AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to millions of articles from top publications available through your library.
The real nature of the "science" of climate change (supposedly due to the greenhouse effect of gases liberated by energy conversion) and the deliberate deceit involved in writing the UN Intergovernmental Panel's report on the matter was documented by Seitz in 1996. I reported on that in the September 1996 issue of Energy.
That it is in reality a "greenhoax" effect has meanwhile become quite clear not only to scientists like Seitz, who had informed themselves of the actual facts that are the "basis" of the Kyoto protocol, but also to natural scientists, statisticians, and others who were originally taken in by this purely political tool. These people have access to those facts and enough honesty to admit that they were hoodwinked.
If elected representatives/senators of both major US parties want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by industry, as mentioned in the January 13, 2003 issue of Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), that can only have political but no scientific meaning. And if industry wants to do so voluntarily, then it will meanwhile have realized that more efficient energy use will save it money in the long run, as European industries found out years ago.
Let me repeat that, in brief, there are fundamental reasons why the human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gases is unlikely to make a major difference:
* The amount of such gases that we contribute to the atmosphere is minimal.
* Computer modeling, merely including all major (and mostly still unknown) effects on climate, would be …