“As the science keeps coming in on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there continues to be one side of the debate that the science is supporting. The other side is losing support and is becoming more and more marginalized.”
This is a paraphrase of what was said to me by a friend who is thoroughly convinced of the “Gore trifecta”: (1) global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, (2) it’s caused by man (and, therefore, can be stopped by man), and (3) its results will be catastrophic.
My response: Actually, I agree there is one side that’s being vindicated by the science as it keeps coming in and there is one side that is being more and more marginalized. Except, of course, the sides I had in mind were the complete opposite of what he was thinking.
I also told my friend that I understand his side more than he might think I do. It’s my responsibility to. You can’t debate the opposing side of any debate unless you understand it as best as possible. I also suggested my friend didn’t know the “skeptic” side of the AGW debate (and to his credit, he did agree to read a book of my choosing that challenges his position).
The bottom line is this: The past couple years the AGW side is losing on the basis of the science. The “hockey stick”? Gone. Out-of-control melting at the poles? Not happening. When scientists or public figures switch sides, it is usually from the direction of belief toward refutation.
Another important thing my friend said was that, more and more, members of our own government—on both sides of the fence, as well as international bodies, are convinced of AGW. He was indubitably correct; as many people have said: You can choose your own opinions but you can’t choose your own facts.
And indeed, it was in our opinions regarding this fact that we differed. He took this “international consensus” as a seller; I saw it as nothing less but political expediency and a kind of peer pressure: “Get on the AGW bandwagon because it’s cool!” But does it ever occur to citizen AGW-believers that when those in power—whether it’s the current U.S. government or the I.P.C.C.—try to get the world citizenry to believe in AGW, it results in them getting more power? Not to mention more money (from, say, global taxation) and more control over your lives (such as taxing your driving by the mile).
My friend, to be sure, has not heard this on the TV News, nor read it in the NY Times.. The pro-AGW movement has way more power and money than the skeptics, and as long as they control of the mainstream media and schools—the two main tools of information-spreading—the anti-alarmism folks don’t have a prayer.
But that does not mean that the truth should not be told!
Thus, consider this interesting snippit from an article by George Will. It appeared last week in the Washington Post [h/t ClimateChangeFraud.com]. To the WaPo’s credit, Will’s article is not flattering of the global warming climate change movement.
… [I]n 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a “basket” of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals—chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten—that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined. [OOPS #1]
An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama’s science adviser. [OOPS #2.] Credentialed intellectuals, too—actually, especially—illustrate Montaigne’s axiom: “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”
As global levels of sea ice declined last year [2008], many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979. [OOPS #3]
[O]f today’s economy, another law—call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities—is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government’s top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th. [OOPS #4]
Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade … [OOPS #5]
Wow. Five strikes against the Gore AGW theory in just five paragraphs. So just whose side is getting hurt by the science and the facts?
Granted, George Will is simply a political commentator; he’s no climate scientist. (Not that such a criterion ever stopped Al Gore from flapping his gums.) Fair enough. Then perhaps the following words from S. Fred Singer will convince you. For those of you named Lesley Stahl, Singer is an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the UVa. He was also founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. This week at IBD Editorials [h/t the Bijenkorf blog], Singer wrote:
The global warmers [that President Obama will be consulting with] will be led by energy-climate czarina Carol Browner, EPA chief during the Clinton years, and by science adviser John Holdren, who testified that a billion people might die by 2020 unless greenhouse-gas emissions are sharply reduced. [Wait, is that the same Holdren who helped Paul Ehrlich mis-predict the devaluation of all five metals in his 1980 bet with Julian Simon? Why yes, it is! Ooo, if I only had $10,000 or so to put down on this bet! Like taking candy from a baby.] […]
[K]eep in mind three facts:
1. Nothing can be achieved by way of controlling atmospheric levels of CO2 without the active participation of China, India and other developing nations. It is a global issue, and the U.S. cannot make a significant impact, even if it were to adopt extreme measures. By now, China has become the largest emitter of CO2. [OOPS #6] […]
2. Remember also that global warming, whether natural or human-induced, may be good for you. Economists tell us that a modest warming would improve agriculture and forestry and increase GNP. And historical evidence backs their studies. [OOPS #7]
In any case, the climate has been mildly cooling for the past decade and may continue to cool for another decade or more — even while CO2 levels keep rising — causing much suffering around the world.
3. Finally, be aware that carbon dioxide may not have as much of an impact on temperatures as projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While their 2007 Report asserts a better-than-90% certainty that the average temperature increase over the last 50 years is human-caused, they have produced no credible evidence to back this up. None! [OOPS #8]
On the contrary, an independent assessment of the same published information by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reaches exactly the opposite result: Nature, not human activity, rules the climate. [OOPS #9]
Apparently, the ongoing scientific debate hasn't yet made much impact on politicians or the public. I would blame the media, which seem to give more play to the catastrophic scenarios advanced by the global warmers.
But even Al Gore no longer claims that there are only one or two climate skeptics. Their number has been growing steadily.
Last year, 100 prominent climate scientists signed a letter to the U.N. secretary general, warning against accepting the IPCC results. So far, 650 climate scientists have expressed their skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. And 31,000 scientists, about one-third of them with Ph.D degrees, have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol. [OOPS #10] […]
Five strikes (at least) more. Like I said, you can’t choose your own facts, no matter how … um, inconvenient … as they may be.
So, to my dear friend, if he’s reading this: What about that science again? What about the authority of the international bodies? Whose side is not gaining supporters?
It looks like that if the science is getting settled on AGW, it’s looking better for the denying side.
Recent Comments