Posted on 04/15/2006 4:06:12 PM PDT by Coleus
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
That was a great article you linked.
We could send them off to the Alps for a late season ski trip. I hear due to global warming they still have lots of snow this year.
The new "cult of global warming" attracts looney toons from Hollywood as well as tenured turd-garglers from acedemia.
How about Winter Park, CO - snowfall was 360 inches this season, one of the best ever.
There is no scientific evidence for global warming. It is nothing but speculation about what will happen decades from now. In 1900 people were worried about running out of horses, and they were worried about what to do with all the horse manure in 20-30 years.
These aren't "scientists" they're just activists. They're politicians who get paid for doing science on the side.
The goal of the Global Warming movement is to redistribute the world's wealth via the Kyoto Treaty. These people won't give up until they cripple or collapse the economy of the United States.
Global warming is not a scientific fact and its advocates have shaped the debate into a religious cult that seeks to root out any heretics who do not share this belief.
I've posted on a few of these forums, and find that the consensus here believes that climate change isn't happening but instead is some sort of massive left-wing conspiracy. I generally trust the research of the vast majority of climate scientists on this, that temperatures are increasing and will continue to do so as long as we keep pumping out these gases, just as I trust the opinion of doctors that smoking is bad for me, or mechanics when I'm getting my car fixed. But you believe differently.
I smell a business opportunity here. Simpily as a free-market advocate (not a socialist) who sees global warming as a pretty big threat.
So, how about a wager? Would anyone be willing to bet with me, even money, that global temperatures in 2006 will not be warmer than the 20th century mean average? We'd need to find a legitimate medium that handles these sorts of wagers and agree on the most commonly accepted source for global temperature measurements and the historic average. You'd have a chance to put your money where your mouth is, as would I.
A scientist working outside his field of study is just an everyday person.
Since most of the scientist who spout the global warming party line do not work in the scientific field of Climatology or Weather I would say their opinion is about as good as mine.
How about "Urban Hot Spots"? I can buy that one because I drive down what was once tree lined streets but are now strip malls.
"Save the earth, plant more trees". Whoops, they cause problems also.
This vast tragedy, however, is nothing compared to the nutritional disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s) ... A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.
- Paul Ehrlich, "The End of Affluence" (1974), p.21
Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.
- Paul Ehrlich, 1969 in Ramparts.
We are all going to die! In less than 150 years, every man, woman and child now living on Earth will be dead!!!
- Bubba Leroy (2006)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.