Posted by
Jeff Andrus on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:11:53 PM
Confession:
I have not seen Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. People say I shouldn't have an opinion about the
environmental issues raised until I have. Their logic suggests I cannot have
knowledge of syphilis until I catch it in a Mexican whorehouse. In both cases,
I would rather avoid the spirochetes.
Contention: There are
people who want you to be afraid. They will hold a gun or some such to your
head. In your fear, you are apt to
believe you will survive only because of their good pleasure. That's the power they want over
you.
We call them
extortionists, kidnappers, armed robbers, rapists. They are schoolyard bullies. They are certain politicians.
Never for a moment
think they are aware of being wicked or bad. To their minds their good is everyone's good. Your undoing is hardly the issue.
For example,
yesterday Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) kicked off a Senate debate on
global warming. He believes greenhouse gasses will fry us all. Mr. Reid says Science backs him
up. So do famous actors. A former Vice President says we're
goners too.
So, we the people
need to be punitively taxed on energy use, and in some instances prosecuted and
jailed.
This will boost the
cost of everything, will kill a lot of jobs and force you, if you haven't
already, to use mass transit. Then there will be pressure on government to fix
food prices, extend jobless benefits, and expand public transportation and
continue to subsidize traveling graffiti shows. That's the
short list. All of these cost money,
and will require increasing taxation and very tight bureaucratic controls to
bring about.
The restrictions,
however, will be for our own good.
We won't survive without them.
But suppose we can't
do anything about the gun at our heads. Two weeks ago I saw an astronomer with
a telescope and heard him tiredly explain to concerned civilian who was passing
by: "Yes. Climate change. Cause by the Sun. Comes in cycles."
Or suppose the gun
isn't loaded. Or what if there
isn't a gun at all?
A large body of expertise on global warming is contrary to the
consensus Mr. Reid so comfortably assumes. In a May 19th WoldNetDaily story, reporter Bob Unruh takes
on one of the more famous Greenies for being full of the ol' Shinola. I have
excerpted the article below, but it deserves full read.
More than 31,000 scientists across the
United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric
science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other
specialties, have signed a petition rejecting the assumption that the human
production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse
gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating
of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the
petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon
the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project actually was launched
nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled.
Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any
special effort or campaign. Now a
new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of
consensus."
Project spokesman and founder Art Robinson
Petition explained, "Mr. Gore's movie asserting 'settled science' conveyed
the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to
public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately,
Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed,
honest scientist could endorse."
WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office
for comment, but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about
"global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific
discussion to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration
hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said.
"In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about
impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political
actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of
Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer
countries," said Robinson.
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past
president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National
Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United
States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration
the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural
gas and some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based
upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use
of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he
wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists
was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming."
Steitz wrote, "The proposed agreement
would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the
world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and
provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically
underdeveloped countries."
Robinson said the project targets scientists
because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens
who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound
advice."
But you can bet not one of them will be invited by
Senator Reid to testify before his Congressional cronies.