Thanks 30. I could not agree more. I like this organization already. Here is there stand on Global Warming.
THE ISSUE
Some climatologists believe that the earth is warming and that this warming presents a danger to humans and to the planet. Many of these climate experts claim there is evidence that man's activities (specifically the burning of fossil fuels) are the driving force behind the warming trend that they believe is taking place. These same scientists say that it would be prudent for governments to attempt to lessen this warming by reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. A minority of climatologists disagree. These scientists point to a lot of inconsistencies in the climate record, insufficient data, and the unreliability of computer modeling, as reasons to be skeptical of the so-called global warming "consensus." Many of these skeptical scientists believe that man's activities are probably contributing to a warming of the planet, but that the level of warming is insignificant and that even a full-scale worldwide effort to curtail the emission of greenhouse gasses would have no measurable impact.
CARE's POSITION
It is discouraging to hear notable climatologists speak with certainty on the issue of climate change, asserting that man's activities are warming the planet and that this warming could potentially have catastrophic consequences. Just 30 years ago some of these same scientists were among the experts proclaiming the "consensus" view that the earth was cooling-perhaps dramatically so-and that cataclysm might be approaching.
A review of the pertinent facts below (by no means a complete list) reveals a level of complexity and uncertainty that is truly mind-boggling. CARE's position, therefore, bypasses the debate on if the earth is warming and what/who may be causing it, and instead focuses on the issue of what can be done about it. On this count, the facts are much more clear. Even if all the world's nations spent hundreds of billions of dollars on simply reducing their level of greenhouse emissions (and were successful), the benefit would be in fractions of a degree so small it would be impossible to measure with any certainty.
Spending enormous sums of money on a non-solution to a problem that may not be a problem makes no sense. Placing mandatory caps on industries for greenhouse gas emissions will drive up the cost of living for Americans with no environmental benefit to anyone. However, working to reduce the amount of pollution industrial societies pump into the atmosphere by developing new and better technologies is a priority worthy of substantial investment.
