Cap and Trade Revisited

The Democrats are hoping to push through Cap and Trade during the present lame duck session of Congress.  The bill already passed the house but now needs Senate confirmation. LINK   A recent article by Clive Hamilton LINK published in ABC's The Drum Unleashed espoused the typical liberal view that the science of global warming is settled and something should be done to halt it.  Without specifically mentioning it, I think Mr. Hamilton is pushing for Cap and Trade.  In support of his comments regarding the settled science of global warming and
the inevitable catastrophe that awaits us, he states the following:

"I have tried to find some new studies that go the other way (meaning that there is no global warming, italics mine) in the hope I can counterbalance this bleak story, but have not succeeded."

As Mr. Hamilton had trouble finding arguments to the contrary regarding global warming, I thought I'd give him a helping hand.

Dr. Kauffman of the University of Sciences published an article in The Journal of Scientific Exploration LINK that thoroughly debunks the concept of global warming.  He does not say that climate change does not occur but that the concept that man is causing this is totally false.  His list of references should help Mr. Hamilton find opposing viewpoints. Dr. Kauffman is of the opinion that:

"Forced limits on C02 emissions will not be productive and will cause serious drops in living standards in industrialized countries, if adopted."

Dr. Jaworowski, an eminent expert of CO2 analysis in ice cores and glacial drilling investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data and wrote a paper titled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time". LINK  He concluded

"During the past 3,000 years, one can observe a clear cooling trend in the Earth’s climate (Keigwin et al. 1994, and Khilyuk and Chilingar 2006). During this period, the global temperature deviations were 3°C, with a trend of decreasing global temperature of about 2°C. As Khilyuk and Chilingar stated: “This cooling tendency will probably last in the future.  We live in the cooling geologic period and the global warming observed during the last approximately 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history.” ....Not man, but nature rules the climate. The Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC reports, tuned by Malthusian ideas, may surely make a lot of noise and cause enormous harm for the global economy and for the well-being of billions of people. But they can do nothing for the climate. This we shall learn in the near future."

Dr. Jaworowski's references should give Mr. Hamilton quite a few more of opposing viewpoints.

Dr. Essenhigh of Ohio State University also refutes the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming and provides a rather in depth analysis of the subject. LINK He along with others not only believe but have demonstrated that water vapor is the main cause of heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. Dr. Essenhigh invites any and all discourse on the subject with the following statement

"The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers."

Mr. Hamilton, just as most liberals, is not concerned with the facts but rather acts on emotion.  In support of his arguments and media bias against global warming, he quotes Tim Holmes (?)

"The implications are deeply disturbing, not only for our prospects of tackling climate change, but for basic standards of honesty and integrity in journalism."

An interesting quote, but who is Tim Holmes?  It turns out that he is just another liberal and obviously supports Hamilton's point of view.  Before you talk about honesty and integrity in journalism, look in the mirror.  By the way if you need anymore opposing viewpoints to global warming, look a little harder.