Many letters to the editor, to newspapers all over the world, say the science on human-caused global warming is settled. Most of those letter writers don’t seem to understand science. They are, however, good at making up and espousing their own logic and view that justifies their emotions on planet-care.
The science isn’t settled. Not at all.
Science is rarely settled. If science was always settled, and debate stopped, we would all fervently believe the earth is flat and the sun circles the earth.
Proponents of increased taxation and those who will gain from cap-and-trade, including Al Gore, a gross polluter if ever there was one, are the ones who say the science is settled.
The left-leaning Gillard Labor government in Australia is about to saddle Australians with a carbon tax, euphemistically called a “Carbon Price,” because taxes are politically harmful. The government obviously doesn’t want to be associated with something bad. Gillard, who once said “No government I lead will introduce a carbon tax,” changed her mind for a reason she has not disclosed, but it may relate to power and influence, otherwise, why would she do it and why would she not explain the reason for the change of heart?
The government has no plan to use the tax to do anything, never mind make the environment healthier. Most of the money will be sucked up by larger government and free handouts to “lessen the pain.” Their plan is based on the expectation that companies will magically become “more green” so they can avoid the tax, but why would they, when they can just pass on the costs – hence the need for “compensation.”
Large numbers of Australians, mostly the youngest generation and their parents, agree with the carbon tax, but even those who agree with it, apparently think someone else should pay for it, not them. These large numbers are not a voting majority. Kids, of course are on-side, because what child wouldn’t want to save the planet?
It is very easy to sway young minds (and older ones) when you only give them half the story and reinforce that view many times, by using acolytes they know and trust.
Australian conservative politicians aren’t much better than the left-leaning politicians. They don’t have much of a story, other than tax is bad and the sky will fall. It may be too much to hope they will grow a backbone and use some real logic to counter the arguments.
For the record, the UN quotes 600 scientists as “authors” of their global warming paper. Those scientists had no ability to approve or correct what the UN wrote. The paper conforms to the UN view that suits their purpose, which appears to be increased control over the people of this planet.
In fact, my research says only five “reviewers” read all 11 chapters of the report and only 32 read more than three chapters. The reason is that most scientists will only critically review things within their sphere of knowledge. The IPCC has not published a list of the scientists who agree wholeheartedly with the report.
On the “against” side, more than 31,000 American scientists signed a petition that followed a 12 page peer-reviewed study that said we are merely in a cycle and there is nothing we can do about it.
The petition displayed at the Global Warming Petition Project website, and signed by the scientists, says:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t improve air quality or work on other energy sources. It does mean that we shouldn’t cede power to governments that will increase taxes, and burden business that employ people, make technological advances and make our lives better, based on some pie-in-the-sky reason that doesn’t hold up to logic or real science. Destroying the economy and allowing governments to waste the money they collect will do nothing positive for the environment.
Commenting on the “science is settled” canard, the petition project author says: “if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”
You may have heard that land temperature readings have all increased over the past 30 years. Temperature readings are taken inside a Stevenson’s Screen, a white box, 4 feet above the ground, in a location with air freely flowing around it. There are specifications for its construction and location.
In the past 30 years, tarmac roads and paths have encroached on screen sites. Buildings have been placed close to them and air-conditioning and heating ducts have been sited close to them, ignoring their special needs. It is little wonder that temperature readings are rising in those places, and those reading have been used to “settle the science.”
Last year, I read a report by Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who reviewed 87% of temperature stations all over the USA. You can watch his video report.
500,000 years ago, Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, says the planet lost the polar ice regions four times. Which humans caused that, and how did they come back each time?
By all means, let us debate, but please, do it with facts, not politically-generated hearsay.
So the next time someone says “the science is settled” on global warming, please, don’t let them get away with uttering that statement, please point them to this story and the underlying science.
Review the information yourself, at the comprehensive and very interesting Climate Observer
Also, see the Global Warming Petition Project website.
The following two paragraphs from the website indicate the “climate science” qualifications of the signers.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.