 |
|
|
 Editorials | Environmental | February 2007 
Science and Sophistry
 Alan Burkhart - PVNN
| | Consider also that since the summary was released, news of new climate research continues to pour in. And a lot of that research contradicts the central issue of the political aspect of the report: Man's role in global warming. Final word? Hardly. |
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article titled 'Global Warming, Body Paint and Bicycles' in which I detailed some of the popular myths surrounding the global warming debate, and I pointed out some of the more-ridiculous methods the Left has used to draw attention to its various non-causes.
Predictably, I received sensible and well-written responses from those who are open to both sides of the climate debate. Just as predictably, the responses from the panic-mongers on the Left were filled with hateful and vulgar language along with the usual pathetic attempts to sound either condescending or disdainful. One fellow wrote that I made him "want to vomit." I wasn't sure how I should respond to such a statement, so I just advised him to wash up when he was finished.
Ever since the release of the highly publicized and politicized IPCC Report Summary, those who choose to blame Humanity for global climate change have insisted that this report is the final word on global warming. Those who prefer to continue absorbing the available facts have been ridiculed and demonized with harsh rhetoric and false accusations by those who either blindly accept the summary or have political motivations for wanting it to be accepted as absolute truth.
Let's get real about this. First, keep in mind that the actual report won't be released until May. Also, keep in mind that the summary is a document edited and released by United Nations bureaucrats who have their own agenda. The general public has not seen the report.
Additionally, the report represents a consensus reached by hundreds of scientists. Hundreds of scientists all agreeing on global warming? On the surface, that sounds like rock solid proof. One only needs to dig just a bit deeper to see the problem with this. A "consensus" among hundreds of people by its own nature cannot be reached without compromise. In the case of this report, the only compromise that can be made is directly related to the science involved. Compromised science may or may not be accurate science.
Consider also that since the summary was released, news of new climate research continues to pour in. And a lot of that research contradicts the central issue of the political aspect of the report: Man's role in global warming. Final word? Hardly.
Research by Danish scientists into the affects of the interaction of cosmic rays and water vapor may reveal vital information regarding temperature and cloud cover. Recently discovered deep-sea volcanic activity, in some cases raising water temperature by hundreds of degrees far below the surface, is believed by some to be responsible for increased water vapor in the atmosphere and higher temperatures at the surface. As water temperature directly affects the intensity of hurricanes, the significance of this discovery is obvious. Since the “blame humanity crowd” will not be able to find a way to link volcanic activity to SUV's and diesel trucks, you can bet that the results of this research will be either vilified or ignored.
Climate-related science isn’t the only thing being compromised where global warming is concerned. The truth is taking a brutal whipping on all fronts. Consider recent allegations by the Union of Concerned Scientists that Exxon has been paying various groups to create disinformation programs in order to protect its own interests. Want an example? Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon contributed $150,000 to the Media Research Center. Yep, that’s a lot of money. However, it only represents two tenths of one percent of the MRC’s operating budget during that period. That hardly constitutes an amount sufficient to influence MRC’s decision-making. Yet the UCS would have you believe the MRC is a puppet of Exxon.
The UCS report is highly political in nature, and makes numerous attempts at demonizing Exxon by comparing the company to "Big Tobacco" to create a feeling that Exxon is somehow out to kill us all. Perhaps these folks missed the fact that each and every employee of Exxon, from a newly hired grunt in a faraway oil field to the CEO, breathes the same air as the rest of us. They eat the same food. Drink the same water. Live in the same towns. Earth is their world, too. Why would they willingly destroy it?
Add to this the fact that Exxon jumped on the global warming bandwagon years ago and has spent considerable resources to make their facilities friendlier to the environment. Nevertheless, Exxon has been a favorite whipping boy for environmentalists ever since the Valdez disaster. Proof again that truth is a secondary consideration for the Left.
Another favorite tactic is to accuse skeptics of “cherry picking the facts” when a weak link is found in their chain of logic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the exploitation of such weak links a staple of proper research? If John Q. Genius theorizes that A + B + C = D, is it cherry picking for another scientist to question the value of “B” if he or she feels that unanswered questions exist?
The planet is indeed in a warming cycle. The theories as to the cause or causes are endless. Some have merit and some do not. The issue at hand is how much responsibility Man must bear for our changing global climate, because that single issue is the one upon which policy decisions around the world will rest. With that in mind, please read the following table, excerpted from the 2007 IPCC Summary (page 7):
As you can see in the third column, the table does not state with any certainty that human activity played a role in the climatic trends described. Yet lawmakers around the world, including the United States, are poised to inflict all manner of new restrictions upon both business and private citizens based upon the notion that human activity is tipping the climatic balance. Is either "More likely than not" or "Likely" a proper basis for laws that affect entire nations?
Such decisions should be made without regard to politics, and should only be made after all sides of the issue have been considered. The report is due to be released for public consumption in a matter of weeks. Should we not reserve judgment until other qualified professionals have the opportunity to review the report before Congress rushes to pass yet more legislation? Shouldn't the people who will be subject to that legislation have the opportunity to review the report, or obtain the opinions of scientists not affiliated with the IPCC?
This is the only world we have. Let's move forward carefully and make the right decisions, rather than rushing blindly into decisions we may regret later.
Related Reading:
IPCC Report Summary
Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate (Danish Research)
Record hotspot found underwater (excerpt from full article)
Global Warming Skeptics Shunned
Oil Giant Accused of Funding Global Warming 'Disinformation'
Media Research Center
Climate Skeptics Now 'Relegated to the Fringe'
UCS Report (Exxon)
Global Warming, Body Paint and Bicycles
Alan Burkhart is a freelance writer, cross-country trucker and proud citizen of the reddest of the Red States - Mississippi. Visit his blog at http://alanburkhart.blogspot.com. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us