+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IS THIS AN UNTAMPERED FILE? This ASCII-file version of ShareDebate International was packaged by Applied Foresight, Inc. (AFI hereafter). Every AFI-packaged ASCII version of ShareDebate International is distributed in either an "-AV protected" ZIP file format or a SDN (Shareware Distributors Network) protected SDN file. "AV" is the authenticity verification feature provided to registered PKZIP users, which Applied Foresight, Inc., is. If you are using the MS-DOS PKUNZIP.EXE program written by PKWARE Inc. and do not see the "-AV" message after every file is unzipped AND receive the message "Authentic files Verified! #JAA646 Applied Foresight Inc." when you unzip this file then do not trust it's integrity. If your version of PKUNZIP is not the PKWARE-authored program (for instance, you are running a non-MS-DOS version), then this message may not be displayed. (Note: version 2.04g of PKZIP was used to create this authentication message.) SDN is the major distributor of Shareware and Copyrighted Freeware and users who extract files from an SDN file with the current version of the archive utility ARJ, should see: *** Valid ARJ-SECURITY envelope signature: *** SDN International(sm) SDN#01 R#2417 This file is an SDN International(sm) Author-Direct Distribution. It should be verified for the SDN Security Seal by the FileTest utility available at The SDN Project AuthorLine BBS 203-634-0370. (Note: prior to about May, 1993, SDN used PAK to archive its distributions and its authenticity message differs from the above.) Trust only genuine AFI-packaged archives ... anything else may be just that: ANYTHING ELSE. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (Miscellaneous Internet Libernet Reprints) Editor's Introduction: These reprints reprints are from Libernet mail-list postings which individually appeared in one of the daily Libernet batch mailings. When one participates in the Libernet mail-list, a policy file is sent stating: "ATTRIBUTION: Libernet messages are frequently reprinted in other publications, along with an acknowledgement of the posting party. If you do not wish this to happen, please indicate so in your posting. Otherwise, it is assumed that all postings to Libernet may be reproduced provided ackowledgement of the author is given." It is this paragraph that "authorizes" this reprint. If the posting has a copyright and has distribution restrictions, their terms are retained and published below and adhered to. If you want to subscribe to Libernet, send email to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu and follow the instructions you receive in reply. Contents The titles that follow have been created or copied by the editor for ShareDebate International. Global Warming: Apocalypse or Hot Air? An Institute of Economic Affairs (UK) Press Release Proposed Oregon Property Ownership Act by Ed Snook (Liberty Network) and Kevin Starret [Miscellaneous Libernet Posting Follows] ====================================================== Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-1 ====================================================== Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 22:11:12 GMT From: igeldard@capital.demon.co.uk (Ian Geldard) Subject: IEA: Global Warming To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU * PRESS RELEASE * The Institute of Economic Affairs 2 Lord North Street, London SWIP 3LB Tel: +71 799 3745 Fax: +71 799 2137 Global Warming: Apocalypse or Hot Air?, by Roger Bate and Julian Morris, IEA Studies on the Environment No.1, Institute of Economic Affairs, ISBN: 0-255-36331-1, 56pp. #5.50 (including p&p). Belief that urgent and drastic action is needed to combat a tendency towards global warming is based on contestable science and unsound economics, according to Roger Bate and Julian Morris in a new IEA paper with a Foreward by Wilfred Beckerman. It is unnecessary to place swingeing taxes on fossil fuels nor is other government action required, say Bate and Morris in the first publication of the Institute of Economic Affairs' Environment Unit. Bate and Morris examine the scientific basis for the claim that warming is occuring and find it weak. The climatic models used are very poor at `predicting the past' - increases in temperature have been made much less than the models would have forecast given past increases in carbon dioxide emissions - and they are known to be different in many ways. Serious data problems abound: in particular, measured temperature increases probably exaggerate actual changes because, as urban areas expand, more temperature sensors are in such areas. It is unclear whether the temperature variations on which apocalyptic predictions are based are genuine trends or merely cycles which may have explanations other than the effects of carbon dioxide emissions. Bate and Morris also point out that there could be benefits from any warming which may be occuring: "If warming occurs at night, in winter and at high altitudes, as is predicted, then the effects may on balance be beneficial." (p.27) Standard economic analysis of global warming is also criticised. There are well-known defects in cost- benefit analysis, both in principle and in practice, which make it an unsuitable tool for policy-making. Economic models give widely different answers about the impacts of various policies to deal with warming. `No- regrets' policies probably *would* be regretted in practice. As Wilfred Beckerman says in his Foreward to the paper: "...today's environmental crusaders ... would, if taken seriously, impose enormous unjustified costs on society, and probably on those sections of society that can least bear them." (p.6) Bate and Morris argue that the only no-regrets policy which should be pursued is to abolish taxes and subsidies on fossil fuels to allow energy markets to function better than they do now. They reject the main current policy proposals for dealing with the global warming `problem' - in particular, limiting fossil fuel use by carbon taxes or other means and subsidising energy efficiency. Furthermore, they are sceptical of the value of subsidised research into the social and economic costs of global warming and into more complex models of climatic change. Government action is, according to Bate and Morris, likely to make matters worse rather than better. Already public money has been used to "...support hugely expensive public projects proposed by the Green lobby" (p.49) and such "railroading of investment" is likely to be counterproductive. Less than twenty years ago, the view prevailed that global cooling would be the major climatic issue of the future. If governments had acted then in accordance with that view they would have taken costly action which would have resulted in *increased* carbon dioxide emissions. The authors conclude: "There is a case for government withdrawal from actions which may be increasing GHG emissions - such as subsidising coal - but as regards further action we recommend governments do nothing." (p.49) Contacts: Roger Bate, Director, IEA Environment Unit \ Julian Morris, Fellow, IEA Environment Unit-Tel:+71 799 3745 Professor Colin Robinson, Editorial Director/ -- +-----------------------------------------------------+ | Ian Geldard | FidoNet 2:254/151 CIS 70734,426 | | London U.K. | Internet igeldard@capital.demon.co.uk | +-----------------------------------------------------+ ====================================================== Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-2 ====================================================== Date: Wed, 06 Apr 94 16:19:23 PST From: Terry Liberty-Parker Subject: Oregon Property Ownership Act To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU X-Fido-Echo: LIBERTY To: Libernet Date: 6 Apr 94 09:21:56 ======================================================= * Forwarded by Terry Liberty-Parker (1:382/91.49) * Area : AEN_NEWS (AEN_NEWS) * From : Thomas Mick, 1:105/345 (05 Apr 94 10:38) * To : All * Subj : Property Owners Protection and Empowerment Act ======================================================= The following is a proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution filed on March 1, 1994 by Ed Snook (Liberty Network) and Kevin Starret: PROPERTY OWNERS PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT BE IT ENACTED by the People of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new Section to be added to Article XV and to be appropriately numbered to read: Section 1: (A) Not withstanding the limits of Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, nor any existing Oregon Statute, neither the state, nor any of its agencies or subordinate government bodies, nor any employees thereof shall use any federal funds, state or local taxes, funds, monies or fees to regulate, deprive, take or diminish any person's rights in private property, the services of any person, or impair the obligation of any contract, in any manner for any public use or benefit without full market compensation. (B) Any person or persons injured, diminished or impaired for public benefit in a manner described in Section 1 (A) of this Act shall be entitled to a judgment which shall be determined by twelve circuit court jurors, who have been fully informed, in writing which includes all of this Act, of their constitutional powers to weigh both law and fact in reaching an indictment or verdict in any such case in the state. (C) Any party injured by violations of any part of this Act are permitted to sue for treble damages plus all costs and attorney fees. Judgment by the jury shall be final. PARAGRAPH 2. The following definitions shall apply in subsections (A), (B), and (C) of Section 1 of this Act. (a) Federal funding means any funds from any federal source to be used for any state or local purpose. (b) State, county and city funds are those that may be derived from taxes, sale of property, monies from fees or licenses or any other source. (c) Lottery or gaming funds means those derived from any state regulated lotteries or games. (d) Private property includes all real property, improvement, personal, professional and all other kinds of property of whatever nature. (e) Employees include those of the judiciary, special taxing and service districts, agency administrators, and appointees of state and interstate or inter-governmental commissions or pacts. (f) A "taking", pertaining to value or use, means to diminish, impair, steal, blemish, damage, harm, hurt, destroy or injure in any manner. (g) Impair means to destroy, obliterate, annihilate, liquidate, remove, injure or kill. (h) Diminish means to abate, moderate, modify, decrease, pare, qualify or contract. (i) Full compensation means the difference in value of the property before and after the property was identified as public use property, plus attorney fees or other costs incurred by the property owner to collect the amount due. (j) Public us or benefit means a situation wherein the public gains an advantage, consequence, distinction, importance, profit, reputation or repute. PARAGRAPH 3. If any provision, clause, or section of this measure is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions or clauses and phrases shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. -+- Origin: *Sons of Liberty* Beaverton, Oregon (1:105/345) ### [End of Miscellaneous Libernet Postings] ###