Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Globaloney Fears Shouldn't Dictate Policies

They have amassed evidence. Some doubters lurk and poke holes in it, after all most of the 'evidence' is speculative and uncertain; but the evidence from officialdom has been analyzed and judged overwhelming. They even have the UN backing them up, and could that be wrong? It's a slam dunk!

The politicians chime in with scaremongering statements and scenarios. A "crisis approaching" and "global catastrophe". We are told that the threat is real, the time for talk is over, the time for action is now, and if we don't act preemtively and soon it could be too late.

Sound familiar?

It should be. It's the fearmongers script for the global warming "Crisis".

The liberal intelligensia consensus on global warming is to pretend that there is a consensus and to shut off any debate, and hoodwink the public into thinking that any skepticism is illegitimate. Thus, in the Statesman of Friday, April 6, Senator John Kerry wrote:
"It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth policians" says John Kerry, in a recent piece of fiction that assures us, falsely, that inaction would lead to a "global catastrophe". He opines, almost afraid to let the skeptics even be heard: "we cannot allow doubters to freeze us into inaction".

But now is the time for debate, and for serious questions and understanding, especially if we are to embark on significant and costly regulatory changes. Claims of urgency are absurd to anyone who considers the real science of climate change: The doomsday scenarios posited, of massive temperature increases, require commensurately massive increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, specifically a doubling of CO2 levels, yet we are increasing those levels at a tortoise-speed pace of 0.3% per year. The false urgency is especially un-wise given the false exaggerations of alarmists like Al Gore and John Kerry.

John Kerry said: "And yet we have allowed worlderwide temperatures to heat up an average of 1.4 degrees in the last six years alone." Wrong, Senator. The average rise in temperatures has been 0.6 degrees Centigrade over the last century, and there has been no rise in many critical measurements (such as satellite temperature measurements) in the past six years. Some scientists contend that much of the temperature variation in recent decades is at leastly partyl due to natural causes, and certainly the history of the earth shows that natural climate change has happened all the time.

The politicians and some climate scientists have been playing the game of hyping fear for some time, and many have admitted as much:
"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
--Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.

H. L. Mencken once said: "The politicians are selling fear, and they of all people know that fear is the best way to get people to do what you want. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. ”

If we are going to base policies on anything, it should be based on the real impacts of global warming, considered only after a lengthy debate on the matter, not the hyped up fears of politicians. Let us not let Al Gore and his acolytes prey upon our fears. We have time for reasoned debate. After all, the earth is not going anywhere.


Anonymous said...


Al the scaremonger.

Anonymous said...

it's useful to retort this false claim that 'the discussion is over':
" within the scientific community is no real discussion about that topic anymore whether the global warming is man made or not. “

No. The REAL point is that your point is a strawman, used by the climate alarmists to misstate the REAL disagreement. They want to boil it down to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, when it is not. While you are right that most scientists, even ‘global warming deniers’, acknowledge some man-made impact on the climate, that is not what’s at issue.

The real question is the *magnitude* and *impact* of man-made inputs into the climate system.
The *magnitude* - meaning, how much will CO2 rise, how much CO2 will be aborbed by biological sinks such as oceans and biomass, and how much will temperature react to that - could be anywhere from ‘miniscule’ to ‘massive’ depending on the science, models, etc. To pretend that science is certain on this is to fundamentally mis-state how science works. It’s *never* certain and we will *always* learn more and tweak our understanding.

All scientists will acknowledge that in our past, *natural* climate change took the earth’s temperature to means that were 5C or more below current levels (ice ages) and at other times was several degrees C above current levels.
Curiously, in those cases, CO2 levels trailed the temperature levels. All scientists will acknowledge the obvious - that the suns fluctuations create climate changes (11 year sun spot cycle etc, Mauder minimum, etc). They will also acknowledge that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and it is completely natural.

The *impact* of increased CO2 could be benign to something pretty bad. Benign is possible in that warming actually helps in many ways - less cold deaths, longer growing seasons and high CO2 means higher crops yields and more drought resistance.

As for sea levels, IPCC says 25-40 inches in the worst case scenario, but at current rates it would be 12 inches in the next century. Al Gore otoh is preaching the fire-and-brimstone that greenland will melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet.

So you see, the question is not “yes/no” but “how much” and “is it bad or just okay”.

Anonymous said...


NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming

Anonymous said...

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming

Anonymous said...


Global Garden Gets Greener ( The Earth is Really Getting Greener... Global Warming is Good )