A 2006 report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that cow flatulence is more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2 from cars. That’s hard to believe – almost as difficult as learning in the Fall of 2009 that one of the world’s leading anthropogenic climate change institutions (University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit) had been covering up and manipulating over thirteen years worth of data that suggested the earth has been cooling, not warming.
Until you’re prepared to institute an international cow ban, we need to take a step back and reopen the dialogue about global warming.
I don’t think many dispute that climate change is real; the debate mostly revolves around whether global warming is human-induced or part of a natural global cycle. I find there are numerous reasons to be suspicious of contemporary climate change research models and figures. They would involve explanations that are far too extensive for the confines of this small space.
Besides, I am not a scientific authority and I don’t claim to be. But what is more important than persuading each other about the causes of global warming is to ensure that the discussion remains open and amenable to new findings and opinions, unlike the assume-the-worst, “case closed” mentality of the American Left.
Skeptical global warming scientists who receive money from big business are dismissed by climate change advocates as being in the pockets of oil companies – as if enthusiastic global warming scientists somehow aren’t in the pockets of university grant writers and foundations. Can someone please explain to me how the money from some endowments is more tainted than others?
The diverse array of scientific opinions on the subject of climate change is compelling. There are literally thousands of legitimate scientists who don’t believe in man-made global warming who can match the thousands of those who do. But the media doesn’t report about them. Our mainstream media outlets and universities would have you believe there’s a consensus because Al Gore says so. The names of skeptical scientists who doubt global warming science have been denigrated and blacklisted for their beliefs for the better part of a decade. I guess engaging in McCarthyism is OK when your side benefits.
In 1975, Newsweek published a small article about the onset of “global cooling” that would occur in ten years time. The piece even describes a “scientific consensus” regarding global cooling. Weather is fickle and difficult to predict. Meteorologists have enough trouble correctly predicting the 10-day forecast; do you expect me to believe that their projections about what will happen in fifty years will be accurate? Obviously, they’re not always wrong. But healthy skepticism is a good thing.
The Left has made a motto of “Question Authority.” Yet they are disappointingly quick to believe “the experts” when it comes to global warming, and remain hesitant to challenge reports from the mainstream media. Those who declare, “question authority!” when it comes to George W. Bush would be wise to heed their own advice.
The answer to this problem isn’t as cut-and-dry as some would like us to believe. I’m not one hundred percent certain of what the solution ought to be. I do know that closing the book on debate will not help America move past this obstacle. Ultimately, the global warming zealots will be much more confident they are right than I will be convinced I am right.
And that seems a bit phony, coming from a group who complains about the “moral certitude” of conservatives.