Stossel On Global Warming: "Give Me a Break!"
Contrary to what you might have heard from our mainstream media, the “global warming” debate rages on. And while there’s no contesting there have been slight increases in global temperature in its relative recent history, it should be noted that there have been similar temperature fluctuations, both hot and cold, throughout Earth’s longer history.
I’ve considered as much global warming “science” as I’ve been able to digest and concluded that what we’re experiencing, this phenomenon that’s made more than a few careers and become a darling of our mainstream media, is no more than a natural occurrence. And mass marketing at its finest.
I’m certainly not alone in my semi-scientific conclusions. John Stossel’s recent “Give Me a Break” segment about global warming asserts that much, if not most, “scientific” data we’ve been fed comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of “2000 scientists who agree” that global warming is being caused by humans. Included in that group are members of Greenpeace and other activist groups as well as governments that have supported the Kyoto treaty.
Now, I’m no scientist. But when you scrutinize the supporting data proffered by global warming activists, it becomes abundantly clear that it’s being manipulated to support a preconceived theory rather than reach a scientific conclusion based on historical data. Why? Because there are careers now being supported by a segment of the public’s belief that, if we stop driving SUVs, we can affect the relationship between the planet and the sun. Have our egos gotten the better of our senses? We’re being scammed!
And the scam is being supported by any number of Hollywood elitists (read, actors who crave media face time) and other hangers-on who want to feel relevant by association. And our liberal media, let’s not forget its roll. It loves any excuse to report things controversial or, at the least, alarming.
Understand that I’m not holding Stossel up as an expert, and I certainly don’t always agree with him, but he does try to clear away the hype and give us a view through the prism of logic and common sense. And sometimes, when presented with the simple basics, the smoke and mirrors fall away. Give the video below a watch and see if you don’t come away with, at the very least, a better understanding of the relevant issues and the key players. The debate is by no means over.
Doug
For those of you seeking a more technical critique of the assertions and allusions contained in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and the positions taken by the various groups supporting the concept of so-called “global warming,” I direct you to a report by Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) entitled 35 Inconvenient Truths, the Errors in Al Gore’s Movie. It’s dry, analytical reading but it debunks the legs upon which the whole global warming theory precariously teeters. I highly recommend you read it. It may help those of you presently “on the GW fence” decide where you stand, and may change the minds of some of you who took with a grain of salt everything Al Gore had to say on the subject.
“Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.”
22 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Interesting note and why the debate continues: A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930's and 40's and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005.
The entire "debate" is ludicrous. Imagine basing a country's entire energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory - a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable (CO2) is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system. It's ridiculous.
While it's not surprising that some skepticism remains on the fringes of climate science, what is remarkable is the dramatic, evidence-driven shift since 2001, first among scientists, and then among the public in acknowledgment of the serious threat posed by unabated future CO2 rises and their consequences. The focus now is primarily on how best to curtail further CO2 rises and no longer as to whether it is happening.
Untrue. The whole AGW house of cards is starting to crumble...scientists left and right are defecting and suing, yes suing to have their names removed from IPCC reports.
Crumble, crumble, crumble.
If that is so, then why is it that all we read or hear about is that all the scientists are convinced we are headed for disaster because of global warming if it doesn't really exist?
Because it's like second grade where kids learn that the ones who shout the loudest win consensus among the kids who don't really know one way or the other but choose a side based on either popularity or the desire to be in the "winner's" camp. What sheep we are!
You can't support your position! Show me one notable scientist who refutes global warming.
There are many. How about this one: Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained in August how miniscule mankind's CO2 emissions are in relation to the Earth's atmosphere.
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
OK, can someone name a notable scientist who is believes global warming is the threat advocates claim it is? And don't say Al Gore or the IPCC. Neither are scientists.
(Wow, that shut everyone up, didn't it?)
For the past forty years, since I was old enough to watch TV or read a magazine, I've witnessed politicians, journalists, professors, actors, etc. tell us that we should live in fear of imminent demise due to a coming ice-age, Islam, Christianity, space aliens, communists, conservatives, feminists, fascists, terrorists, capitalism, homosexuals, blacks, whites, Mexicans, etc... You name it. It's all just a load of self-serving crap.
To believe that humans can affect our planet's temperature begs the question: Why is Mars experiencing the same thing? Too many SUVs up there?
I think you made your point Doug. The debate isn't over by a long shot!
I spoke to several co-workers yesterday about this subject. About half were convinced global warming is a real and serious threat to mankind, that it is caused by humans, and that we have to fix it quick. But when I asked why they believe it, they all cited "all the scientists" have said so. It proves the point. Too many of us are programmed to believe whatever someone who sounds authoritative feeds us if the majority seem to lean that way. We are like sheep.
It's not all our fault. We are lazy, but we have few solid sources for our information these days. Most media is slanted and we don't trust it. We prefer to listen to people we THINK have sorted through the mumbo-jumbo and strained out the facts. But since they are slanted too, we still get a distorted view of reality.
This whole GW thing is based on a suspect computer model that can't even predict next week's weather with accuracy. To think it can predict 20-100 years into the future is a colossal farce.
Here's something to consider: Whether you slant left or right, pro warming or anti warming, the one thing that can't be argued by anyone is that more people equals more pollution, more use of natural resources, more dirty air, higher electrical demands, higher petroleum usage (which encompasses Oil, plastic, nylon, rayon) etc;, etc., ad infinitum.....
IF this trend to accept global warming forces industry and technology to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, more efficient lighting needing less power and a way of life that is more "earth friendly", what's the problem?
If there is even a remote chance that there is ANY truth, however it's been manipulated, that we just might be causing some damage to our planet and our environment with our careless waste of resources and our SUV mentality, then why chastise anyone for making it better?
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass who is for who. I DO feel we each have a responsibility for our environment. Everyone seems ready to jump up and express their opinion, but how many of them are still out there driving their premium gas SUV's, wasting energy, etc. It was wasteful 10 years ago, it's more wasteful today. Grow up.
Or do you REALLY think it doesn't matter what YOU do?
OK, I give!!! I got caught up in all the hype. But so has the msm, so you can't blame me for believing what the press was reporting. I am big enough to admit when I have been wrong and it looks like I have been. Sorry about that.
Sure, it is easy to say that the means justifies the end. But this is a giant con job and no one likes being conned.
As a society, we are already far more conscious of our environment than at any time in history. We do drive SUV's and we could argue whether they produce more emissions than dairy cows, but opportunists like Gore (who drives SUV's and has a greater carbon footprint than most of us) and a few others making movies falsely represented as "documentaries" (which we tend to believe as truths) and preaching gross exaggerations and outright falsehoods "for the better good" is no different than propagandists do under communism.
Deceiving the public "for their own good" sounds more like Stalinism.
Wow.
So, basically...
"I'm bad and I KNOW I'm bad, but it's ok because there are others that are worse, so they're the ones you need to blame. Oh and they're not part of MY political party so that makes them really bad and responsible".
Ok, I'm done. I got nothing left. I'm speechless.
Hey Michael - I think you need to reread Sara's comment. I think you missed something.
Great "Update" post Doug. Don't you love it when politicians and news reporters echo that "the debate is over"?
Lots of info to help keep us informed and the debate alive.
Michael, I for one agree that there are rare occasions when the end justifies the means. Dropping the atomic bomb to force Japan's surrender during WWII, for one example, and in matters of national defense for another.
We may disagree on the legitimacy of "global warming" and whether Al Gore is or isn't a putz, but I still love ya' like a brudda, my "brudda from anudda mudda."
Doug
Do I detect some friction? I hope it wasn't something I said. I don't think I said or meant anything referred to in Michael's comment.
No, Sara, I think yours was an intelligent, articulate and insightful contribution to a spirited exchange. Bring it on!
Doug
This is not scientific but the fact is that there sure is a lot more "hot air" these days. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "A waste is a terrible thing to mind."