Scientists conclude global warming is “unequivocal”

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

Will ethanol in gas help with global warming?

Does ethanol in gas increase oil profit and use?

Burning Ethanol releases about the same amount of carbon dioxide as gasoline, so using Ethanol in gas will not reduce the emissions that cause global warming.

As an energy source it is controversial. Some studies sugest it requires more energy to produce ethanol than is recieved from burning it. I don't know whether it increases profits on or use of oil, I suspect not.

Ethanol produces about 27% MPG than straight gasoline. It also produces VOC (volatile organic compounds) smog in the summer. Engines would have to be completely redesigned in order to take advantage of any real ethanol benefits. It's a political statement rather than an energy comittment. Our air continues to get cleaner and there is no reason why engine technology can't make gasoline the viable energy source, since we have a wealth of oil deposits.

They totally ignore the nearly 20,000 climate scientists that signed a petition rejecting Kyoto and Global Warming as it is presented. Only about 1100 of the 2500 IPCC panel are scientists, what kind nobody seems to know. It is absurd to make a statement such as "unequivocal" when there as many climate scientists disputing GW, such as the entire AMS (American Meteoroligists Society). Anytime someone tries to shut down debate on such a controverial UN-exact science, red flags should wave all over the place. I would advise everyone to research the facts and not be sucked up by the one-sided debate driven by the UN's desire to impose a "carbon tax" on every human being. 35 cents per gallon gas tax has been suggested to start with, along with myriads of regulations and government controls. It would be the most massive shift of power from the private sector to government ever. 523 TRILLION dollars is the estimated cost over this century. Should anyone look farther to find the motivation behind this scam?

One should not accept the IPCC report simply because of the number of scientists involved, many of them leading scientists in the field of climatology, one should accept the IPCC report because it overwhelmingly represents the main stream scientific view on global warming. No has "shut down" the scientific debate on global warming. Those with contrarian views must pass the rigors of peer review. Everything in the IPCC report is peer reviewed science, contrarians must meet the same standard.

The "Oregon Petition" is not a scientific document but a political document consisting of two paragraphs. It is an attempt to mislead the public. Many of the signatories were mislead in signing this petition.

The American Meteorological Society does in fact accept global warming and the anthropogenic contibution. A statement recently issued by the AMS insists the AMS view on climate change is consistent with the IPCC's assessment.