The Truth Persists, All Cries Of “Consensus” To The Contrary
Conceding virtually all of the global-warming catechism has offered scant reason to sacrifice our freedom and prosperity on environmentalism’s altar. If we “come back to Earth” for a moment and acknowledge that man-made global warming remains at best a debatable proposition, the folly of entrusting environmental power to government becomes even more obvious. Yet even this humble acknowledgment of controversy proves impossible to secure from the other side, because like any religion run amok, environmentalism denounces and persecutes non-believers as heretics. One example of this zealotry unfolded during 2007 at “Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis,” a cathartic spectacle worthy of 1930s Munich. During the American leg of this tour, throngs of spiritual orphans listened with rapt attention as political scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ranted that all environmentally-hesitant politicians should be condemned as “traitors.”
Public pathos and a juggernaut of government-greased “scientific consensus” notwithstanding,1 true scientific inquiry never ceases and is constantly revealing more about the mechanisms behind global climate change, mechanisms that surpass anything that mankind could hope to accomplish for good or for ill.
First, mankind’s contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts to at most four percent (4%) of the total generated by “natural” sources such as animals, volcanoes, forest fires, plate tectonics, and the oceans. Moreover, all carbon-dioxide sources together comprise only 385 parts per million, or 0.0385%, of the atmosphere. So if we succumbed to the most rabid environmentalist agenda by returning humanity to the Stone Age, ninety-six percent of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere would continue to do so unabated, bringing the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere down to 0.0369%. The decrease would be even less significant if we enacted the liberty-destroying measures that most environmentalists advocate. So much drama, and despite the fact that Earth has experienced carbon-dioxide levels of 1000 to 2000 parts per million, or 0.1% - 0.2%, an order of magnitude greater than anything humans have ever witnessed. Such elevated levels of carbon dioxide likely explain the incredible biodiversity of the dinosaur era, which makes the modern mission to “save the planet” by curtailing carbon dioxide supremely ludicrous, as illustrated below.
Conceding virtually all of the global-warming catechism has offered scant reason to sacrifice our freedom and prosperity on environmentalism’s altar. If we “come back to Earth” for a moment and acknowledge that man-made global warming remains at best a debatable proposition, the folly of entrusting environmental power to government becomes even more obvious. Yet even this humble acknowledgment of controversy proves impossible to secure from the other side, because like any religion run amok, environmentalism denounces and persecutes non-believers as heretics. One example of this zealotry unfolded during 2007 at “Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis,” a cathartic spectacle worthy of 1930s Munich. During the American leg of this tour, throngs of spiritual orphans listened with rapt attention as political scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ranted that all environmentally-hesitant politicians should be condemned as “traitors.”
Public pathos and a juggernaut of government-greased “scientific consensus” notwithstanding,1 true scientific inquiry never ceases and is constantly revealing more about the mechanisms behind global climate change, mechanisms that surpass anything that mankind could hope to accomplish for good or for ill.
First, mankind’s contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts to at most four percent (4%) of the total generated by “natural” sources such as animals, volcanoes, forest fires, plate tectonics, and the oceans. Moreover, all carbon-dioxide sources together comprise only 385 parts per million, or 0.0385%, of the atmosphere. So if we succumbed to the most rabid environmentalist agenda by returning humanity to the Stone Age, ninety-six percent of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere would continue to do so unabated, bringing the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere down to 0.0369%. The decrease would be even less significant if we enacted the liberty-destroying measures that most environmentalists advocate. So much drama, and despite the fact that Earth has experienced carbon-dioxide levels of 1000 to 2000 parts per million, or 0.1% - 0.2%, an order of magnitude greater than anything humans have ever witnessed. Such elevated levels of carbon dioxide likely explain the incredible biodiversity of the dinosaur era, which makes the modern mission to “save the planet” by curtailing carbon dioxide supremely ludicrous, as illustrated below.
Figure 4.1
Atmospheric CO2 (measured in parts per million)2
Environmentalists demand that we submit to open-ended, global political control in order to shave the first bar of this graph ever so slightly. I think not. Supposing we should or could make a meaningful difference in total carbon-dioxide output – both man-made and “natural” – recent research strongly suggests that this would prove fruitless because carbon dioxide likely does not even cause global warming at all; rather, global warming may very well precede and cause the periodic surges of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In other words, the arrow of causation may run in the opposite direction: as the Earth experiences occasional increases in energy from the Sun and/or other cosmic sources, the Earth’s oceans slowly warm up and, centuries later, expel larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. One very articulate proponent of this theory is Dr. Sallie Baliunas, who received her doctorate from Harvard University, and who astutely compares the political rhetoric of today to the frenzied European witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – an age when many women were executed on accusations of “weather cooking.”
And again for the sake of perspective, it helps to remember that Earth existed for billions of years before we arrived on the scene, and it has experienced conditions far more radical than the grimmest scenarios painted by today’s prophets of doom. When we consider a pre-historic atmosphere brimming with carbon dioxide; recurring mass extinctions that have wiped out the vast majority of all previous life on Earth; ongoing asteroid impacts that dwarf man-made nuclear weapons (as well as any man-made “climate change”), we can safely conclude that the Earth has seen it all before and will continue to see it long into the future.
Only a mind saturated with self-hatred could conceive that humanity’s infinitesimal blink of activity is so menacing that it must be stopped or severely curtailed by force. Earth is quite capable of taking care of itself, which is more than man can say when he cripples his potential with lies born of idleness and spiritual poverty. That poverty has settled like a dense fog on many hearts and minds in the once-proud West, causing its people to beg for the very deprivations that modern governments are all too happy to supply. Mainstream news sources habitually report on man-made global warming as if it were unquestionable fact, discussing with grim sobriety the varying statist proposals to combat it. Captive audiences of schoolchildren receive lessons portraying this mania as information to be uncritically absorbed along with their multiplication tables (if those are even taught anymore). An emeritus professor at a prestigious Australian university recently went so far as to co-author a book – The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy – that condemns the West’s (dwindling) protections of individual rights as an obstacle to centralized environmental planning by “experts.” A jury in the United Kingdom refused to convict six Greenpeace activists who had destroyed private property at a power station, since their end of combating “global warming” excused their vandalistic means. And in a collective spasm of self-flagellation worthy of the Middle Ages, numerous cities in countries ranging from Thailand, the Philippines, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Greece, and the United States imposed blackouts on their populations in order to “heighten awareness” about man-made global warming.
People used to remark that the lights went out over Europe at the start of World War One, but posterity may very well note that the lights went out literally and figuratively over us all today.3 Such a cultural collapse renders almost futile any discussion of what is happening on the international legal stage in environmentalism’s name, since so many nations have already surrendered the philosophical fight to their domestic governments and thereby empowered them to perpetrate legitimized vandalism on a daily basis. On the other hand, however, environmentalists continue to rage that the “global community” is not doing enough, so perhaps there is some value in analyzing the international picture in the hopes of prolonging or deepening the environmentalists’ frustration.
_______________________________________
1. The notorious “hockey-stick” graph that illustrates a recent spike in global temperatures – and that erased the Medieval Warming Period in the process – epitomizes the intellectual corruption that always accompanies politics. Both the United Nations and the European Union latched onto this graph and touted it as proof positive for their designs, even after it came to light in 2003 that the graph is a farce of disjointed data cobbled together to produce a pre-determined outcome. An American physicist had generated the graph by intentionally ignoring contrary data and utilizing a computer algorithm certain to produce the conclusion that he (and his benefactors) sought.
2. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are thought to have greatly exceeded 2000 parts per million at various times prior to the Dinosaur (Mesozoic) Era, but employing this conservative ceiling makes the point nonetheless.
3. One heroic exception is Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, who has consistently denounced the global-warming dialectic as a politically-driven fraud. National sovereignty again proves its merit in challenging mass lunacy.
And again for the sake of perspective, it helps to remember that Earth existed for billions of years before we arrived on the scene, and it has experienced conditions far more radical than the grimmest scenarios painted by today’s prophets of doom. When we consider a pre-historic atmosphere brimming with carbon dioxide; recurring mass extinctions that have wiped out the vast majority of all previous life on Earth; ongoing asteroid impacts that dwarf man-made nuclear weapons (as well as any man-made “climate change”), we can safely conclude that the Earth has seen it all before and will continue to see it long into the future.
Only a mind saturated with self-hatred could conceive that humanity’s infinitesimal blink of activity is so menacing that it must be stopped or severely curtailed by force. Earth is quite capable of taking care of itself, which is more than man can say when he cripples his potential with lies born of idleness and spiritual poverty. That poverty has settled like a dense fog on many hearts and minds in the once-proud West, causing its people to beg for the very deprivations that modern governments are all too happy to supply. Mainstream news sources habitually report on man-made global warming as if it were unquestionable fact, discussing with grim sobriety the varying statist proposals to combat it. Captive audiences of schoolchildren receive lessons portraying this mania as information to be uncritically absorbed along with their multiplication tables (if those are even taught anymore). An emeritus professor at a prestigious Australian university recently went so far as to co-author a book – The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy – that condemns the West’s (dwindling) protections of individual rights as an obstacle to centralized environmental planning by “experts.” A jury in the United Kingdom refused to convict six Greenpeace activists who had destroyed private property at a power station, since their end of combating “global warming” excused their vandalistic means. And in a collective spasm of self-flagellation worthy of the Middle Ages, numerous cities in countries ranging from Thailand, the Philippines, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Greece, and the United States imposed blackouts on their populations in order to “heighten awareness” about man-made global warming.
People used to remark that the lights went out over Europe at the start of World War One, but posterity may very well note that the lights went out literally and figuratively over us all today.3 Such a cultural collapse renders almost futile any discussion of what is happening on the international legal stage in environmentalism’s name, since so many nations have already surrendered the philosophical fight to their domestic governments and thereby empowered them to perpetrate legitimized vandalism on a daily basis. On the other hand, however, environmentalists continue to rage that the “global community” is not doing enough, so perhaps there is some value in analyzing the international picture in the hopes of prolonging or deepening the environmentalists’ frustration.
_______________________________________
1. The notorious “hockey-stick” graph that illustrates a recent spike in global temperatures – and that erased the Medieval Warming Period in the process – epitomizes the intellectual corruption that always accompanies politics. Both the United Nations and the European Union latched onto this graph and touted it as proof positive for their designs, even after it came to light in 2003 that the graph is a farce of disjointed data cobbled together to produce a pre-determined outcome. An American physicist had generated the graph by intentionally ignoring contrary data and utilizing a computer algorithm certain to produce the conclusion that he (and his benefactors) sought.
2. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are thought to have greatly exceeded 2000 parts per million at various times prior to the Dinosaur (Mesozoic) Era, but employing this conservative ceiling makes the point nonetheless.
3. One heroic exception is Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, who has consistently denounced the global-warming dialectic as a politically-driven fraud. National sovereignty again proves its merit in challenging mass lunacy.
I commend you on your research, but I also must chastise you on you lack of scientific rigor. The natural balance of the earth allows for a process of creation and absorption of naturally produced (i.e. not manmade) CO2. This theory has been demonstrated as the historic levels of atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly through ice cores and indirectly through proxies. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml] When additional CO2 releases occur beyond the stasis level of the environment (e.g. mankind’s use of fossil fuels), the land an earth cannot absorb this additional amount. While you present a compelling graphic without reference or citation to justify your analysis, I suggest you review the CO2 evidences put forward by NASA for the past 650,000 years [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/].
ReplyDeleteI recognize that you will impugn my presentation because the researchers received federal monies. Accordingly, I must point out that your lone cited reference, Dr. Sallie Baliunas, works for Exxon Mobil. While I respect her bona fides as a researcher, I must raise a question based upon a variant of you own bias: was her research influenced by her funding source? For the record, Dr. Mann received his Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale University.
This post comes from my second book, Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony, wherein I provide endnote citations not reproduced here. I can send them to you if you would like to scrutinize them.
ReplyDeleteAtmospheric CO2 has been far greater than anything humanity has witnessed or could possibly cause. Punishing humanity to rein in our CO2 output under these circumstances resembles throwing a man in jail for urinating in the ocean.
Dr. Mann was caught with his pants down; Baliunas was not, so she wins on the ad hominem battlefield. I know you will dispute this; even if you do not, credentials are never a tonic for human nature. Just look at Alger Hiss (let me guess -- you think he was framed too, right?).
It is true that there has been prior time when CO2 was at far greater levels than today, but the land was covered in dense vegetation and the seas and oceans were less acidic allowing them to absorb higher levels of CO2; i.e. the natural ecosystem maintained an environmental equilibrium that allowed for the absorption of the higher CO2. However, today there are manmade factors that are not allowing the earth to maintain equilibrium. The National Academy of Science, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all arrived at the same conclusion: “…that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” While you cite one scientist that presents a counter argument by using a limited set of variables in her analysis, a majority of the scientific community has analyzed much greater ranges and volumes of data, modeled and derived findings that present a compelling case for climate change.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Dr. Mann, he was exonerated in the climate-gate e-mail scandal. You are allowing a false accusation to impugn his character and research. With regard to Alger Hiss, he went to his grave denying the accusations of espionage, but the evidence of his day proved otherwise in a court of law. If he were innocent, he was not the first person wrongly convicted. If he were guilty, then he was lucky with such a short sentence. I have not reviewed the facts surrounding his case to comment on either his guilt or innocence. Using this individual as an analogy against a prominent figure in climate science research who presents a dissenting opinion to your own to impugn my argument is the textbook definition of a straw man.
Truth has nothing to do with consensus. I take that back -- there is often an INVERSE relationship between truth and consensus. The more loudly a particular "truth" is trumpeted, the higher the chances are that it is false. Mass psychosis aided by political self-interest is not a good barometer of accuracy for anything, whether it's the geocentric theory or environmentalism.
ReplyDeleteOf course most scientists toe the line on climate change, since any non-conformity on that issue brings swift and harsh consequences. Like so many other areas of modern life, science has been politicized, perverted, and amounts to a circle jerk. Human progress is largely the result of hated non-conformists (again, something you of all people should appreciate), and thank goodness there are at least some scientists who value facts over popularity. Do you truly need me to tell you all their names, or is your Google not working?
For all the dense vegetation of the Mesozoic Era -- busily transforming carbon-dioxide into oxygen -- the atmosphere was still brimming with the former. That's the point here: large amounts of atmospheric CO2 are not a mortal threat to the planet. Water vapor is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas, but its quantity is unrelated to human action, so it's no small wonder that politicians ignore it.
And I know you hate hearing this, but the planet is ultimately doomed anyway. We should be focusing on maximizing human progress if we truly want to preserve life; environmentalists want to cripple humanity to save a planet that will wink out of existence and take all life with it if they get their way.
The hockey-stick hoax was exposed long before the e-mail scandal came to light, and I wrote my book before the scandal came to light as well. My use of Alger Hiss was simply to demonstrate that no matter how credentialed a person may be, he remains fallible. If you dispute that, perhaps you're converting to Catholicism.
By the way, I must pause to note that it took a brave woman -- Sallie Baliunas -- to rain on the parade of the good-old-boys' network here. I wrote a similar post not long ago about a brave woman in Florida's school system who refuses to call America a "democracy," which is a pernicious form of government the founders sought to avoid. Let it not be said that I undervalue women's contribution to the pursuit of truth. Sometimes, they're the only ones around with any cojones.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called exposure of the “hockey-stick hoax” by Soon, Baliunas and their coauthors has been discredited at many levels. The authors misrepresented their funding sources by citing grants that were unrelated to their research; the researchers from whom they reused data and findings identified the misuse and misrepresentation of their findings; and pertinent elements of their analysis misused collected data. For me, the most egregious element of their publication was that it relied upon qualitative analyses to refute quantitative findings. No researcher is infallible, and Dr. Baliunas’ findings are far from proven science, and demonstrate the fallibility of a credentialed individual. I guess my ability to rationalize such failings tells me that I will not be converting to Catholocism ;-)
ReplyDeleteLet it be noted that my points remain unrefuted regardless of Baliunas' credibility (which is in far better shape than Mann's). This portion of my argument was designed to show that debate still persists and that questions remain unanswered, and that has been thoroughly demonstrated. Thankfully, no amount of government abuse can destroy the human thirst for truth -- even if only a devoted minority of humanity bothers to pursue it.
ReplyDelete