The global warming farce

By Mike Green

Warning! This article may cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea of the mouth, rash responses, and a tendency to fall into a pit of denial. If you are prone to having closed mental faculties see your psychiatrist before reading any further.

In an Aug. 3, 2007 article by The Associated Press ("Climate change tackled by U.N.," by Edith M. Lederer), a large portion of world leaders and scientists met to discuss what needed to be done to save the world from near-certain disaster brought on by greenhouse gases.

According to the AP, "Nearly 100 countries speaking at the first U.N. General Assembly meeting on climate change signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."

THE SKY IS FALLING

Surely these leaders aren't all deceived. There must be some legitimate emergency in order for such a monumental effort to be conducted around the world, right?

But is global warming such a threat that it warrants the dire predictions we've heard and read about? The notion that global warming is the worst enemy of mankind appears to be gaining momentum around the world.

Clearly, the U.N. is leading the charge toward finding a solution to the looming catastrophe. Of the 192 member countries of the U.N. "nearly 100" reportedly spoke at the climate change conference.

In the same article we find the following statement:

"The U.S. has been the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that causes global warming. But the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said in a June report that China overtook the United States in 2006."

According to The AP story, carbon dioxide causes global warming. So it comes as no surprise that the solution determined by policy makers and scientists desiring to stem the growing tide of warming around the planet is to curb the production of carbon dioxide.

CHICKEN LITTLE GORE

The former vice president Al Gore helped market a movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," which focused massive attention on the coming catastrophe caused by carbon dioxide. Mass hysteria has followed the predictions by scientists, politicians and advocates who claim they fervently believe global warming is the No. 1 threat to the entire planet.

And yet when the question is raised regarding whether such hysteria is justified, a stampede of vitriol emanates from the global warming alarmists. After all, they say, how can the entire scientific world be wrong?

Ironically, those who purport strong belief in science are unwilling to entertain questions, postulates or theories that do not support their faith in the U.N. reports and the Hollywood productions promoting the global warming issue. The mantra is that all legitimate climate scientists agree. Thus, there is no need for debate because none exists.

UNITED SCIENTISTS?

Hmmm ...

Good point. If the entire scientific world was saying the exact same thing, it would be a solid point to argue the threat of global warming ought to be an immediate top priority without seeking out obscure individuals who disagree just to force a debate on the issue.

But the entire scientific world isn't making dire predictions and doesn't agree with the catastrophic conclusions. And the mantra repeatedly heard, which claims that anyone opposing the consensus regarding global warming is lacking scientific knowledge and data, seems to stand on shaky ground as well.

MANTRA OF FEAR

I am not opposed to the idea that mankind ought to live in harmony with his surroundings and neighbors. I am, however, opposed to the idea that I ought to be persuaded by the global warming proponents on the basis that they have proclaimed the sky is falling and therefore it must be.

It further disturbs me that the so-called scientists, leaders and lay persons advocating for massive change due to the presumed threat of global warming refuse to openly debate the issue with their peers who disagree.

After all, if one really believes in the global warming predictions made by leading scientists and their political cohorts, they ought to be more than willing to take on any and all detractors, including those upper-echelon scientists who reject the cataclysmic conclusions promoted by political has-beens like Al Gore.

CASE IN POINT

The folks at the Canadian organization Friends of Science (friendsofscience.org) disagree with the global warming hoopla. They are not the only legitimate group of scientists that swim against the tide of global warming propaganda. But, for purposes of this column, I will use them as an example. This nonprofit group focuses on climate science and is comprised of a number of experts in the field.

FOS says:

"Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are a natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control."

In an effort to address the concerns over global warming FOS has put together a list of "myths" and "facts" that help non-scientists better understand the truth without the political and media spin.

Here's one example:

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE

Surely these folks must be out of their minds, right? Who are these rank amateurs that believe they can argue against the flood of legitimate scientists, politicians, leaders around the world and students involved in saving the planet? Well, they are just of bunch of folks with an advisory board consisting of the following individuals:

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Baliunas serves as Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, and chairs the Institute's Science Advisory Board. She is also Visiting Professor at Brigham Young University, Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University, and past contributing editor to the World Climate Report.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland. Dr. de Freitas completed Bachelors and Masters degrees at the University of Toronto, Canada and PhD at the University of Queensland, Australia, as a Commonwealth Doctoral Scholar. During his time at the University of Auckland he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology at the Tamaki Campus and four years as Pro Vice Chancellor. His academic interests are broad but the focus is mostly on climate. He was also a contributing reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific Assessment Reports, 1995 and 2001.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist retired, formerly with Environment Canada. Dr. Khandekar specializes in understanding extreme weather events in Canada and in other parts of the world. He holds B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics, a M.Sc. in Statistics from India (Pune University) as well as both M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from Florida State University. As one of the world leaders in meteorology. Dr. Khandekar has worked in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography for over 45 years and has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and scientific commentaries as well as a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling, published by Springer-Verlag (1989).

Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University. Dr. Tim Patterson received both a B.Sc. in Biology (1980) and a B.A. in Geology (1983) from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1986. He is Canadian leader of the International Geological Correlation Program Project IGCP 495 "Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and is Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project studying high-resolution Holocene climate records from anoxic fjords and coast lakes in British Columbia.

POLITICS OF FEAR

Perhaps the above references to scientists in the field of climatology isn't enough to persuade the most ardent global alarmist to consider other perspectives on the subject. Many will argue that cutting back on carbon dioxide production and conserving energy, rather than wasting it is a good thing. And certainly no one will argue against that point.

But that isn't the point of global warming alarmists like Al Gore and company. The point they make is that we must be very afraid of the dire circumstances that loom before us in the next decade or two. So, in order to prevent the coming catastrophe we must act now to do whatever it is they tell us needs to be done.

The message: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But don't worry. Al Gore and the global alarmists around the globe will save us, if only we will support whatever policies they come up with that will coincidentally funnel billions of dollars into industries owned and operated by their friends.

Wait a second ...

DEJA VU

This sounds suspiciously like the predicament that already exists. The U.S. already funnels money into the pockets of the oil industry. Even the military is used to protect "vital economic interests" of the U.S., which is really a polite code for the very real threat that says, "America will kill you and all your family if one barrel of our oil is jeopardized."

Unfortunately, the oil-rich Muslim nations we've threatened and assaulted for more than 50 years are beginning to stand up to us now. Oil has become quite expensive. To maintain its present-day value at the gas pump, it has cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars, millions of lives and very risky political strategies that have long-term negative consequences.

I see the reason for the global warming scare now.

Oil has become quite a costly commodity. Thus, weaning ourselves from dependency upon oil is a pressing problem, as former president Jimmy Carter specifically stated on a number of occasions during his time in office — and as did each of his predecessors.

So what will replace oil?

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

How do the leaders focus everyone's attention on another valued resource and get them to use it as much, if not more, than oil? (except, of course, the military, energy and transportation departments, which consume massive quantities of the oil you and I are being convinced to conserve).

And better yet, how do the leaders get the masses to purchase another product that the controllers of the energy industries can control?

It is a problem. And it is looming, since there are some who believe the oil boon is on its way out. A decade or two may be left to transition from control of one of the world's most desired resources to another.

But the masses must be convinced to move first. And the best way to move the masses in any direction is through abject fear.

And that is what I hear. Fear.

And yet, I am not afraid. And apparently neither are a number of real climate scientists.

OPEN DOORS OF DEBATE

So, if the government wants to convince me that my small use of oil each day is a threat to the environment, then it will have to do a number of things — none of which involve a lackluster lame leader loading a heap of bull feces onto his laptop and promoting it around the world via his Hollywood cronies.

The U.N.'s IPCC reports were the genesis of the global warming scare and thus may be the beginning of the effort to persuade holdouts like me. Since these reports are the "official" source for every overheated global warming alarmist, it seems prudent to open the door of debate over the data and conclusions contained within these reports.

But, let's not listen to the pretentious propaganda of politicians and their prognostications. Let's hear directly from scientists in the fields of environmental studies. Let's put out a global call for any and all scientists who wish to participate in a worldwide debate on the issue, televised on CSPAN and related international media outlets that can broadcast the proceedings without newscasters and politically-aligned commentators.

Let's dispense with the notion that the prophesied global warming catastrophe is a foregone conclusion, because that's a blatant lie.

And let's unlock the doors to debate in the scientific world by removing the political obstacles and the fear of retribution suffered by scientists who stand opposed to the climate change mantra of the day.

Perhaps then there can be an intelligent debate over scientific data and conclusions regarding the future of our planet. And perhaps the planets peoples can receive two reports from the scientific world — one that says the sky will fall in a decade or two, and another that offers insight into why some folks believe in the Chicken Little fantasy even though it doesn't exist.

______________

Mike Green is the author of "The WHOLE Truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask."