Some scientists are so convinced that man-made global warming is now unstoppable and harmful that they are proposing to artificially tamper with the atmosphere to "fix it". If we truly are heading in to a period of low solar activity (cooling), as NASA and many others have predicted, this god like action to slow "global warming" could kill millions from cold and starvation.

We try to avoid fear mongering here and base our arguments on science. Historically science has generally been used to counter ignorance and prejudice, today science is often used to justify political correctness, to gain social acceptance or as a means to gaining power and wealth. When used incorrectly science can cause ignorance and prejudice. When science losses its built in skepticism it can be nearly impossible for the average person to know what to trust. We can find no better reason to fear the current politically tainted scientific community then the current push towards "geoengineering" to "fix" our climate.

As has been reported here in previous articles there have been several studies that say even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero the planet will continue to warm. The latest study claims we'll continue to warm for the next 500 years. No one believes we can cut our CO2 emissions to zero anytime soon and with reports like this one "China's 2030 CO2 Emissions Could Equal the Entire World's Today" it would hardly be worth other developed countries even trying. Not that we believe any of the malarkey about a planet doomed by CO2 but there are many on the left and some vocal scientists that do. This unfounded fear and the media's mass-hysteria is very dangerous. Cooling the planet at a time that we're heading in to a Dalton or Maunder Minimum level of solar activity could be disastrous! 

With a lack of traditional science, partisans on both sides, and enormous consequences depending on popular opinion and political will, it is important that people understand the evidence in the debate over global warming. Unfortunately, most people do not have the time, desire, or ability to undertake an independent study of the issues. Recognizing this, advocates have “packaged” their evidence with charts, graphs, and other visual exhibits designed to have maximum impact with minimal effort on the part of the public. These displays, while appearing to present hard facts, are often misleading.

Environmental activists may be tempted to exaggerate their case in order to convince the public and politicians of the validity of their scenarios. This was illustrated in a statement made by climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, one-time adviser to Vice President Al Gore and author of the book Global Warming: Are We entering the Greenhouse Century? (1989). Schneider said that in order to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change, “we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” 

“Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate” notes graphics are an integral component of the national discussion on climate change. They convey vast amounts of complex information in a way that is easily understood ... and easily manipulated.

Author Ronald J. Rychlak notes, “Advocates have ‘packaged’ their evidence with charts, graphs, and other visual exhibits designed to have maximum impact with minimal effort on the part of the public. The manipulation of visuals--bar and line graphs, pie charts, even photographs--has proven to be a highly effective way to offer up scary scenarios ... and it is easily done. 

While the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) makes it clear that the scientific debate is tilting away from global warming alarmism, we are pleased to see the political debate also is not over. Global warming ‘skeptics’ in the policy arena include Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic; Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor; and Lord Nigel Lawson, former United Kingdom chancellor of the exchequer. On the other side are global warming fearmongers, including UK science advisor Sir David King and his predecessor Robert May (now Lord May), and of course Al Gore, former vice president of the U.S. In spite of increasing pressures to join Kyoto and adopt emission limits on carbon dioxide, President George W. Bush in the United States has resisted – so far.

We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism.

We hope this study will help bring reason and balance back into the debate over climate change, and by doing so perhaps save the peoples of the world from the burden of paying for wasteful, unnecessary energy and environmental policies. We stand ready to defend the analysis and conclusion in the study that follows, and to give further advice to policymakers who are openminded on this most important topic.