Inconvenient Truths Denied By Climate FaithfulMelanie Sturm | @ThinkAgainUSA
Read Comments - 18
Publish Date:
Thu, 09/11/2014
At the tumultuous summer’s close, when throat-slashing, genocidal jihadists and economic malaise dominated headlines and our psyches, Hillary Clinton announced her preoccupation.
"Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face," she proclaimed, adding, “no matter what the deniers try to assert” -- thus dismissing from polite society those inclined to Think Again about America’s greatest concerns.
Like Clinton, members of the “Church of Settled Science” invoke the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial to reject those deeming climate change less dangerous than other threats, like the Islamic State, a nuclear Iran, a debt-laden stagnant economy, or record levels of poverty.
Their Church gospel considers it “anti-science” to believe climate change is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon to which mankind has always adapted, and still can. After all, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said before congress, because “frost and ice are the enemies of life…. a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
Nevertheless, it’s an excommunicable sin to oppose tax and regulatory policies that would barely limit global emissions but would increase economy-wide prices, retard economies, and reduce standards of living -- disproportionately among the poor.
According to their dogma, it’s blasphemous to oppose giving unaccountable bureaucrats (in the EPA or internationally) unprecedented power to centrally plan and control economic life, without even a vote of Congress.
That’s because the faithful overlook the stunning failure of their doomsday-predicting models to forecast warming’s nearly 18-year pause (confirmed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), or Al Gore’s 2007 prediction that polar bears’ Arctic habitat would be ice-free by 2013.
Thankfully for children fearing polar bear extinction, current satellite readings by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center reveal Arctic ice larger than when Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming activism -- an Alaska-sized expansion since 2012.
Clearly scientists don’t yet understand the relationship between rising CO2 levels and global warming -- now conveniently called climate change, rendering all planetary events explainable by a theory whose falsification is impossible.
Unfortunately, the skepticism required for scientific discovery is now punished, as MIT professor of atmospheric physics Richard Lindzen described. “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse,” he wrote. “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
Today, skepticism is synonymous with greed and immorality to Church adherents who bask in the influence and profits they derive from sermonizing and policy advocacy. Yet, they ignore the “inconvenient truth” that their policies adversely impact the lifestyles of the budget conscience.
So, who are the heretics?
Are they alarmists intent on circumventing scientific inquiry and the free and open debate on which national consensus in a pluralistic democracy depends, or skeptics “not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead,” as Thomas Jefferson encouraged?
“It is error alone which needs the support of government,” Jefferson believed, because “truth can stand by itself.”
In his Farewell Address noteworthy for military-industrial-complex warnings, President Eisenhower articulated the modern version of Jefferson’s concern. “A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity,” he said, and “the prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
The modern era is awash in government–abetted tragedies precipitated by theories claiming to advance the human condition but which, in fact, involved anti-poor and anti-progress policies. Thomas Malthus’ theory that population would always outstrip resources justified 19th-century British tax and regulatory policies to constrain human aspirations. The result was poverty-induced famine in Ireland and India, and 20 million victims.
Ensuing in the 20th-century were even more deadly policies – derived from Malthusian-based eugenics and resource depletion theories -- proving Jefferson’s observation that “even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Malthus’ theories are as wrong as they are immoral. Since his time, world population grew seven-fold as well-being (world GDP per capita) grew 50-fold, thanks to human ingenuity and economic freedom.
Today, life-enhancing devices unimaginable to Malthus – refrigerators, phones, air-conditioning, cars, and televisions -- are commonplace, except among the poorest. Why decrease their affordability by increasing the cost of the energy required to make, distribute and run them?
The truth is, affordable energy and the economic growth and well-being it enables are the keys to addressing our greatest concerns, including the environment, joblessness, poverty, and indebtedness – even terrorism.
Think Again – To pass a secure, prosperous and clean world to future generations, shouldn’t we encourage – not constrain -- the scientific inquiry that informs and unleashes boundless human creativity?
|
American Enterprise Institute Complete Colorado Heritage Foundation Manhatten Contrarian PragerU Urgent Agenda Category List |
Printer-friendly version
Inconvenient truths denied by
Inconvenient truths denied by Melanie Sturm
------------------
"At the tumultuous summer’s close, when throat-slashing, genocidal jihadists and economic malaise dominated headlines and our psyches, Hillary Clinton announced her preoccupation."
“Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she proclaimed, adding, “no matter what the deniers try to assert” — thus dismissing from polite society those inclined to Think Again about America’s greatest concerns.
------------------
The priority to be assigned to climate change by Miss Sturm seems to ignore the damage it is doing and it's potential role in worsening global conflicts.
------------------
"Nevertheless, it’s an ex-communicable sin to oppose tax and regulatory policies that would barely limit global emissions but would increase economy-wide prices, retard economies and reduce standards of living — disproportionately among the poor.
Carbon tax as a reduction in living standards
According to their dogma, it’s blasphemous to oppose giving unaccountable bureaucrats (in the EPA or internationally) unprecedented power to centrally plan and control economic life without even a vote of Congress."
------------------
It is clear your libertarian beliefs would address problems of this nature through the free market. Explain how please?
------------------
"That’s because the faithful overlook the stunning failure of their doomsday-predicting models to forecast warming’s nearly 18-year pause (confirmed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)"
------------------
The pause, please point it out on this graph!
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/graphics/gl_land_ocean.gif
Which part of this graph are you talking about?
------------------
"or Al Gore’s 2007 prediction that polar bears’ Arctic habitat would be ice-free by 2013."
------------------
Polar bear populations, are they stable in all areas? My understanding is that they are clearly still vulnerable to changes in climate.
------------------
"Thankfully for children fearing polar bear extinction, current satellite readings by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reveal Arctic ice larger than when Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his global-warming activism — an Alaska-sized expansion since 2012."
------------------
Are you talking about the regression to mean which has been evidence since the extreme meltback of 2012. Perhaps you could highlight your issue on this graph!
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/kinnard1870.jpg
------------------
"Clearly scientists don’t yet understand the relationship between rising CO2 levels and global warming — now conveniently called climate change, rendering all planetary events explainable by a theory whose falsification is impossible."
------------------
This is not a bi-variate problem. The elements of the problem we can influence, we should influence. Perhaps you should stop the unscientific nonsense here and allow scientists the time to perform further research into what is happening.
------------------
Unfortunately, the skepticism required for scientific discovery is now punished, as MIT professor of atmospheric physics Richard Lindzen described. “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse,” he wrote. “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
------------------
No explanation of what Lindzen is talking about is given here, neither is an example. Perhaps this would have been useful and informative.
------------------
"Today, skepticism is synonymous with greed and immorality to church adherents who bask in the influence and profits they derive from sermonizing and policy advocacy. Yet, they ignore the “inconvenient truth” that their policies adversely impact the lifestyles of the budget conscience."
------------------
"of the budget conscience" is a phrase weighted with libertarian prejudice. Are you aware that the free market has far more impact on the prosperity of the poorest sections of society. The most recent hardships inflicted on the poorest members of society has been by the greedy and immoral actions of those who put profit before responsibility. An trough you seem to have eaten from in your own career.
------------------
"So, who are the heretics?
Are they alarmists intent on circumventing scientific inquiry and the free and open debate on which national consensus in a pluralistic democracy depends, or skeptics “not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead,” as Thomas Jefferson encouraged?"
------------------
No one is circumventing scientific enquiry. This type of Ad Hominem argument seems to be as much the mainstay of those opposed to any acknowledgment of climate change as those who support it. Neither should they do this and neither should you.
------------------
“It is error alone which needs the support of government,” Jefferson believed, because “truth can stand by itself.”
------------------
Quotes are cheap ways for purloin Jefferson and bask in his literary strength. He, perhaps, would have found your use of this quote abhorrent.
------------------
In his farewell address, noteworthy for military-industrial-complex warnings, President Dwight Eisenhower articulated the modern version of Jefferson’s concern. “A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity,” he said, and “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
------------------
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson. Enough said of libertarian ambitions.
------------------
"The modern era is awash in government-abetted tragedies precipitated by theories claiming to advance the human condition but which, in fact, involved anti-poor and anti-progress policies. Thomas Malthus’ theory that population would always outstrip resources justified 19th-century British tax and regulatory policies to constrain human aspirations. The result was poverty-induced famine in Ireland and India and 20 million victims."
------------------
The cause of the famines in India have been attributed to the implementation of free markets that stripped the population of India of food sources that were achieving higher prices elsewhere. A good example of why free unregulated markets are such a bad idea. The famine in Eritrea had a similar fingerprint.
------------------
"Ensuing in the 20th century were even more deadly policies — derived from Malthusian-based eugenics and resource depletion theories — proving Jefferson’s observation that “even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Malthus’ theories are as wrong as they are immoral. Since his time, world population grew seven-fold as well-being (world GDP per capita) grew 50-fold, thanks to human ingenuity and economic freedom."
------------------
On the back of World Wars and cheap carbon based forms of energy which are now causing climate problems. It was not a success without cost. We have also turned some nearly 50% of the earths land surface over to human needs. A further disaster for the natural world.
------------------
Today, life-enhancing devices unimaginable to Malthus — refrigerators, phones, air-conditioning, cars and televisions — are commonplace, except among the poorest. Why decrease their affordability by increasing the cost of the energy required to make, distribute and run them?
------------------
Things are not as simple as you are making out here. The free market holds far more influence over the price of fuel than does climate change. It is a disingenuous message to attribute the cost of power solely to carbon taxation.
------------------
"The truth is affordable energy and the economic growth and well-being it enables are the keys to addressing our greatest concerns, including the environment, joblessness, poverty and indebtedness — even terrorism."
------------------
It is the naivety of many Americans to think that all of humanity can be brought to the same levels of wealth and prosperity with hard work and cheap energy. They deny their own good fortune in having a new continent to exploit and the role sheer random luck plays in where they find themselves in the 21st century.
------------------
"Think Again: To pass a secure, prosperous and clean world to future generations, shouldn’t we encourage, not constrain, the scientific inquiry that informs and unleashes boundless human creativity?"
------------------
Here is clear straw straw man argument.
One - We got rid of the clean world we had in the pursuit of industrialisation and prosperity. We continue now in the same vein. Is oceanic acidification also a price worth paying for the continued prosperity of the human race. The discouraging of scientific enquiry is clamoured for loudest in the Libertarian cess pit of the Heartland Foundation and it’s affiliates. Climate scientists have nothing to hide and should have nothing to fear from any side.
Think again Melanie Sturn. Are your own world visions realistic or idealistic.
Regardless of one's view of
Regardless of one's view of the theory of anthropogenic climate change, the contention that the science on this issue is 'closed' should deeply offend anyone trained in the sciences. Fundamental to the scientific method is the fact that virtually all scientific inquiry is a challenge to existing beliefs, theories, or data sets. Virtually every accepted scientific law today dethroned a previous belief system. Existing theories and laws are valid only so long as they are not modified or supplanted by reproducible empirical data that has been subjected to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.
Take, for example, the most rigorously tested and defended theory in the history of science: quantum electrodynamics, or QED. In spite of the overwhelming empirical data supporting this theory, no scientist has ever contended that the science of QED is "closed." In fact, the theory continues to be questioned and challenged in fundamental ways. That process is welcomed by the scientific community. Why is this not the case for the theory of anthropogenic climate change?
The nature of the modern climate change debate has given fundamental science a black eye -- one that may have a deleterious impact on the next several generations of scientists. Any scientist who does not aggressively push back on the contention that the science of climate change is 'closed' -- or that "consensus" is even a relevant concept in the scientific method -- has elected to abandon his or her scientific training, at least on this topic. They have chosen to operate in the realm of 'political science' -- an oxymoronic career if ever there was one.
Considering the priority
Considering the priority certain powerful politicians place on promoting climate change alarmism (they have been very vocal recently stating it is their TOP priority), and the very clear evidence you enumerate that there is no reason to believe that their underlying theory is correct much less unassailable, one has to ask the question: what is the true objective?
These politicians are willing to expend all kinds of political capital on this project
This is great; thanks. It
This is great; thanks.
It will go unheeded, unless more and more people speak. AGW or Climate Change is the way to the purest form of Socialism, a task simple Marxism couldn't accomplish.
Good and accurate article.
Good and accurate article. The “money” quote to me:
“According to their dogma, it’s blasphemous to oppose giving unaccountable bureaucrats (in the EPA or internationally) unprecedented power to centrally plan and control economic life without even a vote of Congress.”
Peer review be damned.
Please research Thorium
Please research Thorium reactors, which I think would solve energy problems.
The green luddites oppose technology while going on and on about pollution. The Thorium reactor could be appreciated by all.
Loved your column. Its funny
Loved your column.
Its funny but I don’t have a strong opinion about global warming. I just assumed that eventually, all the shrill invective would fade away and the facts would present themselves. In the meantime, it irks me that the smug, elitist, libs have labeled us undecided “folk” as “deniers”.
In 2012 alone $1 billion a
In 2012 alone $1 billion a day was spent on the notion of catastrophic man caused global warming via excess CO2. Not bad for something that doesn´t exist. Even if it did exist, China controls global CO2 and US CO2 has plunged over 20 years.
So-called investors like Goldman Sachs, Soros, and Bloomberg won´t invest to save the planet unless they´re guaranteed a certain return. So they need many more US taxpayer dollars.
This fraud exists today because of Republican politicians. Democrats were never going to stop it, so that leaves Republicans. Boehner and McConnell have had daily access to microphones for decades. When asked about this topic, Boehner says he´s not a scientist or changes the subject to jobs. McConnell mainly changes the subject to jobs.
CO2 profiteers have giddily noticed this. In 1990 George Bush #1 mandated that CO2 was a dangerous pollutant. He mandated 13 federal agencies be tasked to solve alleged global climate danger, and that US taxpayers pay expenses incurred both in the US and globally to address this and all other environmental matters in perpetuity.
The US congress passed UNFCCC around 1992 stating that humans were causing global warming. US tax dollars are the major funding of the blatantly criminal UN IPCC. Real problems are being starved. It could end in one day if even Boehner or McConnell spoke up and told the truth. Who wants to stop a $1 billion a day racket about something that doesn´t exist that demonizes Americans?
The new term is "climate
The new term is "climate disruption." It's a good one - because it perpetuates the notion that humans are creatures that operate apart from and outside the natural order, that our existence disrupts, and that disruption is presumably always bad.
The human race has a habit of
The human race has a habit of believing in it's own importance. When you compare the amount of pollution produced by humanity to that created by volcanoes (Mount Saint Hellens?) or forest fires that burned just in Colorado we are pretty insignificant.
I viewed the satellite pictures of Iceland and Greenland and was very surprised to find the coastal cities I have visited the last few years were not under water. The scientists who debunk global warming are not funded but one report I viewed suggested that the earthquake in Haiti alone shifted the earths axis 2% shifting the ice pacts to the new North. We should try to limit our imprint on this planet but realize we are only a nuisance and Mother Nature still calls the shots.
Post new comment