Monday, December 7, 2009

You Know What Looks Much Worse Than Climategate Itself?

This. An excerpt:

"It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites."

It is fair to assume, I think, that this situation is roughly parallel to Republican newspapers refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Watergate story. It doesn't necessarily mean that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not real. But it does meant that whether it is real or not, some very powerful forces in the world are biased and trying their best to manipulate public debate in any case.


I'm finding myself becoming more and more convinced that something is very fishy here. The front page of The Toronto Star features the headline: "Star Joins Global Climate Crusade." I thought the term "crusade" was politically incorrect. Does this mean the Star is threatening skeptics, or maybe the oil industry, with violence? (The Political Correctness Game can be played for fun sometimes!)

But, seriously, how could anything so unanimously agreed upon be so fragile? How could something that is pure science be desperately peddled as a "belief"?

Here are some important questions to ask about AGW:

1. Your friends reveal something of your character. Who is pushing this agenda?
2. Follow the money. Who stands to get rich if the agenda is successful?
3. Alinsky Tactics. Why is no distinction made between those who question the idea that the globe is warming and those who merely question whether or not we are certain that human activity, rather than periodic climate fluctuations, is the reason?
4. Ideology Alert. Why does the proposed "solution" to a problem that may or may not be real involve a massive transfer of wealth from first world countries to third world countries and the vesting of wide powers in the hands of unelected, UN bureaucrats who represent a stridently leftist ideological bent?
5. Ideology Alert II. Would the advocates of the transfer of wealth from the West, the rise in power of unelected UN bureaucrats and the implementation of Marxist ideas still want this agenda implemented even if AGW were proven to be a myth tomorrow?

Answer these questions and then ask yourself if this whole thing is worth a second look.

3 comments:

Josh said...

This excerpt is from a pro-business website. Why would its writers be any less biased for economic concerns than climate experts are for environmental concerns? It is not surprising that the site in question thinks the economy trumps the environment. It seems to me that this view raises a theological question for Christians: Does the Bible encourage economic gain over creation care?

I found your second paragraph curious. You write: "The front page of The Toronto Star features the headline: 'Star Joins Global Climate Crusade.' I thought the term 'crusade' was politically incorrect. Does this mean the Star is threatening skeptics, or maybe the oil industry, with violence?" Wasn't the term "crusade" deemed inappropriate in the context of war against Muslim nation-states because it recalled military crusades against Muslims? Why would a non-military "crusade" against global warming be inappropriate?

Your questions are fair, I think; but some of them could also be asked of global warming deniers.

"Your friends reveal something of your character. Who is pushing this agenda?" Isn't "the oil industry" pushing the agenda of global warming deniers? Doesn't Senator Inhofe (of oil-rich Oklahoma) receive large amounts of money from the oil industry?

"Follow the money. Who stands to get rich if the agenda is successful?" Who stands to lose money if the world uses less fossil fuels?

Also, you ask, "Why is no distinction made between those who question the idea that the globe is warming and those who merely question whether or not we are certain that human activity, rather than periodic climate fluctuations, is the reason?" The article to which you have linked, however, does seem to "question the idea that the globe is warming." It accuses scientists of misreporting temperatures.

Finally, an ideology alert: Are the folks who deny global warming the same folks who get their theology from Left Behind books--books that depict the UN as a tool of the Antichrist?

Peter Dunn said...

Josh: to be sure, I do not ascribe to the Left Behind theology.

Who stands to lose money if there is less dependence on fossil fuels? For one thing, eveyone in the Northern Hemisphere. I can't even heat my house without them or turn on the lights in my house, drive my car, take a train, or ride a bus, and you have no idea poor we would all be if suddenly there were no "fossil" energy (btw, there is no proof it comes from fossils anyway). Many parts of the world would starve to death because there is no way to transport food; and we would require copious amounts of man power to plant, cultivate and harvest crops. Yes we would ALL be poorer.

Josh said...

Peter:

Glad to hear you don't subscribe to Left Behind notions!

I agree with you that the world cannot suddenly stop using all fossil fuels. I have not heard anyone make an argument for such a thing.