When talking of the environment this week, one would be remiss to not mention the noble (no pun intended) Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. No one has done more to bring Global Warming into the American consciousness than Al Gore. Interestingly, in the same week that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, his movie is also declared "political indoctrination" by a British Court, and found to be rife with material errors. For a list of the errors, look here. In what might just be the final nail in the coffin for the "credibility" of the Nobel Peace Prize (I know, I know, those were driven with Carter and Arafat) Gore wins a Peace Prize for false political propaganda? Unbelievable. Yet it is once again a demonstration of the lengths to which the radical environmentalists will go to to advance their agenda. "Thank you Al Gore, you're super awesome..." (PG-13)
Here's where I'm at on Global Warming. It's probably happening. There does seem to be some sort of global tempature rise in the past little bit. Just like there was a global tempature decrease of 0.7 degrees between 1950 and 1970. Like now it was, "freak out everybody, we're all going to die"... Be that as it may, there is little evidence that human impact is solely to blame for this warming, there is further a smaller amount of evidence that we can accurately forecast this increase in tempature or that we know how to prevent it. How can we work to solve a problem we dont' know how to solve? From the highly touted IPCC Report, "The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible." And yet they ask us to spend an estimated $300 Billion per year (the estimated America cost of Kyoto) to solve something they can't predict? Another quote from the IPCC: "Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850." So these models that you're basing your predictions of doom and gloom on have "some skill" at modeling the past? Um, how do you think they're doing on the future then? Should we really throw billions and billions of dollars at a problem in vain hopes that they will somehow solve a problem of sketchy origin, undetermined future and uncertain effect?
If you are at all interested in this issue, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of Michael Crichton's book State of Fear. Setting aside the fact that Michael Crichton is just a phenomenal writer, the book is fascinating in the way it looks at (and takes apart) much of the data we always hear espoused in support of global warming. He also has a speech here where he lays out the case for a skeptical approach to global warming. One of Mr. Crichton's fears with this whole global warming ordeal is that there is a definite political agenda driving the entire movement. The findings of scientists are replaced with the propaganda of politicians and passed off as undisputable fact. Another great speech of his is located here. He talks about how Environmentalism has become the religion of the radical left.
Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief... I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century... They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
In his book State of Fear he talks about another "scientific consensus" that was all the rage less than 100 years ago, was promoted by "leading scientists", celebrities and politicians, and yet had disastrous consequences for millions of people.
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago....Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated...
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with. Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis. (Excerpt taken from here)
The similarities between eugenics (and so many other looming "scientific" crises) and global warming are indeed striking. We need to be aware of what's going on here and watch things carefully. Don't accept things at face value because it's "consensus" or everyone knows it's true. And please, pick up a copy of Mr. Crichton's book, State of Fear.
All Michael Crichton quotations are taken from his website, http://www.michaelcrichton.com/ and are used with permission.
