Heritage
"The Heritage Foundation is one of the world's most prominent conservative think tanks. Founded in 1973, it is based in Washington, D.C., in the United States.
"Heritage's stated mission is to 'formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.'"
Statements
"There has never been much doubt that the release of carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere and a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, has some warming effect on the planet. But the impact of man-made emissions of this greenhouse gas may be minor. The real issues are whether or not the release of carbon dioxide is a significant factor relative to natural temperature variability, what the likely consequences of warming would be, and what should be done about it.
"Given that the current upward trend in temperatures is not unprecedented, it stands to reason that minor warming will not lead to unprecedented catastrophes, and scientific evidence confirms this. According to recent research, the planet and its inhabitants are much more resilient to temperature variability than had been previously assumed, and the warming over the last few decades has not been particularly harmful to humans or the environment. Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding global warming is speculative and lies outside the scientific consensus. In fact, several respected economists believe that any likely future warming would have benefits (such as increased crop yields) that outweigh the modest adverse impacts in the U.S.
"There are risks to global warming, but there are also risks to global warming policies. Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—provide the world with most of its energy. It will be costly to ratchet down emissions from fossil fuels enough to make even a modest dent in the earth's future temperature. The Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty that places a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will actually accomplish very little. If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050. The costs of capping carbon dioxide are large and immediate, but the benefits are small and remote. And a poorer world, which Kyoto would give us, would have less ability to deal with whatever challenges the future brings.
The current administration has taken a very sensible approach to global warming. Rather than engage in extremely costly efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing sources, the administration has wisely steered clear of carbon caps. ... Instead, Washington has focused on research into new technologies that may be able to produce energy with fewer carbon dioxide emissions in a cost-effective manner. ... This approach will lead to economically practical solutions that could be employed if they prove to be necessary, rather than economically ruinous immediate measures imposed whether or not they are needed."
-- Excerpts from Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming. March 21, 2007.
References
Heritage Foundation Website: Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming
Heritage Foundation Website: Global Warming
Wikipedia Entry: Heritage Foundation