[A series of five presentations on global warming, by Wallace Wartick]
THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING
If one mostly or only listens to the media (TV “talking heads” or news print (such as Newsweek)) and does not read widely, or at all, then to assert that “global warming” is a myth is certainly out of step with these just mentioned. The “front and center” spokespeople like Al Gore and the Weather Channel have made the mantra (a “mantra” is something repeated over and over, as in a religious incantation) a household word.
So, one is to believe it, right? Well, anything that Hollywood supports (such as giving an Oscar to Al Gore for his movie) ought to be immediately suspect. Then, almost as quickly, this question ought to surface: is there any money involved in this (that is, what is fueling this idea)? When one hears that we, through the use of fossil fuels, are going to bring on global catastrophe, a rather natural question ought to be: on whose authority? (The great “Who sez” point).
From this perspective, the writer will assert this: the evidence is hardly convincing, the money trail is convincing, and the authority (Al Gore and Heidi Cullen notwithstanding) lacking, not to mention the philosophical positions of those advocating this supposed fact being suspect. What one thinks determines many things (“as one thinks, so one is.”) Restated: perspective is all the difference.
We propose to discuss this item of global warming at some length.
First, we would suggest some thinking along the lines of terms defined (it is always worthwhile to understand the terms being used, so that we are all on the same page).
One of the terms used is this: global warming. Several questions follow, such as this: all the globe? Warming, how much? On what basis is this pronouncement being made (that is, where or what is the evidence)?
Then, the difference between the term “weather” and the term “climate” is worthy of discussion. To some extent, these two terms overlap, but they are not exact synonyms. If one consults such an authority as Webster’s Third Unabridged, several uses of the term “weather” are given, (showing an overlap with “climate,” since weather makes the climate). The first entry in Webster’s is this: “a state of the atmosphere at a definite time and place with respect to heat and cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness, or the metrological conditions.” Then, considering the term “climate,” the term comes from a Greek word which means “to lean.” Hence, the term has to do with the incline of the whole globe (23 degrees), then the zones between the poles, and then a given “region of the earth” and then: “the average course or condition of the weather at a particular place over a period of many years as exhibited in absolute extremes, means, and frequencies of given departures from these means.” Keep in mind that those proposing the “global warming” scenario are stating that we humans need to change our energy consumption so that we will stop influencing the climate as much as they state we are.
Then, we suggested above that some other points should be kept in mind, such as “is money involved.” The answer: Bingo! Of course, money is involved. If we shift our energy usage to what the “greens” (this is a term describing those who are advocating global warming) are suggesting, several things must happen. One of them is this: less (much less!) use of fossil fuels ( = oil, coal, natural gas). If we do this, how will the lifestyles we have be maintained? Ask yourself this question: how much energy do I use from fossil fuels? Do you have any electricity use? Burn natural gas? Use an automobile? All these, and more, come from fossil fuels (coal is used in many places). Subtract all your use of this energy, and where do you get the necessary energy just to keep your present lifestyle? You can bet your bottom dollar that someone will supply it, and there is the money trail (as an aside, Enron, with Ken Lay, and others talked to Clinton/Gore in 1997 on this exact point, because Enron had energy to sell). It is worth noting that we, as a country, got where we are by using energy. If we propose even to maintain what we are, or move up, energy will be a necessary requisite. Along these lines, consider both China and India, with a combined population of over 2 billion (6 times our total): both these countries are aiming at achieving and then surpassing our country. How? Through the use of energy. There’s money!
Then, back to the term “global warming.” This means the earth as we know it. A relevant question: is all the globe warming? The short answer: no. The southern hemisphere is not. To be specific, some of the northern hemisphere is, but some of it is not. Depends on when one looks at the problem, and where one is.
Then, how much global warming is in mind? Well, if one listens to some of the “greens,” we’ll be like Mars after a while. Suppose one considers past history: what will be found? One has to consider the means to measure temperatures and so forth. What records are available? Consider the thermometer: it is of recent origin. The ones we have available are products of the last century or so (most of the 3rd world countries are hardly interested at all in such things). The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a chart in 1995 showing the best “guesses” available on the climate for this globe over the last 1000 years. From about 1000 A.D. to about 1500, there was a general warming trend (how do you think Greenland got its name?). Then, from about 1500 to 1900, a cooling trend. With the advent of better means of temperature recording, and the desire to do so, the 1900’s show a warming trend from about 1900 to 1945, a cooling trend from 1945 to about 1975 (I have an article by a man who was invited to Washington D.C. in 1970 to discuss the global cooling problem), and then a gradual warming trend from1975 to 1998, when we began to cool off again. The average “gain” over the 20th century? Less than 2 degrees, and most of that by 1940. Civilization adapted to this global warming. Point: the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) with the resultant emission of carbon dioxide had little to do with the 2 degrees, since most of the rise in temperature happened before the major use of fossil fuels after about 1950 or so.
In the last article entitled “The Myth of Global Warming,” we suggested that the whole theory has little evidence to support the thesis, that money (much!) is actually back of the whole thing, and that the position of those espousing it is thus questionable.
This article’s title is specifically chosen to bring this point to mind: to “buy into” the scenario that the news media and Al Gore are presenting is to be foolish. The title above is an old “saying” that had to do with the buyer being sold something other than what was being offered. Current examples would be going to the various booths at some fair or the used car lot. This writer believes the Gore scenario is a “bill of goods.”
We defined the terms “climate” and “weather” with the intent of showing that they do overlap, but are not equal. Climate is the larger term, and is used in such expressions as a “warmer climate.” We wrote about those who are advocating global warming. Some in the movement are there for altruistic reasons, but most are there otherwise: there is “gold in them thar hills.” Also noted was the fact from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using the best available evidence (such things as tree rings and ice cores and records available) showed on a 1995 chart that the whole globe was warmer for about 500 years, then cooler for about 400 years until 1900, then “up and down” for the last century. The two hottest years in the 1900’s were 1934 and 1998. (We’ve been cooling off since then. It is worth noting that the northern hemisphere is the only part of the earth “warming” while the southern hemisphere is stable.) So: is the globe warming? Yes, and no.
Now, there is something else to consider, that relates to one’s view of the world and/or the culture. It is this: what economic system is the best? What this has to do with global warming is this: if one “buys” the global warming scenario (a scenario is a possible course of action or events), then, who controls energy usage is a point to consider (energy usage has to do with the burning of fuels to produce energy, and the consequent production of CO2 which, we are told, is polluting the atmosphere and contributing to green house gases—all bad!). In short, call to mind such people as Karl Marx. Now, it would seem that Marx is a long ways removed from global warming. True, but not his philosophical views.
One of his rather famous maxims was this: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” (Sounds good! Try the former Soviet Union to see how that worked out.) Fast forward to today’s college campuses. One of the “cutting edge” ideas that has been propounded on campuses is commonly known as socialism (which relates to Marx). Socialism is not capitalism, by any means. But, if global warming is a fact, and to be controlled (so that the ones with ability supply the ones in need), then capitalism is hardly the system that is needed. Instead, something like socialism is the thing. Guess how many Americans (and Europeans) have been educated in the idea of socialism (remember: “To each. . . .”). Who is going to control the world and parcel out the energy that each needs? Well, think about a socialistic society. Or, if that seems remote, think about a world government! Consider this quote from the French President Jacques Chirac at the Sixth Conference of Parties to Kyoto, held in the Hague, November, 2000: “the signing and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol ‘is the first component of an authentic global governance.’” It is good to keep in mind that most countries of the world envy the U.S., and some would give most anything away (such as their own governing authority) to end our domination ( = our way of life, our independence). Moreover, if one reads Mr. Gore’s Earth In The Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (Plume,1992), his five (5) point “Global Marshal Plan” could only work with an international organization of some type, with command-and-control power, overseeing it, which is simply a reflection of the thinking of Mr. Chirac.
Now, while an article to come will discuss some more along these lines, let’s think a bit about evidence for this supposed scenario. To do this is to bring to mind a case in court, with each side presenting their arguments to the judge and courtroom. What is the evidence? And where is it from? But there is another question as well: how shall this evidence be viewed? ( = “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”) Restated: everyone views the evidence through one’s worldview.
A term that is often used in such situations is this one: “cherry picking.” Simply defined: choosing what one will use to bolster the case in mind. Now, we all do this! We select what evidence we think will support our stance, and downplay or even ignore evidence that could be used against our stance. To follow right along, Mr. Gore (he is the chief spokesman for the matter, with his book and movie and public appearances) “cherry picks” his evidence. We have already noted that when we are told that the globe is warming, that is true, if one picks the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere is not. One would not know this listening to him, nor would one know that the northern hemisphere has been cooling since 1998.
If one asks about the supposed “warming” over the next century, one is presented with all sorts of “computer models” and their projections (It is worth noting that “models” vary per person, and depend on many things, such as 1) personal desire, 2) personal gain, 3) status attained, 4) fame accrued, 5) money received, and other such items.) Question: who gets to choose “the” computer model that will serve as the bench mark for warming? If one uses the model that some scientists use, and is rather generally accepted, the globe may—repeat “may”—warm as much as 2-3 degrees in the next century. Big deal. We warmed that much in the last century. And we did well.
About computers, by the way. When computers began to be widely used, an acronym came into being: “GIGO.” It stands for “garbage in, garbage out.” What one puts in will determine what comes out. So who gets to program the computer and enter the data for this global warming scenario? I leave it to the reader to guess.
One last thought: no human is omniscient, and neither is any computer. All these projections about CO2 and greenhouse gases are from humans, and some of those have an agenda in mind.
FOR SALE: A BILL OF GOODS (Part 2)
We began this discussion with the initial essay which was entitled “The Myth of Global Warming.” Then, the next essay was entitled ‘For Sale: A Bag of Goods.” This is # 3 in the series.
We have discussed several things, including some relevant terms like “global warming,” “climate/weather,” and “cherry picking.” We have suggested that one’s approach to the matter is conditioned by one’s world view. We have also suggested that, as a part of one’s world view, if one believes that an economic system such as socialism is superior to capitalism (which, by the way, is thought by some “greens” to be part of the problem of global warming), because it is a means to alleviate the economic differences between peoples, then the idea of controlling the energy use would be the right thing to do ( = “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”). We have also suggested that, although some in the “greens” may be altruistic, most are otherwise. In fact, if one follows the “money trail,” one will be much wiser about the whole thing. There is lots of money involved, since controlling the energy to be used equals $$$.
Let’s pick up on this point: money. The industries that can supply some sort of “clean” energy (which means no fossil fuels) will surely stand to profit from global warming. (In case you’ve forgotten, use of oil, coal, and natural gas as energy results in the production of carbon dioxide, CO2, which purportedly does damage to the greenhouse gases—more later.) There might be many of those industries which stand to profit. Then, consider the news media.
You might wonder what (not if) the news media have to do with global warming. Much ( = money)! The news media live and die with a crisis of some sort (I’ve known preachers who simply must have some crisis to preach about, such as the end times or AIDS, etc.), so that “If it bleeds, it leads” (See ch. 15 of Toxic Terror, by Whelan). Now: suppose that we are really threatened by global warming. Consider the headlines: “Weather catastrophe!” or “Oceans Inundate New York City” or “Glaciers Melting” or “Polar Bears Going Into Extinction!” Any like these can be the opening item on the evening news, with the reporter all breathless and wide-eyed. It will “sell” the audience, assuming they are ignorant and/or gullible, and be a selling card for advertisers, displaying their products displayed before a large audience. (Do you understand?)
If the “people” get persuaded about this matter, and call their congressman and urge him/her to “do something about global warming,” guess what follows? The congress meets and considers in committee this looming catastrophe, and does two things: pass a bill to “do something” about it, and, more importantly, allocate your tax dollars to investigate the matter. (“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken) In fact, this has been going on since the mid-1990’s, with over twenty billion of your tax dollars to do research. Guess where that money went and is going?
To “researchers,” such as “think tanks,” colleges and scientists. Now, suppose you are asked to produce a research paper on global warming, with $$$ for the research. What do you do? Do you find that the whole subject is replete with problems, and that there is little agreement on it, and that the “crisis” is not a crisis? Or do you “cherry pick” your data, and produce an alarming report to the congress that substantiates the allegations of global warming? I leave it to you to decide.
One more item to consider: this subject is a lot like the subject of Darwinian evolution, in that most of the intelligentsia in either area have been taught that evolution is true/that global warming is a fact. To argue otherwise is to reveal that one is ignorant, wicked, or living on another planet, etc. One obviously is not “with” the consensus. As such, anyone opposing either idea is to be ignored. While we are thinking about Darwinian evolution and the world view it commonly represents, perhaps you remember the little blurb of some years ago from the PETA people. It went sort of like this: “A boy is a pig is a fish is a bird. . . .” Point: all these are related, with little essential difference. Now, think like this: why should humans be valued more than birds or polar bears or the environment? All are equally important to many evolutionists, some of whom will be numbered among the “greens” and believers in Gore’s global warming. As such, these folk will have, to them, good reasons to “save the whales” and if such action is a problem to humanity, too bad.
Perhaps the term “consensus” used above needs elaboration. This term is used by such as Al Gore to mean that the subject of global warming has been discussed by all relevant parties, and the conclusion is evident: global warming is a fact. As such, then, it is time to move on, and questions are irrelevant and even irritating, and the questioner to be ignored.
From this perspective, then, such articles
as this one are superfluous and hindering the progress that is desirable. For
all the reasons mentioned above, and more to come, many disagree.
We have about enough space left in this essay to mention another relevant item:
the Kyoto Protocol. This is the title of a treaty of sorts that was produced in
1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The meeting of representatives from around the world was
held in Kyoto to consider global warming. In 1992, such a meeting was held in
Rio de Janeiro to discuss this matter. Senator Al Gore went down there and
announced to all the world that then President Bush should be down there instead
of somewhere else. President Bush finally acceded, and went and signed the
original “global warming” treaty.
Another meeting was held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. The U.S. Senate voted 95 – 0 to have the U.S. representatives refuse to agree to any treaty that would do harm to the U.S. The meeting was going nowhere, since the Kyoto Protocol would certainly do harm to the U.S. So, President Clinton sent V.P. Al Gore to Kyoto with instructions to the U.S. representatives to “back off” from the “sense of the Senate” resolution. They did. So the treaty was drawn up with the U.S. as a signatory. President Clinton did not sign it. He had the temporary U.S. ambassador to the U.N. sign it, November 12, 1998. Clinton then kept the treaty and did not send it to the Senate for over two years before he left office. Why did Clinton/Gore do this? Ask them. However, Gore now jabs President Bush for not “signing” the treaty. He can’t; it has already been signed. Finally, if Clinton/Gore refused to send it to the Senate while they were in office, with a Democratic Senate, why find fault with President Bush?
Let’s summarize a bit: “global warming” as presented by Mr. Gore and others is a cooked-up theory that has little substantial evidence for it. It means higher costs for all, loss of freedoms, a down-sized lifestyle, with the poor, those on limited incomes, and all third-world peoples suffering most. Only the “in” crowd (like Archer Daniels Midland, which controls a major share of the ethanol market) will really profit. (By the way, if this all comes to pass, how would you guess Mr. Gore will do, having led the parade?)
SOLD: A BILL OF GOODS (Part 3)
This series of articles began with “The Myth of Global Warming” as the introductory essay. This is part four of the series, all on the topic of global warming.
Global warming, as presented, has to do with two things: 1) the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) for energy. In the burning, several things happen, including the production of carbon dioxide, CO2, which, we are told ad infinitum nauseum, goes into the atmosphere, and pollutes the greenhouse gases (these encircle the earth, keeping some things out and other things in, such as heat). Bad deal, we are told.
Well, maybe. One thing: carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If it were, with the earth itself producing 97% of all of it, the earth would be its own worst enemy. Sorry, God didn’t create it that way.
Then, # 2: global warming. The best guesses for the last 100 years on this planet is that it warmed up less than 2 degrees. We all adjusted. The estimate for the next 100 years: about the same (of course, if you are hep on global warming, you use a different computer model and get a larger increase, say ten degrees or more). If this be true—which no one knows at all—then, if the last century is any indication, we’ll adjust. In fact, some warming in some places might be quite acceptable (Siberia, for instance. President Putin gently suggested as much for all of Russia). Warmer temperatures might also be good for agriculture.
But if this is so, using the past as our measure, then no oceans rising to catastrophic heights—so Mr. Gore’s scenario of the inundation of New York City is hot air—but on second thought, since most of the news media are there, such a thing might put an end to more hot air—and none of the other dreadful things will happen either. The polar bears will do fine, as will all the other fauna (birds, animals, etc.) that are now presented as being imperiled, at least of Mr. Gore is to be believed.
As noted above, earth itself produces about 97% of all the greenhouse gases. That leaves about 3% for us. It is a considerable stretch of one’s imagination to suppose that we can really change/control the weather/climate with that 3%. (To be noted: the U.S. is only one part of that 3%, not all of it.) God may have created the globe, so we can’t mess it up. (We can’t even predict the weather with any great accuracy, let alone control it. Just last year, 2006, hurricane predictions were for up to 8 or 10 for mainland U.S. Did you hear the silence in the news media? Not one “landed.”)
Now, as noted in an earlier article, the U.S. and most of the western world got where we are by the use of fossil fuels. But the “greens” object to that, because of the production of carbon dioxide. Where does that leave us, energy-wise? With little or nothing. Nuclear energy is carbon free, but the “greens” object to that. Renewable fuels, such as wind (but the “wind farms” obstruct the view!) and water (but the dams which produce hydroelectric power harm the fish!) or solar power, are hardly equal to our present energy sources. The congress is working on an energy bill, which includes use of corn for ethanol. Well and good, except the production of ethanol uses oil and water and is subsidized besides. None of these will equal our present supply of energy. Consider this quote, from the Science magazine, November 2002, Hoffert, ed.: “There are no known technological options that exist today. Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300 percent of present world power without greenhouse emissions do not exist; either operationally or as pilot plants. New technologies will require drastic technological breakthroughs. Carbon dioxide is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away. But carbon dioxide stabilization would prevent developing nations from basing their energy supply on fossil fuels.” (carbon dioxide is good for growing plants, etc.)
Back to the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. has not decided to agree to it, and we are roundly chastised by Mr. Gore and others for not doing so. Are we the only ones? No, about 150 other nations have not, including Brazil, South Korea, China and India. Nor are these going to do so. Why? Because these nations—China by its own admission—intend to catch up to the U.S. and then surpass it. Doubtless, others have like ambitions. They are tired of “eating our dust” and being dictated to by us. So, they have a plan, and intend to work it. That means—whatever we do—they are going to use fossil fuels (China is building coal-fired plants on schedule and regularly). If we are not careful, we’ll be “eating dust” and we’ll find we don’t like it.
Then, this item: when Mr. Gore is asked about the “costs” of this, he demurs, saying that people need to be “warned” first. How thoughtful of him. In his book, The Assault On Reason, at the start of chapter one, this statement: “Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason.” He then follows that up with a quote from Edmund Burke, “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” Neat, and true. Mr. Gore would do well to practice what he preaches. Mr. Gore, up front, needs to discuss the costs, and quit scaring us with imaginative scenarios that are nearly lies. (He himself states that the case needs to be bolstered. Here is his own statement, from Grist magazine, May 9, 2006: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.” So: lying is “in” and “truth” and openness are out.)
When the “costs” are considered, they are great, but not only in money. Who will be affected if some “global governance” controls the total energy supply? Who will decide the ones with “ability” and the ones with “need,” pray tell? If prices go up for energy—as they have in all of Europe’s countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol—then the poor and the ones on fixed incomes will be on the list of those directly affected. Think about a “brown-out” as energy control: how do you like these? How about rationing of gas? If you do not know, everybody pays about the same for oil, but in Europe, gas for your vehicle is about two times what it is here. Guess where the excess goes? To taxes, and government. Like here, “Send us your money, since we know how to spend it better than you do” (“Washington knows best”).
Assume for a moment that the earth is in crisis, with perhaps only ten years or so ( = per Al Gore) to do something. Think of billions of people in desperate need. Imagine “saving” the whole earth from doomsday. Then, think of Al Gore: like the “saviors” of old, with a date with destiny, Gore has the ultimate (and only) solution to this looming crisis. To go down in history books as snatching civilization and the planet from death from the crisis that only he saw and acted upon: it’s every politician’s dream! Now, for a commercial.
FOR SALE: A BILL OF GOODS (part 4, end of series)
Your welfare is tied to energy use. What you do, where you go, your work, home, physical body, medical care, aside from a place of worship, all relate to energy usage. In the 20th century, most of the U.S. “graduated” from wood and coal to oil, natural gas and electricity. Electricity brings power to your home, office, school, hospital. Even water comes through its use. Natural gas is ubiquitous, or nearly so. All these are related to the theory of global warming, and to the burning, for energy, of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, natural gas.
We have, in the past four articles, discussed some of the major points about the topic, such as terms and costs. Those involved in it, especially those with vested interests, have been mentioned.
When the issue is discussed by the “talking heads” or others, many things are presented as “evidence” for the supposition that the globe is indeed warming, and will continue to do so. Aside from mentioning the fact that one’s viewpoint will determine which evidence is used, and what it means, let’s take a brief look at some of the “evidence” for the topic.
Of the various things mentioned to support the theory, these can be mentioned.
One, the “poles” of the world. To begin with, the Antarctic is not melting. It is, if anything, “gaining ice.” As mentioned in other essays, the southern hemisphere is stable, not warming. So: no global warming.
The north pole, the Artic, is often mentioned as “warming” with water at the pole. First, past history shows that “water at the pole” is hardly unusual. Second, the water at the north pole appears at times in the summer, when it is warmer. Then, a third thing: the Artic is not on land, but simply a large chunk of ice. If it all melted, that would not raise the ocean any (think about ice cubes in a glass of water).
Greenland is often cited as having glaciers melting. That is true, at least about some of the glaciers. Others there are “growing” but these are never shown ( = think “cherry picking”). Then, we have called to your attention this point: the name: Greenland. How did that come to be? In short, because in its past history, Greenland was warmer, and was used for agricultural purposes. Then the northern hemisphere cooled a bit, and Greenland “grew” glaciers and the farming stopped.
Often, and lately, the polar bears in the Artic are cited as being “victims” of global warming. According to the Alaskan Department of Wildlife, the polar bears are doing quite well, with stable populations in almost all of the area in question. Such organizations as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have promoted the idea that the melting of the Artic is doing the bears in. Gore shows bears “in trouble” and thus endangered. Not so. Despite the WWF’s Polar Bears At Risk 2002 report which suggested that of the twenty groups of polar bears in the Artic, the total number is in decline, this is not so according to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Though the Artic around the pole does have water at the end of the summer (August, September), that is not any problem for the bears, which are holding steady numbers, and perhaps increasing. Ditto for the penguins in the southern hemisphere in general, though some small areas have shown breeding problems in the last decade or so. This had nothing to do with any global warming, but it made big headlines. . .and money.
It will be good to keep in mind this simple but profound fact: climate and weather are always changing, have changed over centuries, and will continue to do so. Climate is the sum total of all weather events over long periods of time. It is not conditioned on events of a local nature and in a particular place (such as Katrina). Though the Prince of Wales (Charles) asserted in 2000 that both mad cow disease and severe storms in Britain were the result of climate change, that is not borne out by the data. The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change had this report in 1995: “Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century.”
Moreover, animals and humans have adapted and survived ever since flood times, and have increased, especially humans, many times. The climate is as God said it would be. When the flood was over, He told Noah that “As long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall never cease,” Gen. 8:22. I suspect that He knew about atmosphere, and created the earth so it would continue to support life. In short, climate is rather fixed by God, and it is a bit of a stretch to suppose we are going to change it.
Butterflies, birds of various types, horse shoe crabs, toads, frogs, jellyfish, and many others have all been cited as victims (= evidence) of global warming. None of the stories about these things, as presented, are so, though all rated big headlines in the U.S. papers, and the researchers did quite well, thank you.
Various things may cause a given species to change in numbers, including land use, human consumption, and water. Consider the Midwest of our country. When the country was beginning, none of the Midwest was farmed; only grass, buffalo and such things. Along came agriculture and population and cities and cement, and the whole area changed. (Cities raise temperatures, as do types of farming.) The buffalo and deer and other things nearly disappeared, but it had nothing to do with global warming. All of these and more have been made poster images for the “greens” and associate folk. But the data don’t support the claim that goes along with the posters and hype.
Do yourself a favor: turn off the TV and the “motor mouths” on there, who imply any and all issues can be settled in two minutes or less, with some smart remark or “one liner.” They can’t. Rest easy. . .quit being upset by reports that a major world catastrophe is just around the corner, and something must be done NOW. Do remember Gore’s truth: fear is the enemy of reason. (For once, he had something right.) Ignore the “It Could Happen Tomorrow” on the Weather Channel. Keep in mind that all these have a vested interest (spelled M O N E Y) in alarming you. Tune them out. When someone tells you (Mr. Gore, for example) that the “issue is settled,” ask: for whom? (As a note, many of the reporters in the media assert that it is “biased” to have someone on their show who disagrees with the Gore scenario. Maybe they don’t know a bias when they meet one. But, you won’t hear “the rest of the story” because of their bias.) Go to the library or bookstore and read what is available on the subject. Consider this (Real Environmental Crisis, U.California, 2003) by Jack Hollander, who argues that “. . .extreme pessimism about the environment is not justified by science, by economics, by demographics, or by history,” (pg. xiii). In sum, file “global warming” under science fiction.
Bibliography for Global Warming.
The following list reflects the various sources from which the article on global warming (and the articles to follow) was gleaned. Be advised that there are hundreds of books on the subject, and thousands of articles. (One would never know this by listening to the media folk.)
1. The Assault on Reason, Gore, Penguin, 2007.
2. An Inconvenient Truth, Gore, Rodale, 2006.
3. Earth in the Balance, Gore, Houghton-Mifflin, 1992.
4. The Apocalyptics, Efron, Simon and Schuster, 1984.
5. Hard Green, Huber, Basic, 1999.
6. Politicizing Science, Gough, ed., Hoover, 2003.
7. Shattered Consensus, Michaels, ed., Roman and Littlefield, 2005, 8. Meltdown, Michaels, Cato, 2004.
9. The Real Environmental Crisis, Hollander, U. of California, 2003.
10. Toxic Terror, Whelan, Prometheus, 1993.
11. Environmental Gore, Baden, ed., Pacific Research, 1992.
12. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Horner, Regnery, 2007.