Does questioning global warming mean I'm not green?
Who doesn't want clean air and clean water?
Who doesn't support the idea of planting (and replanting) trees?
Who doesn't like the idea of organic (i.e. pesticide and chemical free) farming?
Who doesn't think recycling cans and bottles and newspapers makes sense?
On all these questions, there is a consensus among almost everyone I know, regardless of age, race, religion, ethnicity, gender or nationality.
So then why are we so focused on global warming?
Among some "green" folks, the global warming issue has become more of a crusade or even a civil religion than it warrants.
Nagging questions persist about global warming. Despite what most of us think, a clear consensus does not exist.
As MIT scientist Richard Lindzen says in his recent article: the case is still very much open.
His article is worth reading because in a short space he demonstrates why Al Gore is at best inaccurate in saying there is a virtual consensus on the subject.
He concludes this way:
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates, and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists—especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.
Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce—if we're lucky.
That last point is perhaps the most crucial: repeating something does not make it true.There have been many accounts of how often Bush and his cronies repated the WMD mantra, but their endless on-point repetition did not make those weapons materialize.
There are major points about global warming I need clarified:
—First of all, CO2 is a life gas. Nature is perfectly designed so that humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, on the other hand, breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen, giving us a wonderful balance. How, then, can we maintain that carbon dioxide is toxic waste?
—Second, ss far as greenhouse gases go, CO2 is relatively minor. The biggest one is water vapor, but I don't hear greeners yelping about that. Besides, without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a frigidly cold and inhospitable place. So why again is CO2 the enemy?
—Human activity is not the biggest emitter of CO2. That would be the ocean. Followed by volcanoes and then animals. We and our cars and factories come in a distant fourth. So isn't it hubris to think we could change climate more than the ocean can?
—There is a ton of science to suggest that the Sun (and its spots) is responsible for climate fluctuation on Earth. Why do the greeners seem to ignore this? Occam's razor would suggest the Sun is the obvious culprit.
—There are the inconvenient facts of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and ice cores that suggest that CO2 levels were much higher 10,000 years ago than they are today when there were no factories or cars. Why are these simply dismissed by greeners?
I hope you begin to see my point. I am not claiming that the world is getting warmer, but I am questioning what its cause is.
And I should not be attacked for doing so.
Comments