• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

In an attempt to inject some balance into the current push for “cap-and-trade” plans that would hit anyone who uses energy with massive new taxes and limits, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has asked Congress to consider the opinion of 31,478 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who agree humans have nothing to do with any “global warming.”

In a statement to the U.S. House just days ago, Paul said, “before voting on the ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists.”

He was referring to the Petition Project, which actually was launched nearly 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, the campaign has been reinvigorated.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.

Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress.

“Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas,” Paul said. “They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.”

The petition states:

“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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson has warned that there are some very serious ramifications to assuming “global warming” results from mankind’s actions and therefore those behaviors all need to be halted.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he told WND.

Said Paul, “Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

“While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom,” Paul said.

One of the previous efforts the petition signers opposed was the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 global plan to clamp down on energy use.

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, specifically had worried about that.

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful,” he wrote.

Robinson has told WND, “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

“At a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries,” Paul said. “Yet, we will soon be considering so-called ‘cap and trade’ legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries.

WND also reported recently when Steven Chu, who was appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Energy Secretary, said white paint is what’s needed to fix global warming.

Chu told the London Times that by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color, the world would reduce carbon emissions by as much as parking all the cars in the world for 11 years.

He was speaking at the St. James’ Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, in which the Times partners for media events, when he described his simple and “completely benign” … “geo-engineering” plan.

He said building codes should require that flat roofed-buildings have their tops painted white. Visible sloped roofs could be painted “cool” colors. And roads could be made a lighter color.

“I think with flat-type roofs you can’t even see, yes, I think you should regulate quite frankly,” Chu said in the Times report.

And asked if governments should promote white paint as the global warming “solution,” he said, “Yes, absolutely … White roofs everywhere, yes.”


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.