Posts
Inhofe is head of the Senate Environment Cte and has plenty of PhD go-fers who have backed up his assertions with a good deconstruction of the so-called "hockey stick" graph showing global warming to increase exponentially. Inhofe actually quotes a scientist who was told "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period" because it was inconvenient to the Chicken Little crowd in the Royal Society and other official politicized science havens. The hockey stick does not work with that inconvenient 500-year warming episode that ended around 1450, when vineyards thrived in England and wine was cheaper than beer. So the Commissar at the Royal Society decreed "heresy" and the inconvenient truth disappeared, to be replaced by Lyin' Al Gorebot's latest run for office.
Of course, the Little Ace Age from about 1600 to 1850 makes the hockey stick look great, as the contrast is magnified. Also, the Teensy-weensy ice age from 1940-1970 when the MSM was worrying about another glaciation also makes the hockey stick look better, but the fluctuations are hard for the Lysenko-wannabes to explain. So they don't.
Sixty prominent scientists recently wrote the Canadian PM about the fake science touting global warming:
"“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted:
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
Lest common sense and actual science prevail, the MSM under-reports and mis-reports or doesn't report any evidence contrary to the Gorebot twaddle, which parallels the credibility of his invention of "the information superhighway." Here is the nub of the entire question. What if the Sky-is-falling crowd happens to be right? Will the Kyoto Accords the airheads like Gore and Kerry tout halt the hothouse hell?
My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.
The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University’s William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.
But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- "What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?" -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue.
If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis. The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.
Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.
So the Malthusians and the Luddites want to de-energize the economic engine that drives the West and East Asia and India into widespread prosperity? Is that their game? Have us all pedal to work a la Holland or the little old lady in tennis shoes from Pasadena? Of course, no palatable alternatives are offered by the Thought Police mandarinate of scientific PC panjundrums.
If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer. Last week my committee heard testimony from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed left-wing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that movement preached was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and has organized some of the world’s top Nobel Laureates to form the 2004 "Copenhagen Consensus" which ranked the world’s most pressing problems. And guess what?
They placed global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet’s priorities. The "Copenhagen Consensus" found that the most important priorities of our planet included: combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made many trips to Africa, and once you see the devastating poverty that has a grip on that continent, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.
Senator Inhofe then pulls the rug out of the pontificators on the MSM left [meaning everybody except FOX-News] with a lot of quotations that appear at first glance to be unduly alarmist. Which they are, until you get the punchline: the alarmist gibberish from Time mag and the NYT, well, read for yourself:
Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.
Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."
A headline in the New York Times reads: "Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output." Here is a quote from Time Magazine:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."
All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974.
They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age. [Teensy-weensy ice age I refer to above Ed. remarks]
Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970's and warned of a coming ice age.
In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:
"[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.
Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.
Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.
In 1952, the New York Times noted that the "trump card" of global warming "has been the melting glaciers."
Inhofe runs down a long list of further media mischief---alternating between cold and hot scare stories depending on the theme of the decade [heating up after 1850-1940; then cooling from '40-'70 with frozen hell scare stories abounding; then a re-relapse into climate warming after the '70s til today---often based on single sources]. But the Al-Qaeda Press [AP} has the most spurious balderdash, quoting five out of a hundred scientists they questioned [the other 95 didn't give the "leftist" answer?] concerning the agitpreppie Gore movie. Then Inhofe spanks the blundering fool who managed to lose Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida [although he stole Wisconsin] in the millenial election, snatching defeat out of....:
What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:
• He promoted the now debunked "hockey stick" temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate
•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age
•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.
•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer
•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing
•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices
•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing
•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving
•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.
The leftist MSM have turned the climate alarmism of Global Warming into a shibboleth assumed, like the non-existence of terrorists, to be true because it is the watchword of the International Left. The lapdog MSM, brain-dead Hollyweirdos, and politico-academics all slobber at the trough under the watchful eye of the PC Thought Police. Inhofe sums it all up after defrocking pious little acolyte Tom Brokaw for journalistic fraud:
The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards, and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans.
According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.
In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.
Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.
The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.
The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.
Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific "consensus"" that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.
Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.
The Hack Attack is being rebuffed by common sense.
The sophomoric morons who peddle Global Warming without countervailing arguments that might mitigate the evidence should give it a rest. They drop trou and assume the position whenever their MSM PC Thought Police approach. Maybe it would be better if they could JUST SAY NO!
:
No comments :
Post a Comment