Why I am Cool to Global Warming – Part 4 (and Last): Good Science Does Not Play Politics by Larry Stout
Why I am Cool to Global Warming – Part 4 (and Last): Good Science Does Not Play Politics by Larry Stout
Julian Simon, the late and great economist, was speaking at an environmental forum and asked the participants, "How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?"
Every hand went up.
Simon followed up, "Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?"
Nothing.
Again he tried, "Is there any evidence I could give you – anything at all – that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?"
Not a stir.
Simon smiled and said, "Well, excuse me, I am not dressed for church."
The global warming activists hide behind a pretense that they are simply looking at objective facts, but the truth of the matter is that they are operating with a base of assumptions that they hold with virtual religious fervency. One of the reasons is that this issue gives those who operate from a politically liberal mindset a hammer that they can use on every nail (i.e. problem) in society today. Last week, the UN Security Council met in special session (!) to discuss global warming. "This is an issue that threatens the peace and security of the whole planet," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. The recognition that this is an immediate threat was echoed by Julian Vandeburie, a Belgian delegate to an international climate conference in Brussels recently when she compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not." No, she was not talking about Islamic terrorists – she was referring to global warming. Not to be outdone, on Friday, the United States House of Representatives will consider the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
Now, the United Nations and the European Union can beat the drum as loud as they like, but for my hard earned tax dollars, I would rather see the Intelligence community spend its funds examining more immediate problems such as the nuclear capabilities of pariah states like North Korea and Iran rather than pondering carbon dioxide levels and crop yields. Yet in the Alice in Wonderland World of Global Warming – everything relates back to this issue.
Why? What makes this issue so critical? It cannot be the immediate danger because the only actual hard evidence to date is a one degree – get that – ONE DEGREE CELSIUS – increase in global temperatures this past century. The simple fact is that behind the rhetoric of global warming is a hard left political agenda. French President Jacques Chirac admitted as much when he said that the Kyoto Protocol Treaty represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."
Those who agree with this thinly disguised vehicle for greater state control, particularly from the United Nations, argue that the imminent dangers warrant these measures. But world leaders who disagree, such as Czech President Vaclav Klaus, recognize that poor nations will be hurt tremendously with little to no benefit to the environment. Klaus noted that fighting global warming has turned into a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms.
Real science is not afraid of the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. But the stakes in the global warming debate are extremely high because huge amounts of funding are generated by perpetuating it and also because it opens the doors to massive intrusions on capitalist enterprise. Much is made of the global warming "consensus" but I have had personal experience with being cut out when submitting a scientific paper that disagrees with popular opinion. (“Your paper represents an intriguing thesis but does not meet the parameters of our focus…”) The global warming advocates argue loudly that the only scientists who disagree with the 'consensus' are those in league with the major oil companies. Yet there are currently 17,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologist, meteorologist, oceanographers, chemists, biologists and other scientists in the environmental areas who have signed the Global Warming Petition which is paid entirely by private donations, refusing any corporate sponsorship to avoid any appearance of prejudice. Initiated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, the Global Warming Petition essentially argues that the Kyoto Treaty is based on flawed ideas. Do not be fooled by media hype – there is a very strong and emerging dissenting view which is at odds with the UN-sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) view of the cause and consequence of global warming.
It is unfair for those who advocate global warming to label those who are skeptical to this idea as insensitive to the preservation of the environment. Christians should be the most "green" of all groups, because we have a mandate from the Lord God to be responsible stewards to this earth. Global warming alarmists are practicing dishonest science. They believe that their voice is the only one that should be heard. But as an electronics store clerk once told me, the size of the speakers does not make bad music sound any better.
Julian Simon, the late and great economist, was speaking at an environmental forum and asked the participants, "How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?"
Every hand went up.
Simon followed up, "Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?"
Nothing.
Again he tried, "Is there any evidence I could give you – anything at all – that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?"
Not a stir.
Simon smiled and said, "Well, excuse me, I am not dressed for church."
The global warming activists hide behind a pretense that they are simply looking at objective facts, but the truth of the matter is that they are operating with a base of assumptions that they hold with virtual religious fervency. One of the reasons is that this issue gives those who operate from a politically liberal mindset a hammer that they can use on every nail (i.e. problem) in society today. Last week, the UN Security Council met in special session (!) to discuss global warming. "This is an issue that threatens the peace and security of the whole planet," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. The recognition that this is an immediate threat was echoed by Julian Vandeburie, a Belgian delegate to an international climate conference in Brussels recently when she compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not." No, she was not talking about Islamic terrorists – she was referring to global warming. Not to be outdone, on Friday, the United States House of Representatives will consider the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
Now, the United Nations and the European Union can beat the drum as loud as they like, but for my hard earned tax dollars, I would rather see the Intelligence community spend its funds examining more immediate problems such as the nuclear capabilities of pariah states like North Korea and Iran rather than pondering carbon dioxide levels and crop yields. Yet in the Alice in Wonderland World of Global Warming – everything relates back to this issue.
Why? What makes this issue so critical? It cannot be the immediate danger because the only actual hard evidence to date is a one degree – get that – ONE DEGREE CELSIUS – increase in global temperatures this past century. The simple fact is that behind the rhetoric of global warming is a hard left political agenda. French President Jacques Chirac admitted as much when he said that the Kyoto Protocol Treaty represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."
Those who agree with this thinly disguised vehicle for greater state control, particularly from the United Nations, argue that the imminent dangers warrant these measures. But world leaders who disagree, such as Czech President Vaclav Klaus, recognize that poor nations will be hurt tremendously with little to no benefit to the environment. Klaus noted that fighting global warming has turned into a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms.
Real science is not afraid of the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. But the stakes in the global warming debate are extremely high because huge amounts of funding are generated by perpetuating it and also because it opens the doors to massive intrusions on capitalist enterprise. Much is made of the global warming "consensus" but I have had personal experience with being cut out when submitting a scientific paper that disagrees with popular opinion. (“Your paper represents an intriguing thesis but does not meet the parameters of our focus…”) The global warming advocates argue loudly that the only scientists who disagree with the 'consensus' are those in league with the major oil companies. Yet there are currently 17,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologist, meteorologist, oceanographers, chemists, biologists and other scientists in the environmental areas who have signed the Global Warming Petition which is paid entirely by private donations, refusing any corporate sponsorship to avoid any appearance of prejudice. Initiated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, the Global Warming Petition essentially argues that the Kyoto Treaty is based on flawed ideas. Do not be fooled by media hype – there is a very strong and emerging dissenting view which is at odds with the UN-sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) view of the cause and consequence of global warming.
It is unfair for those who advocate global warming to label those who are skeptical to this idea as insensitive to the preservation of the environment. Christians should be the most "green" of all groups, because we have a mandate from the Lord God to be responsible stewards to this earth. Global warming alarmists are practicing dishonest science. They believe that their voice is the only one that should be heard. But as an electronics store clerk once told me, the size of the speakers does not make bad music sound any better.
login to post comments
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License