“Petición Sobre el Calentamiento Global” Firmada por 31.478 Científicos (Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists)

Español:

Traducido por RonPaulSpanish.com

Ron Paul Ante la Casa de Representantes de los EE.UU., 4 de junio de 2009

Versión para ImprimirPlaneta Tierra / Planet Earth

Señora Presidenta, antes de votar sobre la legislación “Cap-and-trade” (Tope-y-Comercio), mis colegas deberían considerar las opiniones expresadas en la siguiente petición que fue firmada por 31.478 científicos americanos:

“Instamos al gobierno de los Estados Unidos a rechazar el acuerdo sobre el calentamiento global que fuera escrito en Kyoto, Japón, en diciembre de 1997, y cualquier otra propuesta similar. Los límites propuestos para los gases de efecto invernadero serán en detrimento del medio ambiente, dificultarán el avance de la ciencia y la tecnología, y dañarán la salud y el bienestar de la humanidad.No hay pruebas científicas convincentes de que la liberación por los humanos de dióxido de carbono, metano, u otros gases sea la causa o vaya a ser, en el futuro previsible, causa del calentamiento catastrófico de la atmósfera terrestre y de perturbaciones en el clima de la Tierra. Además, hay evidencia científica sustancial de que los aumentos de dióxido de carbono atmosférico produce muchos efectos benéficos sobre los ambientes naturales vegetales y animales de la Tierra.”

istribuida por correo por un distinguido grupo de científicos americanos con el apoyo de un concluyente examen de literatura científica revisada entre colegas, esta puede ser la declaración con más vigor y más bastamente apoyada sobre este tema que haya sido hecha por la comunidad científica. Una lista de firmantes ordenada por estados, que incluye a 9.029 hombres y mujeres con títulos de Doctorado, una lista de sus especialidades académicas, y un resumen revisado por colegas sobre los fundamentos científicos en este tema están disponibles en www.PetitionProject.org.

El resumen revisado, “Efectos Ambientales del Aumento de Dióxido de Carbono Atmosférico” (“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”) por A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, y W. Soon, incluye 132 referencias a literatura científica y fue distribuida con la petición.
Entre los firmantes de esta petición hay 3.803 con entrenamiento específico en ciencias atmosféricas, de la Tierra y ambientales. Todos los 31.478 firmantes tienen el entrenamiento necesario en física, química y matemática para entender y evaluar los datos científicos relevantes a la hipótesis de un calentamiento global causado por los humanos y de los efectos de las actividades humanas sobre la calidad del medio ambiente.

En una carta distribuida con esta petición, Frederick Seitz (Presidente Emérito de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de los EE.UU., Presidente Emérito de la Universidad Rockefeller, y receptor del Título de Doctor Honoris Causa de 32 Universidades de todo el mundo) escribió:

“Los Estados Unidos están muy cerca de la adopción de un acuerdo internacional que racionará el uso de energía y tecnologías que dependan del carbón, petróleo, gas natural y otros compuestos orgánicos.
“Este tratado está, en nuestra opinión, basado en ideas viciadas. Los datos de investigaciones acerca del cambio climático no muestran que el uso humano de hidrocarburos sea perjudicial. Por el contrario, hay buena prueba de que el incremento del dióxido de carbono atmosférico es útil para el medio ambiente.
“El acuerdo propuesto tendrá efectos muy negativos en la tecnología de las naciones de todo el mundo; especialmente en aquellas que están intentando levantarse de la pobreza y proveer de oportunidades a 4 mil millones de personas en países subdesarrollados tecnológicamente.
“Es especialmente importante para los Estados Unidos el escuchar a sus ciudadanos que tienen el entrenamiento necesario para evaluar los datos pertinentes y ofrecer asesoramiento.”

Señora presidenta, en un momento en que nuestra nación enfrenta una grave escasez en la producción nacional de energía y una seria contracción económica, deberíamos reducir las cargas fiscales y las regulaciones que plagan nuestras industrias productoras de energía.
Sin embargo, pronto estaremos considerando la legislación llamada “cap-and-trade”, que incrementará las cargas fiscales y la regulación de las industrias energéticas. La “cap-and-trade” como mínimo, sino más, dañará nuestra economía como lo hace el tratado mencionado por el profesor Seitz. Esta legislación está siendo apoyada por los que abogan los argumentos del “calentamiento global” y el “cambio climático” –argumentos que, como lo demuestran las 31.478 firmas de la petición del profesor Seitz, muchos científicos Estadounidenses creen desmentidos por un extenso trabajo de experimentación y observación.

Es tiempo de que miremos más allá de quienes buscan aumentos de cargas fiscales, aumento de regulaciones y el control del pueblo Americano. Nuestras políticas de energía deben estar basadas en hechos científicos –no en películas de ficción o en agendas internacionales con algún interés propio. Deberían basarse en los logros de la libre empresa proporcionada por nuestra civilización moderna, incluidas nuestras industrias energéticas. Esa libre empresa no debe ser obstaculizada por falsas declaraciones sobre desastres imaginarios.

Por sobre todo, nunca debemos olvidar nuestro contrato con el pueblo americano – la Constitución que provee la única fuente de legitimidad de nuestro gobierno. Esa Constitución requiere que preservemos los derechos humanos básicos de nuestro pueblo – incluyendo el derecho de libremente crear, usar y vender energía producida por cualquier medio que ideen –incluyendo generadores nucleares, de hidrocarburos, solares, eólicos, o incluso de bicicleta.
Si bien es evidente que el derecho humano a producir y usar energía no se extiende a actividades que realmente pongan en peligro el Clima de la Tierra del que todos dependemos, no deberían usarse argumentos falsos sobre peligros climáticos como justificación para limitar aún más la libertad del pueblo Americano.

En conclusión, una vez más insto a mis colegas a que consideren cuidadosamente los argumentos formulados por los 31.478 científicos americanos que han firmado esta petición, antes de votar por cualquier legislación que imponga nuevas legislaciones o cargas fiscales al pueblo americano en nombre de la interrupción del cambio climático.

Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
By Ron Paul
Published 06/15/09
Printer-friendly version
Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, 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:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
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.”
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.
Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.
In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:
“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
“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.
“The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
“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.
“We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”
Madam Speaker, 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.
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap-and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates — claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.
It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. 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.
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.
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

English:

Ron Paul Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Printer-friendly version

Madam Speaker, 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:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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.”

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:

“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

“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.

“The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

“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.”

Madam Speaker, 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.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap-and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates — claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. 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.

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.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

Todavía no hay comentarios... Una buena oportunidad para que seas el primero en dejar uno!

Leave a Reply