Out of all of the problems facing our world, the G-8 decided to focus on global warming during this week’s conference.  All of the major media stories about the G-8 this week have primarily focused on global warming, negotiations between developed and developing countries about global warming, and President Bush’s newfound willingness to commit the United States to a treaty to cut carbon emissions to halt global warming.  Even the logo for this year’s summit has a vine with leaves growing out of it to signify the focus on the environment.  I hope I’m not the only one who thinks that paying this much lip service to the environmentalist lefties is completely insane.

People in the United States, and around the world, should really think about how their leaders benefit them and their fellow countrymen by completely wasting a G-8 summit, and their tax dollars, on promoting environmentalist propaganda that has not even been conclusively scientifically proven as fact.  President Bush completely wasted the money and time of the American people by even going to Japan for this summit, and plans to waste even more of our money in trying to implement environmental restrictions here at home for the sake of curbing global warming.  His future successor, whether it be Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, will impose even more restrictions than Bush has expressed he’s comfortable with.

I like to breathe clean air, I enjoy seeing trees around, and I even recycle, but when the government says it wants to impose restrictions on business, keep America dependent on foreign oil, and cause suffering across the U.S. by making citizens pay $4 a gallon gas, all because of global warming, that’s not a policy I can support.

No matter how many movies Al Gore makes, or how many Nobel Prizes he wins, the truth remains that attributing global warming to carbon emissions caused by humans is not scientific fact.  The environmentalist propaganda machine, working with the UN and other left leaning agencies and governments, simply wants to keep the poorest countries in the world from developing and being able to feed themselves so that developed countries can go bankrupt doling out aid, and eventually everyone will be equally poor.  Thus, the socialist utopia will be realized.  The only way everyone can be equal, is if we are all poor.  Economic equality can’t exist with the expectation that everyone in the world will have the same standard of living the middleclass of America enjoy.

Over 31,000 American scientists have asserted that, “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 Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”  The research this statement is based on has been posted online.

Scientists from around the world have also come to the same conclusions.  A U.S. Senate report released last December documents over 400 scientists from more than two dozen countries who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”  The report points out that, “Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.  In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), which was recognized jointly with Gore for the Nobel.  Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explained in the Senate report that, “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.”

Professor Philip Stott, from the University of London said in 2001 about the IPPC’s work that, "In the last month alone, serious scientific studies have undermined the whole basis of these predictions, with the temperature over the oceans seen as exaggerated by up to 40% and the very relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature questioned."  He added that, "The IPCC models and correlations are not new; they are re-cycled 'old hat'.  It is essentially a political response to the collapse of The Hague climate talks."

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, listed among the experts in a 2001 report by the National of Sciences that was supposed to end the debate on global warming by declaring the dangers scientifically proven, noted that, “neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published.  It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.”

Instead of realizing that maybe global warming isn’t really a problem governments can deal with, since it is part of a natural heating and cooling cycle that has been correlated to activity on the Sun, world leaders have instead decided to waste lots of time and money on conferences and unneeded development restrictions, while hampering the freedom of countries like America to do profitable business and become energy independent. 

The G-8’s big decision to curb global warming is to halve the emission of greenhouse gases by 2050.  A huge problem with that decision is that no one agreed upon a base year of emissions in which to halve.  Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, remarked that, "To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," adding, "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan."