Those that believe that human actions are causing global warming, or its rebranded theme of ‘climate change,” tend to denigrate, insult, slur, and demean those of us that have our doubts about global warming, climate change and mankind’s actions and impacts on such situations. These believers accuse us doubters of being ignorant of science and stupid for not seeing the world as they see it.
For the past year or so we have pretty much killed off that accusation by showing dozens of ways in which global warming doubters have as much science, if not more science, on their side showing that manmade global warming and climate change do not exist. A summary of those past posts can be found in the first update we did two days ago at the following link:
As you go through those previous posts, an open minded person cannot help but think that the whole global warming scare was just that, a scare. From research done by the CERN Institute in Europe, the foremost physics lab and group of scientists in the world, to the fact that the earth’s temperature has remained steady for the past 17 years or so to the fact that almost 100% of the global warming forecast models have been utterly wrong over the years in forecasting the earth’s temperature, scientific methods and realities have shown that it is possible to be a global warming doubter and a strict adherent to the scientific process.
But as you see in these previous posts, we have proposed a straight forward, minimal government solution that would cover either end game, regarding global warming and climate change due to mankind’s actions. It is a win-win for both sides of the argument but cannot become a reality until the likes of Barack Obama, Al Gore, and others stop the name calling and sit down to come up with an adult conversation and an adult solution, similar to the one we propose. Until that happens, we will continue to make our case of being a global warming doubter and a believer in science, as the following points show.
1) Patrick Moore, Ph.D. is the co-founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace, certainly one of the most avid environmentalist groups around. In testimony he gave in front of the U.S. Senate’s Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight on Feb. 25, he debunked
claims that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are responsible for global warming.
In addition, he asserted that a warmer temperature would be "far better" than a cooler one. Some of his testimony quotes include the following:
- "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years."
- "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming' since the mid-20th century. Extremely likely is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law.’"
- Moore, who is currently the chairman emeritus of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, Canada, also told the subcommittee: "Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
- "The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to 'human influence. They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase since the mid-20th century. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by 'human influence,' when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?"
- "Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization."
- "It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today's would be far better than a cooler one."
Wow, a person in the scientific and environmental movement who actually looked at historical data in a logical and rational manner and concluded that the global warming/climate change theory really does not standup to logic or historical reality. Moore’s testimony appeared courtesy of a NewsMax article from March 2, 2014.
I wonder if AL Gore would accuse Mr. Moore of being a racist or a homophobe like he accused other doubters of global warming to be. I wonder if the President would accuse Mr. Moore of being like the flat earth adherents from centuries ago like he recently accused the global warming doubters to be.
2) John Kerry is the current Secretary of State. He is not a weatherman. He did not found Greenpeace like John Moore helped do. He is not a scientist. He is a career politician, nothing more. But that did not stop him from checking in on the global warming issue when he recently stated in a speech in Indonesia that climate change was “another weapon of mass destruction.”
Given what we have discussed recently in this series, namely that the earth’s average temperature has not changed in about 17 years, that the polar ice caps are expanding, that every global warming forecast has been embarrassingly wrong, that Al Gore falsely predicted that the North Pole ice cap would dissolve by 2013, and given Kerry’s total lack of background in this area, I find his assertion to be totally ignorant and dangerous.
As Secretary of State, he should be focusing on the renewal of the Cold War with Russia, the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea, and international terrorism, the real weapons of mass destruction and shut up about something is knows nothing about and is not qualified to talk about.
3) In early February, 2014, Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Bill Nye, the "science guy," faced off on a Sunday edition of Meet the Press to discuss global warming/climate change. As one might expect, Nye was in favor of drastic steps to control climate change due to mankind's actions in the world today.
However, he made a few comments that need to be examined for their logic and validity:
- During the interview he claimed that there is no longer a "debate in the scientific community" over climate change. We know that this is not correct, having reviewed a University of Oregon effort where tens of thousands of scientists signed a document saying that global warming/climate change was NOT a settled debate, having reviewed a letter signed by dozens of NASA scientists and astronauts criticizing NASA for assuming that global warming was a fact when they felt there was not enough scientific basis for that conclusion, and having reviewed the research out of the CERN Institute showing that global warming was mostly a function of the sun’s activity, not mankind’s activity.
- Nye asserted during the show that, “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to understand what’s going on, that we have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing.” That is a correct statement but that does not mean mankind has changed it. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, e.g. the Ice Age, and to say we need to kill freedom and our economy because the climate is changing is a ridiculous statement to make, the climate has always been changing.
- The Congresswoman made the point that, “When you look at the fact that we have gone from 320 parts per million — 0.032 to 0.040 — 400 parts per million [carbon dioxide in the atmosphere], you realize it’s very slight.” At which point Nye went ballistic, "That’s 30 percent. I mean, that’s an enormous change. And it’s changing the world. And that’s just over the last few decades.” Yes, it went up 30% but 30% of a very small amount is still a very small amount no matter how you look at it. At no point in the conversation did he show how the increase affected climate, just that it must have since it went up 30%.
- The Congresswoman did point out that Nye is not a climate scientist, but an "engineer and actor." He is also not a physicist or other type of hard, relevant scientist.
Again, global warming/climate hysteria from someone not even qualified to make such scientific conclusions ala John Kerry.
4) As we have cited many times before, the United States has done an outstanding job of reducing its carbon footprint over the past decade, much more than just about any other country on the planet. Depending on what you are measuring and how you are measuring it, we have reduced our carbon footprint between 12% and 20%, mostly through conservation, better technology, and the wider use of natural gas. The Congresswoman arguing with Bill Nye on Meet The Press made the same point, estimating that the reduction was 17%, mostly via technology.
The other point we have made many times is even if the United States did a cap and trade program and severely reduced its carbon footprint even more, even though it probably leads the world in reducing its footprint over the past several years, it probably would not make any difference unless the rest if the world, especially China, did the same thing at the same time.
Many expert sources are forecasting that coal usage around the world will continue to grow dramatically over the upcoming decades, a primary source of carbon. All the U.S. would do if it went it alone would be to kill the domestic economy and our economic well being for a dubious, unsettled reason, while enriching foreign economies. The U.S. Energy Administration has predicted that even by 2040, coal will be the world’ primary source of electricity generation, about double the size of nuclear and renewables.
And consider how out of control China is from dumping pollutants and carbon into the earth’s atmosphere, based on an article from the March 7, 2014 issue of The Week magazine:
- A huge fog that has settled over much of China has made life “unbearable” according to the article.
- So-called pariculate concentration, which is considered unsafe at levels above 25 micrograms per cubic meter, is currently way above 500 in Beijing.
- The government is advising people and their pets to wear face masks if they go outside.
- A professor at the China Agricultural University has forecasted that if current levels exist, China may experience a “nuclear winter” where the dense, polluted smog would block out the sun and stunt the growth of crops.
If Obama wanted to do something worthwhile about global warming, he would take three steps:
- He would consider our simple plan for reducing our carbon footprint with minimal negative impacts to American families and our economy.
- He would pull a John Kennedy and vow to support scientific research that would make coal a clean burning fuel within ten years. That would be a fabulous legacy since coal is not going away in the near term or further out future.
- He could be a leader and unite the worlds’ leader behind a coherent world wide plan to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint, not just the U.S. footprint. The problem with this last point is that he has lost almost all of his credibility and trust with the rest of the world so being a leader is probably out of the picture.
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:
www.loathemygovernment.com
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment