Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:14:33 PM by Delacon
The fact is that the science is far from settled and there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming. In fact, the debate is alive and well at least for those willing to debate.
There are, in fact, more than 31,000 scientists 9,000 of them with PhDsthat have signed a petition stating their unequivocal belief that the Kyoto protocol and similar proposals will "harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind." The petition reads in part: " There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate." There are also a growing number of former AGW believers that have studied the science and become climate realists.
Last week, many of those signers joined about 800 other realists at the "International Conference on Climate Change" sponsored by the Heartland Institute. In addition to an impressive list of speakers, there were many scientists, teachers and, well, just regular folks all of whom were up to date in the most current science as well as being conversant in the language of science and all of them concerned about the misuse of science for political gain.
But as we have observed, truth is not determined by polls; it is determined through facts facts ascertained through scientific inquiry and debate.
The problem is that the current debate (or non debate if you are Al Gore) on Anthropogenic Global Warming has little to do with science and everything to do with politics.
During an exchange from the WSJ conference, Gore insisted that America is at a "political tipping point." In other words, the political wheels are already in motion to enact policy based not on scientific fact, but on an ideological agenda.
No one narrative explains the willingness of global warming alarmists to distort facts and ignore or omit evidence that contradicts their theory of human-caused global warming. There is no one reason why alarmists attempt to bully climate realists with authoritative arguments The IPCC declared it so it must be gospel or simply refuse to engage contrary theories. There is, however, one narrative that seems ever more likely especially in light of the increasing threat of nationalization of industry. The narrative of social control through the rationing of energy begins to make plenty of sense.
In the defense of Marxism, Colin Penfield says,"... the need for an equitable division of labor involving a planned economy... is the only real solution to the current problem of global warming." What better way to extend political power than to take the very gas each of us exhales with every breath we take the substance on which photosynthesis relies and label it a contaminant? How better to consolidate power than to announce a planetary emergency based on computer models (as opposed to observed data)and then demand control of industry in order to forestall catastrophe? What could be more perfect than to discover a new moral virtue in "saving the planet?" And what could better explain the rush to enact policy that will cost trillions of dollars, and which by the alarmists own admission, will produce very little in the way of results but will bring the entire capitalist system to a screeching halt?
Of course, there could be another reason, one as old as time itself. In the immortal words of Indiana Jones, "fortune and glory, boy, fortune and glory."
Joseph C. Phillips is the author of "He Talk Like A White Boy" available wherever books are sold.