which in Hansens mind is what justifies all the disinformation. Hansen couldnt care less about the minuscule temperature effects of CO2. His goal is to stop economic advance from gobbling up the earth.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 15

Are Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels Responsible for Global Warming?
By John Coleman
Written about November 23, 2007

In the Al Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", we see the famous hockey stick chart as proof that globalwarming is sweeping the Earth. Time and research has taken its toll on that chart. It is no longer regarded asaccurate. In fact, it has been quietly dropped by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Now the global warming advocates point to the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Its up,way up; no argument about that. Our modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, sends tons of carbon dioxide(CO2) in the atmosphere as we generate electricity to power our lights, furnaces and air conditioners,computers, television sets, cellphone and ipods and as we drive gasoline powered cars and fly in airplanes. Our modern standard of living is absolutely linked to CO2. And it has increased in our atmosphere from around 218parts per million in 1900 to about 375 ppm today.

You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere.

For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 16

Initial estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency projected that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause sea levels to rise by between 80 and 120 inches. By 1990 these estimates had been reduced by 75%. In 1996 a United Nations science advisory panel predicted a rise of only 15 to 22 inches by 2100 still based on shaky assumptions. The next question is how global warming, if it occurs, would affect sea levels. On the one hand, a warmer climate would melt mountain glaciers and cause a thermal expansion of ocean water, accelerating sea levels' rise. But on the other hand, more water would evaporate from the surface of warmer oceans, leading to more rainfall, andover Greenland and the Antarcticto greater accumulation of snow and ice. This process essentially thickens the polar ice caps, thus lowering sea levels. The pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels have been largely controlled by catalytic converters, reformulated gasoline, smoke stack scrubbers and other improvements in ignition, fuel managementand exhaust systems. Nonetheless, it is in our civilization's best interest to find ways to eliminate fossil fuelsfrom our livings within the next few generations. But, there is no climatic emergency from our use of them.Now the really good news: The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21stcenturies has produced no deleterious effects upon Earths weather and climate. There is absolutely nocorrelation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions ofharmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis. On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop
Global Youth Brigade Page 17

output per acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3 C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age. Atmospherictemperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity; by the greenhouse effect, which is largelycaused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. Whilemajor greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have littleeffect. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and CO2 production since 1940 has had no noticeable effect onatmospheric temperatures.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 18

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman

Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes.

Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940,while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. The historical record does not contain any report of "global warming" catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 19

GLOBAL WARMING AND CO2 INCREASES WOULD BE BENEFICIAL

We need not worry about environmental calamities, even if Earths natural warming trend continues. After all, the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects. Worries about global flooding in a warmer world are unjustifiable. Global flooding did not occur in the warmer world of 1,000 years ago. In any case, data from the warming of 1900-1940 show a drop in sea levels, while the subsequent cooler period shows a sea level rise, writes S. Fred Singer (The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 1997, The Sky Isnt Falling, and the Ocean Isnt Rising and The Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2000, Global Warming is 300Year-Old News). A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases, state Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson. Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globeNo other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earths hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyotos rationing of
Global Youth Brigade Page 20

hydrocarbons. Eco-activists demand that the United States sign the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions. A milder climate, contributing to more plant growth and agricultural production would be beneficial to humanity.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 21

Global Warming Comments by John Coleman Graph

Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940,while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. The historical record does not contain any report of "global warming" catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia. An increase in CO2 is said to increase the radiative effect of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the watervapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 C cooler. The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the United Nations
Global Youth Brigade Page 22

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has chosen to adopt predicts that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses, predict the oppositethat the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The experimental evidence favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected. Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbondioxide levels in the air.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 23

Human health benefits from warmer temperatures.

In temperate regions, human mortality and morbidity tend to show clear maxima in the winter and secondary maxima in the summer. While the secondary maxima are more pronounced in regions with warmer summer climates, as in the southern U.S. and southern Europe, even in those regions the secondary maxima are smaller than the winter maxima. A warming of even 3C in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans because the reduction of wintertime mortality/morbidity would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress-related mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000]. The claim that malaria would spread under a warmer climate has been severely critiqued by Paul Reiter, professor, Institute Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, who points out that the incidence of malaria depends on a number of factors, few of them related to climate or temperature. Historically, malaria was widespread throughout many areas in the temperate or even colder regions of the mid-latitudes [Reiter 2005].

Global Youth Brigade

Page 24

Most of Modern Warming Is Due to Natural Causes

There are many causes of global climate change, each oneprominent depending on the time scale considered.On a time scale of decades to centuries, solarvariability may be the most important factor. There are also natural oscillations of internal origin,especially on a regional scale, that do not appear to be connected to human causes either.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 25

Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor.
Since water vapor (WV) is the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas, it is difficult to explain in simple terms how it can also act to produce a negative feedback, i.e., to reduce the presumed warming effects of CO2. In fact, current GH models all incorporate a positive feedback from an increase in WV. A Russian study showed that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approximately 370 PPM (parts per million) and compliance with Kyoto would result in a difference of only one or two PPM by 2012.

Conclusion: The climate models used by the IPCC do not depict the chaotic, openended climate system. They cannot make reliable predictions and should not be used in formulating government policy. Now I want to drag your attention to what the political point of views we have in order to strengthen our front on this so called Global Warming.But certainly we have to present some concrete facts in front of you.My friend Heena though had suggested a lot of scientific evidences and I am going to add some more emphasis on it.First I am going to present a survey report which abandons the fact that Most of the scientists around the globe support that global warming is a real fact and it is anthropogenic rather than one sponsored by mother nature.

The scientific community is on our side: Despite claims of a consensus in favor of alarmist predictions, surveys of scientists show extensive opposition to alarmism. A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding)
Global Youth Brigade Page 26

found only 9.6 percent strongly agreed and 25.3 percent agreed with the statement climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planets recent warmth can be, in large part, attributed to human activity, and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity. A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on global climate change found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the consensus view while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 27

The US and Climate Change

Some countries, of which the US is the most influential and powerful, have been accused of being counter-productive during climate change negotiations. When the Kyoto Protocol was written in 1997, it was mainly the US and its business lobby that vehemently opposed the protocol based on economic concerns. While the Clinton Administration signed and ratified the protocol, the Republican majority Congress, was opposed to this. When Bush came to power, he eventually withdrew from the international agreement. The public is open to persuasion: Despite the lefts massive investment in ending the debate, opinion polls show the public is deeply divided on the issue. According to a 2006 poll, about 70 percent of Americans believe global warming is occurring, but fewer than half (41 percent) believe human activities are responsible. While 41% say global warming is a very serious problem, 33% see it as somewhat serious and roughly a quarter (24%) think it is either not too serious or not a problem at all. Consequently, the issue ranks as a relatively low public priority, well behind education, the economy, and the war in Iraq. The political battle is an open field: Only 58 percent of Republican voters believe global warming is occurring and only 24 percent believe human activities are responsible, making this a safe issue for Republicans to address. Republicans in Congress in the past have voted strongly against legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, including against McCain-Lieberman proposals that come up considerably short of the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol.
Global Youth Brigade Page 28

Political opposition to global warming legislation is especially strong in the South and West, where coal and oil are major economic resources and sources of employment (though not in California, Oregon, and Washington). It will also grow stronger in the Midwest and Northeast when manufacturers and unions realize the real agenda of the global warming alarmists is to put them out of business by raising energy costs. The left doesnt have a solution: The lefts own computer simulations show that global emission reductions of 60 to 80 percent would be required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Even greater reductions would be required of the U.S. and other developed countries to make up for rising emissions from Third World countries. The technology simply does not exist to achieve those reductions. Their plans are therefore all pain and no gain.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 29

Politics and Global Warming

Unfortunately, global warming is an issue that is well suited to political demagoguery, which can be defined as pandering to misinformed voters and promising unrealistic solutions. Since opinion polls indicate a majority of the public believes warming is happening, politicians might think the safe strategy is to say I believe global warming is a serious problem and I support measures to reduce global warming pollution by supporting renewable fuels and energy efficiency. Such politicians should be outed for claiming to be smarter than scientists who have studied climate for many years and for using scare tactics to win elections. For example, an opponent might say:

Im not a scientist, but I do know theres still a lot of debate going on in the scientific community about whether the recent warming spell is natural or man-made, and whether or not it will continue. How can Senator Smith be so sure hes got the whole truth?

Im old enough to remember when we were setting records for cold weather in the 1970s and scientists were predicting Global Cooling. Im glad Senator Smith wasnt around back then, or wed be paying for government programs to make the world warmer, not cooler.

Politicians who set lofty goals for emission reductions or increased use of renewable fuels with compliance set five years, 10 years, or even 20 years in the future should be outed for promising more than they can deliver and hiding from

Global Youth Brigade

Page 30

voters the real costs and consequences of their votes. For example, an opponent could say:

Senator Smith talks about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent, 30 percent, or more, but he doesnt tell us these cuts would cost the average American household $3,372 a year and destroy 2.4 million jobs. Hes pretending his solution would be free and easy. It wont be either.

Senator Smith talks about how much lower emissions will be in 2012, 2020, and even 2050, but he must know this Congress cannot commit future Congresses to carrying out its will. Two years, four years, and six years from now, Congresses will be voting on whether or not to reduce emissions and at what costs. Senator Smith cant predict their decisions, and he cant claim credit for what they might decide to do.

Gore claims virtually all scientists blame humans for global warming when in fact there are vast differences among scientists, including more and more every day who believe global warming is a sham.. Not surprisingly, those scientists who believe in global warming are those who have large government grants to study the issue whereby findings of global warming yields more grants to study the problem further.

Gore claims global warming would raise sea levels 20 feet when 23 inches is the correct amount. He claims polar bears are on the decline but the opposite is true. He fabricated historical temperatures. And so on.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 31

A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming

The most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and sweat about an impending climate disaster. As the representative of my group who has spent more time speaking about the facts regarding global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywoods involvement in the issue. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estates fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of Londons Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unexampled parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many

Global Youth Brigade

Page 32

major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 33

Not humans have created a climate catastrophe

One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the smoking gun of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called hockey stick temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his Hockey Stick come under severe scrutiny. The hockey stick was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the hockey stick. The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earths climate. In
Global Youth Brigade Page 34

fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 35

END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earths temperatures and mankinds carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend. Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that todays temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend. In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?
Global Youth Brigade Page 36

KYOTO: ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN

The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MITs Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabamas Roy Spencer and John Christy,Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State Universitys William Gray, atmospheric physicist S.Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

Global Youth Brigade

Page 37

MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue. Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine: There are ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may forecast a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.A headline in the New York Times reads: Climate Changes Endanger Worlds Food Output. Here is a quote from Time Magazine: As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 38

BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES

MEDIA COVERAGE IN 2006

Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of todays sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge. On February 19th of this year, CBS Newss 60 Minutes produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. 60 Minutes failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than today.

TIME MAGAZINE HYPES ALARMISM

Time Magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in 1920s before switching to warning about global warming in the 1930s before switching yet again to promoting the 1970s coming ice age scare.
Global Youth Brigade Page 39

The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the medias shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism. Headlines blared: More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought Earth at the Tipping Point The Climate is Crashing, Time Magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views with scientists skeptical of this alleged climate apocalypse.

Global? Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to global warming theory and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word global in global warming may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be Northern Hemisphere warming.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 40

ECONOMIC IMPLICATION OF GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming is the biggest environmental issue of our time. Its political and economic impacts will be larger than those associated with any other environmental issue.

Isn't it interesting how all our problems seem to be global these days. A global war on terrorism, a global economic crisis, the need for a global currency, global trade, global health concerns, global warming, etc.

Government power: Public policies being proposed at the international, national, and state levels in the name of stopping global warming would result in a massive increase in the size and power of the state. To reduce emissions, governments must raise energy costs directly, with taxes, or indirectly, with mandates and subsidies. Either way, hundreds of billions of dollars a year in wealth or economic activity will be sucked up and redistributed by governments. For advocates of limited government, the debate over global warming is one of the preeminent issues of our time. Economic harm: Energy is the master resource, used in the creation of nearly all other goods and services. Making energy artificially scarce therefore imposes enormous economic costs. Global warming legislation being considered by Congress would more than cancel out the beneficial effects of the Bush tax cuts.
Global Youth Brigade Page 41

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions even modestly is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S. a cool $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs. Electricity prices would double, and manufacturers would move their factories to places such as China and India that have cheaper energy and fewer environmental regulations. Example : Britains prime minister Brown said Britain would lead the international effort against climate change, establishing "an economy that is both pro-growth and pro-green." He called for Europe to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2020 and 60 percent by 2050. The British government is considering new "green taxes" on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles. Certainly no one is thinking what the heck is this.What we are advocating here is the fact that Global Warming is not an anthropogenic issue but it is part of a climate cycle that is bound to recur again and again.And I am very sure that we have proved our point till now. The surface temperature of Earth has only changed slightly more than one degree Fahrenheit over the last century. Plus, the planet has cycled through ice ages and warm periods many times without human interference. Supporters of our theory that consists of some of the most prominent scientists of our time refer to the global warming controversy as the "mother of all junk science." They contend that climate varies naturally and the ongoing climate change is within the natural variation.
Global Youth Brigade Page 42

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent, from the 1990 levels, by 2012. The USA and most of the European Union signatories have been ignoring it. [A Russian study showed that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approximately 370 PPM (parts per million) and compliance with Kyoto would result in a difference of only one or two PPM by 2012. Using data provided by those who promote the Kyoto Protocol, if every country complied with the agreement, the average global temperature would be reduced by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade. At this rate, it would take 667 years (and a cost of $100 trillion) to hypothetically forestall global warming by one degree Centigrade. That's correct -- it will cost $100 trillion to alter the global climate by one degree over a period of 667 years.] There are many non-human causes for global temperature changes. There has been a sharp increase in volcanoes under the oceans, increases in solar activity, complex ocean currents that control local weather systems and many other factors. Plus, there has actually been a cooling trend since 1998. And then comes here Al Gore who has been the greatest supporter of this worldwide phenomenon till date and certainly the biggest hypocrite till date. With him, exaggeration and hypocrisy go hand in hand. Gore's main residence, a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion in Nashville, has 20 rooms, including 8 bathrooms. While urging Americans to "conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home," his home devoured 221,000 kilowatt-hours in

Global Youth Brigade

Page 43

2006, compared to the average American who consumes 10,656 kilowatts-hours per year. Al and Tipper Gore also have a 4,000 sq. ft. home in Arlington, Va., and a third home in Carthage, Tenn. But the former Vice President has a trick up his sleeve that will excuse him from any harmful environmental excesses. It's a scheme involving "carbon credits" and it would make most professional flimflam artists blush. Carbon credits are trendy items invented by global warming bullies ostensibly to help the environment. When Gore flies a plane or drives his SUV, he purchases carbon credits. In turn, whoever sold the carbon credits then applies a portion of the proceeds (after expenses) toward some sort of environmental project. Thus, buyers of carbon credits will remain "carbon neutral" since they create a balance between producing and reducing carbon. Eager to help the environment, Gore buys his carbon credits from Generation Investment Management, LLP, a private, owner-managed partnership, with offices in London and Washington, D.C., established in 2004. Surprise, surprise -- Gore is the founding partner and chairman of Generation Investment Management, LLP. In other words, he lives an opulent lifestyle, emitting oodles of carbon, and pays for his excesses by buying carbon credits from his own company, thereby easing his conscience of polluting the planet while turning a profit on the side. He basically writes a check to himself and acts like a hero while alarming the world of pending doom.
Global Youth Brigade Page 44

Surprise, surprise -- all Academy Award nominees in 2006 received a bundle of prepaid carbon credits in their goody bags. In Hollywood, it's called concern for the environment. In the real world, it's called marketing. Worldwide carbon credit sales rose from $6 million in 2004 to $110 million in 2006. Lacking government oversight, there's no visibility on overhead or environmental value. And thus this Pseudo Global Warming express keeps rolling on. The world changes; mankind adapts. Life goes on. We don't need politicians taxing us for the air we breathe. And we don't need an all-mighty one-world government lording over us by creating problems that don't exist and enslaving humanity for the pleasure and profit of those at the top. Summary of the effect of Kyoto Protocol On World Economy

US and other Industrialized Countries

income growth.

er prices

Developing Countries
Global Youth Brigade Page 45

advantage Energy use increases in developing countries

My central thesis here today is that Economics is at the heart of the problem with the mass hysteria we have come to know as Global Warming. Yes, I know that it is wrapped in a scientific facade and has large political and religious components. But if you remove either the science or the politics or the religion from Global Warming, you will not bring it to a halt unless you address the underlying economics of the phenomenon. That is what gave it life in the beginning and what perpetuates it today, despite all the scandals that would normally have terminated the hypothesis of Global Warming in disgrace.

All this global warming theory is about a Climate-Industrial Complex model of such vast extent that it has assumed a life of its own, determining its own fate without regard to outside checks and balances. As the ClimateGate e-mails showed, it has effectively circumvented checks and balances by marginalizing any who would question its supremacy. For about two decades, the scientists who have promoted Global Warming have had a largely free run, protected by colleagues who themselves have enjoyed the vast Federal gravy train.

Every incentive is to go along and get along. There is no percentage in pointing out the flaws. The lifeblood of Global Warming flows from the Federal treasury in ever greater quantities of dollars. It employs vast numbers of scientists who both take orders
Global Youth Brigade Page 46

from and issue orders to federal bureaucrats. That makes it a convenient closed system, self-replicating, self-amplifying, and responsible to no-one.

The difference between this Climate Complex and the analogous Military Complex is that the Military addresses real needs of the society, the likes of which are all to frequently tested on a battlefield. If the military brass fail, heads will quickly roll. Airplanes that cannot fly are not tolerated. If the climate brass fail, there is little or no reaction, except to send them more money. Obviously, they say, we need more money to study this farther! Rubbish! Failure should never be rewarded! President Obama's current rush to stimulate science with more billions will create many more of the patronage jobs that are so characteristic of the City of Chicago where he comes from. This will wreak more havoc in climate science where a whole new generation of scientists are being trained to follow the money not the science. The only theories created will be approved by a bureaucrat, and they will be wrong just like the existing ones. Scientific truth is never established by government decree.

Now that we know how we got to where we are today, let's see what the future holds if those who are promoting Global Warming hysteria have their way. They have in mind either a 'Cap and Trade' regime that slowly starves our economy of carbon fuels or a large carbon tax that accomplishes the same thing. In conjunction with these virtual or real taxes, they are already heavily involved in promoting a portfolio of alternate energy schemes that will Repower America according to Al Gore.

If politicians are serious about reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere using market mechanisms (and it is never clear whether they are
Global Youth Brigade Page 47

really serious about reducing carbon dioxide or just using it as a vehicle for extending control), they will have to increase the cost of fossil fuels so greatly as to force the average consumer to severely curtail consumption of consumer goods, driving, home heating, and electrical usage. This means giving up lifestyle and standard of living in a huge way. Of course they maintain that the necessary changes they propose will only cost pennies a day and increase our standard of living. Such double talk is necessary from their perspective. There is no way they can be honest about what they intend and get more than a few fanatics to sign on.

At a Portland State University seminar promoting Global Warming last year, one of their economists was far more frank than organizers wanted. She suggested that all energy prices would have to double or triple to achieve the reductions in energy use that they were promoting. That would mean gasoline costs approaching $10/gallon and typical electric bills of $200 to $300 per month in the not too distant future.

Other economists point out that a full implementation of the plan Al Gore envisions would reduce us to a 19th century lifestyle, where one's trusty horse was the mode of transportation. In conjunction with a vastly reduced standard of living, these plans promise a parallel reduction in longevity because a more primitive lifestyle cannot support the modern conveniences and medicine to which we have grown accustomed.

If these utopian planners were really able to reduce the already minute concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, agricultural yields would suffer significantly. They would further suffer from lack of fertilizers made from fossil

Global Youth Brigade

Page 48

fuels. The net result would be an inability to feed the six billion people on this planet.

In other words, there is no way that the free people of this world will let the demagogues have their way in the long run. The question is how much damage will they be able to do before the people realize they have been had? I don't know the answer to that.

Global Warming hysteria is among the worst mass hysterias of all times and among the worst scientific hoaxes of all times. Because it is based on economics more than on politics or religion or science, the key to eliminating it must be primarily economic. Let's stop paying scientists who earn their living by scaring us. Science needs to be returned to the objective pursuit it once was. Let's also stop subsidizing a vast array of ancillary industries that have sprung up to support Global Warming, industries that provide a net negative benefit to our society and accelerate our slide into bankruptcy.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 49

CONCLUSION
When Al Gore lost his bid to become the countrys first Environment President, many of us thought the global warming scare would finally come to a welldeserved end. That hasnt happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest. Its B-a-a-ck! Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the pastsuch as Alar, global cooling, the population bomb, and electromagnetic fieldswere eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carsons anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite. The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasnt gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating transferrable emission credits for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions. At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr.
Global Youth Brigade Page 50

Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own mini-Kyotos. Eight Reasons to End the Scam Concern over global warming is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs. 1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earths climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, 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 Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. 2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. 3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not
Global Youth Brigade Page 51

historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers expectations, modelers resort to flux adjustments that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says climate modelers have been cheating for so long its almost become respectable. 4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCCs latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: The Earths atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes. 5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the climatic optimum, was even warmer and marked a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations, observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate
Global Youth Brigade Page 52

would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today. 6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earths climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990s levels by the year 2012the target set by the Kyoto Protocolwould require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius. 7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money. 8. The best strategy to pursue is no regrets. The alternative to demands for immediate action to stop global warming is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments

Global Youth Brigade

Page 53

should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right. This strategy is called no regrets, and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas Time for Common Sense The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty. It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the global warming scam. Global warming isnt just a scientific issue. Economists are more likely than meteorologists to know what future emission levels will be, and they say the computer models used to predict future warming use flawed data, resulting in garbage in, garbage out. Global warming is also a political issue. Each of us, as citizens and voters, must decide how much power to surrender to governments and environmental advocacy groups in exchange for vague promises of reducing a small and hypothetical risk emissions.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 54

that wouldnt emerge until a century from now. Its our freedom and money that hang in the balance. It should be our choice.

Global Youth Brigade

Page 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.truenews.org/Global_Warming/how_to_stop_global_warming_madnes s.html http://www.zdnet.com/blog/green/global-warming-hoax-outted-once-more/9557 http://www.truenews.org/Global_Warming/how_to_stop_global_warming_madnes s.html http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3818 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574327992553917308 .html http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-fromhistory/climate-change-timeline/ http://www.climatechangedispatch.com//home/33-enviro-extremists/4752california-environmental-lawsuit-costs-1000-jobs http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/green-affected/7995-time-to-holdenvironmental-and-climate-doomsayers-to-account http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/08/would-obama-climate-swindle-taketens.html http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/SUTHERLANDINSTITUTETAL K.pdf http://environmental.lilithezine.com/Global-Warming-Denialism.html http://www.warminghoax.com/

Global Youth Brigade

Page 56