Doomsday is cancelled. Again. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak.

The twentieth century has seen many predictions of global destruction. In the 1930's, some scientists claimed we were in the middle of a disastrous warming trend. In the mid 1970's, others were sure we were entering a new Ice Age. And so on. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak. Proof that carbon dioxide has been the primary cause is non-existent. Climate models cannot accurately predict far-future global change. And the underlying physics of the climatic change are still wide open to debate. If you care about the environment, but don't care to be pressured into spending money on problems that don't exist, make sure you get the facts.

Write: Informed Citizens for the Environment, P.O. Box 1513, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206 or call (701) 746-4573. We'll send you the facts about global warming.

Who: Informed Citizens for the Environment (Oil Lobby)
Advert: Various outlets in ND, AZ, KY, 1991
Methane: 1724.78 ppb

Source: Desmog

Chicken Little's hysteria about the sky falling was based on a fact thar got blown out of proportion. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring.

Chicken Little's hysteria about the sky falling was based on a fact thar got blown out of proportion. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak. Proof that carbon dioxide has been the primary cause is non-existent. Climate models cannot accurately predict far-future global change. And the underlying physics of climatic change are still wide open to debate. If you care about the earth, but don't want your imagination to run away with you, make sure you get the facts.

Write Informed Citizens for the Environment, P.O. Box 1513, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206, or call toll-free 1-701-746-4573.

Who: Informed Citizens for the Environment
Advert: Various outlets in ND, AZ, KY, 1991
Methane: 1724.78 ppb

Source: Climate Files

The most serious problem with catastrophic global warming is – it may not be true.

Some forecasters say the Earth's temperature is rising They say that catastrophic global warming will take place in the years ahead. But the US Department of Agriculture-in the first update in 25 years of its "Plant Hardiness Report" -determined that on both coasts of this country, winter temperatures are 5 to 10 degrees cooler than previously reported. The evidence can be seen in the increase in cold damage to Florida orange groves and California eucaliptus. And a moving frost line has led to a shorter growing season in some parts of the South. Now, most of us aren't climatologists. But facts like these simply don't be with the theory that caus trophic global warming is taking place. Which seems to say we need more research. And more evidence. If you care about the Earth - but want to keep a cool head about it - now is your chance to get more facts. Call the Information Council for the Environment, 1-800-346-6269 extension 522. We'll send you a free packet of Information on global climate change. Or just mall us the coupon below.

Because the best environmental policy is a policy based on fact.

Who: Informed Citizens for the Environment
Advert: Various outlets in ND, AZ, KY, 1991
Methane: 1724.78 ppb

Source: Desmog

Cooling the warming hysteria... Media hype proclaiming that the sky was falling did not properly portray the consensus of the scientific community.

For the first half of 1992, America was inundated by the media with dire predictions of global warming catastrophes, all of which seemed to be aimed at heating up the rhetoric from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro last June.

Unfortunately, the media hype proclaiming that the sky was falling did not properly portray the consensus of the scientific community. After the Earth Summit, there was a noticeable lack of evidence of the sky actually falling and subsequent colder than normal temperatures across the country cooled the warming hysteria as well. Everybody, of course, remembers the Earth Summit and the tons of paper used up in reporting on it - paper now buried in landfills around the world. But few people ever heard of a major document issued at the same time and called the "Heidelberg Appeal." The reason? It just didn't make news. Perhaps that is because the Appeal urged Summit attendees to avoid making important environmental decisions based on "pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data." The Heidelberg Appeal was issued initially by some 264 scientists from around the world, including 52 Nobel Prize winners. Today, the Appeal carries the signatures of more than 2,300 scientists - 65 of them Nobel Prize winners - from 79 countries. If nothing else, its message is illustrative of what's wrong with so much of the global warming rhetoric. The lack of solid scientific data. Scientists can agree on certain facts pertaining to global warming. First, the greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon; it accounts for the moderate temperature that makes our planet habitable. Second, the concentration of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) has increased and there has been a slight increase in global temperatures over the past century. Finally, if present trends continue, carbon dioxide levels will double over the next 50 to 100 years. Controversy arises when trying to link past changes in temperatures to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. And it arises again when climate prediction models are used to conclude Earth's temperature will climb drastically in the next century and-based on such models-to propose policy decisions that could drastically affect the economy.

According to Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Robert C. Balling in his book, The Heated Debate (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992), until knowledge of the interplay between oceans and the atmosphere improves, "model predictions must be treated with considerable caution." Moreover, models don't simulate the complexity of clouds, nor do they deal adequately with sea ice, snow or changes in intensity of the sun's energy. And they don't stand up to reality testing. Comparing actual temperatures over the last 100 years against model calculations, the models predicted temperature increases higher than those that actually occurred. Moreover, most of the earth's temperature increase over the last century occurred before 1940. Yet, the real build-up in man-made CO, didn't occur until after 1940. Temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1970.

Sifting through such data, Dr. Balling has concluded, "there is al large amount of empirical evidence suggesting that the apocalyptic vision is in error and that the highly touted greenhouse

disaster is most improbable." Other scientists have an even more interesting viewpoint. Notes atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, president of the Washington, D.C. - based Science & Environmental Policy Project, "the net impact [of a modest warming] may well be beneficial." All of which would seem to suggest that the jury's still out on whether drastic steps to curb CO, emissions are needed. It would seem that the phenomenon - and its impact on the economy - are important enough to warrant considerably more research before proposing actions we may later regret. Perhaps the sky isn't falling, after all.

Who: Mobil
Advert: New York Times, 1993
Methane: 1736.53 ppb

Source: Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes

Americans work hard for what we have Mr President. Don't risk our economic future.

Generations of American families have worked hard to make America's economy the strongest in the world. But that success and the economic security of our future generations is suddenly at great risk. Because right now, our world competitors countries like China, India, Mexico, and Brazil are pressuring the United States to support a U.N. global climate agreement that would force American families to restrict our use of the oil, gasoline, and electricity that heats and cools our homes and schools, gets us to our jobs, and runs our factories and businesses. We'd have to pay more for energy, and, in turn, prices for goods and services would rise. The big countries that compete with America for jobs, trade, and economic security have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Because according to a prior agreement, they won't have to make the sacrifices Americans are expected to make. This also means America's sacrifices will not produce environmental gains. That simply isn't fair, or effective. The climate agreement that President Clinton is under pressure to sign has a big price tag mostly for American. families. It's a bad deal for America. Today. And tomorrow.

Who: Global Climate Coalition
Advert: New York Times, 1997
Methane: 1754.48 ppd

Source: Greenpeace

Adopting quick-fix measures at this point could pose grave economic risks for the world.

As the debate over climate change heats up, science is being up-staged by the call for solutions. At stake is a complex issue with many questions. Some things we know for certain. Others are far from certain.

First, we know greenhouse gases account for less than one percent of Earth's atmosphere. The ability of these gases to trap heat and warm Earth is an important part of the climate system because it makes our planet habitable. Greenhouse gases consist largely of water vapor, with smaller amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane and nitrous oxide and traces of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The focus of concern is CO₂. While most of the CO, emitted by far is the result of natural phenomena namely respiration and decomposition, most attention has centered on the three to four percent related to human activities-burning of fossil fuels, deforestation. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen in the last 100 years, leading scientists to conclude that the increase is a result of man-made activities.

Although the linkage between the greenhouse gases and global warming is one factor, other variables could be much more important in the climate system than emissions produced by man.

The UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it had found the magic bullet when it concluded that the one-degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures over the past century may bear a "fingerprint" of human activity. The fingerprint soon blurred when an IPCC lead author conceded to the "uncertainty inherent in computer climate modeling."

Nonetheless, nations at Kyoto are being asked to embrace proposals that could have potentially huge impacts on economies and lifestyles. Nations are being urged to cut emissions without knowing either the severity of the problem - that is, will Earth's temperature increase over the next 50-100 years? - or the efficacy of the solution - will cutting CO₂ emissions reduce the problem?

Within a decade. science is likely to provide more answers on what factors affect global warming, there - by improving our decision-making. We just don't have this information today.

Answers to questions on climate change will require more reliable. measurements of temperature at many places on Earth, better understanding of clouds and ocean currents along with greater computer power.

This process shouldn't be short-circuited to satisfy an artificial deadline, like the conference in Kyoto. Whatever effect increased concentrations of man-made gases may have, it will develop slowly over decades. Thus, there is time for scientists to refine their understanding of the climate system, while governments, industry and the public work to find practical means to control greenhouse gases, if such measures are called for.

Adopting quick-fix measures at this point could pose grave economic risks for the world.

Who: Mobil
Advert: New York Times, 1997
Methane: 1754.48 ppb

Source: Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes