LOADING

Type to search

Opinions

Act Now, Or Cow Farts Will Ruin The Lives Of Your Children

Share

Harrison Leonard
Contributing columnist

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.

Tags:

You Might also Like

5 Comments

  1. Harry Braun May 6, 2010

    Whenever conservatives are in power the gap between the rich and poor widens dramatically.

    Where does lack of respect for science come from?

    So far, the only group of people in the world to display grotesque arrogance and lack of respect for scientific organizations are the Young-Earth Creationists. YEC’s believe the earth is only 6000 years old when in fact about 40 different lines of scientific evidence all corroborate each other and prove that it’s closer to 4.5 billion years old. As far as the science goes, these people are off by a factor of 750,000 to 1. It’s like asking someone how far they think the moon is from the earth and they tell you it’s 3 miles away.

    The Republican party is inundated with Young-Earth-Creationists who abhor science. Many of them think we should let the earth fall into ruin because then Jesus will come back. Many of them also believe that rules to protect the environment aren’t just wrong, but, evil.

    Is that what you think too?

    Read: Why Wouldn’t You Trust Climate Scientists?

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/why-wouldnt-you-trust-climate-scientists/

    Furthermore, the New York Times ran an article about the American Petroleum Institute in April of 1998. It outlines a very specific and detailed plan by oil and gas industry representatives to invest millions of dollars in an effort to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol and discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

    http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

    The draft plan, titled “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” concedes that opposition to the protocol is not shared by the public or a vast majority of scientists worldwide. “There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those ‘inside the Beltway’ with vested interests,” it notes.

    The New York Times reported that according to the document, a key component of the plan would be to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and other key audiences.” To do this, they would “recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun’s heat.

    Read: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/global-climate-science-communications-action-plan/

  2. James May 2, 2010

    In fairness, scientists always claim that they’re 100% correct regardless of whether they know anything about an issue (the earth is the centre of the universe, the earth is flat, etc.). Taking drastic action with painful economic consequences is not a trivial matter as many scientists would lead you to believe.

    “Saving the planet” and “protecting the environment” and whatever else the environmentalists have managed to come up with is always presented as an idea where everybody wins and nobody loses. To the contrary, everybody loses. Punishing “greedy businesses” will result in higher prices for their products, which will result in a lower standard of living for everyone on the planet. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that anyone on that side of the aisle will recognize this blatantly obvious fact.

    1. Harrison May 3, 2010

      Not only that, but it is patently clear that punishing those “greedy businesses” will hurt the poor and needy far more than the rich. Catch 22…

  3. Lou Apr 29, 2010

    “…how the money from some endowments is more tainted than others?” I think the difference from funding sources comes from the tainted history of business practice and the motivation behind certain industries or individual corporate entities: personal profit. I understand and agree somewhat to what you mention about a bias in the scientific field about climate change (or global warming, or global cooling; whatever euphemism is used these days). However, the outcomes, when it comes to new public policy that has some positive outcome for the environment, it’s for the better. If I can breathe clean air, drink clean water without a doubt, I wouldn’t be able to care less about business interests.

  4. Harry Braun Apr 28, 2010

    There are plenty of groups opposing action by the U.S. government to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that most of them have little or nothing to do with science.

    What’s happening now is nothing new.

    In the 1980?s, scientists were concerned about the ozone layer when most of the world didn’t have the slightest clue about what ozone was. Scientists were saying that a compound best known by the DuPont brand name “Freon” was harming the planet. They said that certain chemicals were destroying part of the atmosphere that is essential for human life because it blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer.

    Read: Opinions that Matter

    http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/opinions-that-matter/

    Harryhammer’s Blog

Skip to content