Archives for posts with tag: alarmism

I’ve stood against young earth creationism nearly 50 years. I’ve stood against global warming alarmism for over 20 years. They are the same thing. Both are committed to agenda driven ideology with no commitment to truth, facts, and verifiable observation.

The #hamonnye nonsense yesterday was as bad as I suspected it would be. I missed too much of it while driving kids to say much, but I expected Nye to be shallow. He was. I expected Ham to focus on the trivial and to equivocate. He did.

Truth! Above all. I saw very little truth from Ham. Very sad, especially since he is a professing Christian.

Biologos.com is a truth-committed source of information.

Like me, they expressed little hope regarding the #hamonnye event.

They have addressed the result here: http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take

I usually just reblog from Anthony’s site, but this one seemed to need a bit more. So, for my friends with concerns regarding GMO and all things modern with respect to food, here is an article where a poor study was published, then retracted, by a science journal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/28/science-self-corrects-bogus-study-claiming-roundup-tolerant-gmo-corn-causes-cancer-to-be-retracted/

Each of Anthony’s articles is read by thousands (or more) and each garners lots of comments, some from quite knowledgeable people. Sadly, it is not possible, nor polite, to weed through and keep only the good comments. Zeke’s comments are among the best on this topic.

WUWT posts the story pointing out how good science self-corrects. The point of the post is to contrast to climate science articles that get discredited thoroughly, yet they stay published, without retraction. Food and medicine research tend to self correct more than much of science, but there seems to be lots of latitude and variability along the way. Mistakes in food and medicine show up so fast that it cannot help but self-correct. There is also plenty of expertise in these fields, and high-profile. Sadly, these fields are still prone to politicization. It is sad when a disease or an advance in food science becomes politicized because of the delays for good and the protection of the bad. Lots of harm. Politics and science should try hard to stay far apart.

So, my summary of the situation with the GMO food, the peer review process raised lots of questions, but the authors answered. The journal published. (That is how they make their money, after all.) Then there were lots of questions and accusations from the readership. The journal got directly involved, reviewed hard themselves, and realized the reviewers shouldn’t have given up. While the authors still hold to their findings and conclusions, even they admit the results are shaky. Overall, it would appear the study really shows no cause for concern.

An obvious side effect of the publication of results that are at best questionable and inconclusive is that the fear-mongers latched on to it and publicized and raised the alarm bells, heedless of any rather obvious problems in the study.

For me, the subject of GMO is moot and meaningless. Humans have genetically modified everything they could figure out how to, in every way they could figure, for as far back in history as we can discern. For bible scholars, I’ll ask, what do you think Jacob was managing with the cattle betwixt himself and Laban?

We first figured out how to select the varieties that suited us best and promote procreation among those. Our skills improved over the generations. We eventually figured out the science behind it. Then we figured out the genome. At each step we have figured out better, or at least faster, ways to genetically modify organisms, especially those we eat.

It is easy to fear. It is best to simply keep your eyes open and stay alert to new dangers. Making up fears and dangers before they exist is a sure way to live a miserable, low-productivity life.

 

Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/mann-and-lewandowsky-go-psychotic-on-skeptics/

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.  Read the rest of this entry »

Here is another interesting looking book:

How to Cure a Climate Change Denier (Kindle Edition)

by Paul Caruso

Amazon is selling it as a Kindle edition for four bucks.

Anthony points it out on his most-excellent blog, Watts Up With Thathttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/how-to-cure-a-climate-change-denier/.

The “Look inside” selection has a passage that caught my eye. Since the text is configured to protect it, I’m typing from memory, and my quote below is inexact. Mr. Caruso points out that the “97% consensus” lacks force, and he explains what it is, then he says (approximate quote), “Even if the majority of climate scientists believe in global warming, the majority of priests believe in God.” He then asks what this proves? Does it prove God exists? He wonders if it rather indicates that those who believe in God are more likely to enter the priesthood.

Seems an apt analogy. I like it.

I’m pretty sure that nearly 100% of all holy men (and women) believe in god. They are experts in most every regard, and they are true authorities in the matter. Of course, this variety of holy man disagrees with that variety, but we can major on the similarities for the moment.

What has me irked is I am likened, in anti-Semitic fervor, to a Holocaust denier, while evangelical atheists strut smugly as skeptics, as though the label can only be used in their special sense, as the “It” religion of the day.

Mr. Caruso also points out that researchers follow available funding. At least clergy don’t generally do that. (With some exceptions, of course, some even horrid. That is why the Lord cautioned that one cannot serve both God and money.)

Stanley Kurtz, writing for the National Review Online, which the Climate Change Dispatch reproduced here, http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11714-the-wannabe-oppressed.html, (a less cluttered page than the original, here, http://www.nationalreview.com/education-week/360874/wannabe-oppressed-stanley-kurtz. –Ads don’t bother me. I’m happy to see them all in all, but some of the nonsense gets sad, and pop-ups, lay-overs, and things that start playing automatically are too invasive and presumptive in my opinion.)

The article is about the book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, by “French intellectual gadfly Pascal Bruckner” where he “does the most thorough job yet of explaining the climate movement as a secular religion, an odd combination of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism.”

My point here is that modern alarmism in all its stripes, is simply religion. Man is religious. We can no more be irreligious than we can be nonhuman. (We can be inhuman in our actions toward our fellow man, and inhumane, but human we remain. Likewise, religious.)

It helps to acknowledge this fact.

It is good to take account of the underpinnings of movements, and the way global warming alarmism plays out, it cannot be denied that it is a fundamentalists religious movement. One can identify point for point every aspect of young-earth creationism in global warming alarmism. Even the victimhood and “nobility” of persecution, real and imagined, are the same.

Stand for something, or fall for anything.

Thorough thinking is required. The unexamined life is not worth living. Far too many of us fail to notice this fact.

Alarmism is reactionary, not rational.

I like Norman Rogers writings. He’s written a piece at American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_climate-industrial_complex.html (and a slightly older article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/global_warming_as_faith.html). Good stuff.

In the current article, Mr. Rogers makes the case that our science associations, pretty much without exception, are self-serving money grubbers. Pretty much the only thing this science organizations accomplish any more is grant proposals and propaganda designed to keep fear high and public money flowing.

The argument leads directly to the politicized “science” environment we see with all things related to environmentalism and climate alarmism.

Quoting from the article:

“The climate science establishment does not criticize “clean” energy companies promoting highly impracticable schemes, be it wind farms, solar installations or electric cars. This is not because they don’t know that these schemes are useless, even by the standards of true believers in global warming, but because they have no enemies in the global warming subsidy sphere. They welcome allies in the climate-industrial complex, no matter how deficient in intellectual integrity, in the long march to fleece the taxpayer.” […]

“When scientific organizations endorse global warming catastrophe theory, remember that these organizations are really just fancied-up labor unions and their reports and statements are generally self-serving declarations disguised as objective analysis.  It is obviously foolish to ask scientific organizations to give objective advice concerning programs in which they are deeply self-interested.  The National Academy of Sciences says it mission is to give “… independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” The problem is obvious.  The government should seek out persons and organizations without a self-interest stake when asking for advice concerning science policy and science spending.”

I’ve added James Delingpole’s book to my “to-read” list. SPPI’s John Brignell reviews here:

How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future. | The SPPI Blog.

We live in a better world because a few people have the fortitude to stand up and shout that the emperor has no clothes, or in this case, that global warming alarmism is a hoax. I thank my Senator, the honorable Mr. Inhofe, most of all. Alarmism has always been bad. This time it somehow slipped into the mainstream. I wonder if submission to despotism is in our genes?

I suppose what gets me most is how hard it is for the alarmists to see that their proposed cure is far worse now, and adversely affecting our children and especially poor children around the world today, than what their supposed disease is supposed to be in the distant future. Besides, cold kills. Warmer is better.

It also gets me that it has been far warmer in the distant past. There has also been far higher CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. Also, these two circumstances have generally NOT coincided.

We all know the ideal gas law, and we all know that it is very sound and well established physics. We should all know that it doesn’t work in your automobile engine. We have to modify the ideal to the reality of the combustion chamber. Doesn’t it strike us common folk as odd that the experts can’t realize that the ideal radiative physics needs to be modified when we are talking about our real world and its complex, interrelated living systems? For heaven’s sake, we live on a water planet. Perhaps it takes living in the great plains of the USA to truly internalize how important the oceans are. Here in the middle of nowhere, we are daily reminded of the extremes that can develop when there is no moderating ocean nearby. Good thing we have that honkin huge Pacific out west. It seems to work great overall, but things here in tornado alley get dicey on a regular basis.

 

Norman Rogers points out that global warming alarmism is about the same as Soviet socialist realism.

Articles: Climate Realism and Socialist Realism.

Well, if I didn’t know better, I’d suspect our Pointman was reading my mail.

It would be nice if sensible people took the reigns of environmentalism. Keeping some wild is certainly a worthy cause. Beauty in nature is evident to nearly all of us. Keeping some of it is a good thing. I hold with Pointy, though, people first. All people, not just the elite and not just the downtrodden, and not any other group, but each of us, individually. Each person matters, and collective coercion is as bad as individual coercion.

I am reblogging because of the science point. Thanks, Pointman, I needed that. Yes, I see the damage climate alarmism has done to science in general, and I cringe. However, you are right. To us scientists, it is a big deal, and we are all diminished for it, but for most people, the damage is minimal, and confidence will ebb and flow as it always has. We will prove our science and ethics again by just being right and honest more often than not. Of course, it helps if we can admit when we are proven wrong. It also helps when we don’t call names and use other emotional tactics to attack those who challenge us.

Regarding policy going forward, we need to keep the big picture in mind, and we must never settle for the notion that doing something is better than waiting. There is much harm in the world resulting from little more than the argument that doing anything is better than doing nothing. It is rarely true where politics rule. I like to remind my legislative representatives that it is not their job to legislate. It is their job to represent me and the rest of our district. It seems to me that politicians think they are not doing their jobs if they don’t pass laws, regulations, and increase spending, which of course requires increases in revenue, which can generally only be done with new or increased taxes. Viscous, self-destructive cycle. Our leaders must remember to educate themselves diligently and make decisions wisely, always with an eye to liberty and rule of law, not rule of the mob nor rule of fashion and fancy.

Again, thanks Pointman. A very worthwhile read.

Pointman's

Charles Mackay wrote in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” The book may have been written in the mid-nineteenth century, but here we are at the kick off to the twenty-first, and that mass psychology is only too familiar. Maybe Hari Seldon was on to something after all.

The global warming craze is dying down. People, as Mackay noted, are coming out of it one by one and that process is accelerating with every passing day. Governments are cutting subsidies for green technologies not only because they don’t work, but because government coffers are empty. They’re broke. The politicians no longer mention it because it no longer gets votes and indeed just attracts a baleful hostility from a…

View original post 2,388 more words

So unbelievable! How could rational humans living today depict themselves burning books? Doesn’t this provide sufficient evidence that the alarmist cause is radical, dogmatic, religious and ideological hysteria of the worst type, the murderous, genocidal type? This really is case-closed for anyone who has not already drunk deeply of the kool-aid.

Watts Up With That?

From the Fahrenheit 451 department comes this indictment of California’s higher education’s “tolerance” for opposing views. When I first got the tip on this, I thought to myself “nobody can be this stupid to photograph themselves doing this” but, here they are, right from the San Jose State University Meteorology Department web page:

SJSU_bookfire

The caption from the SJSU website reads:

This week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute {this or this }. The book is entitled “The Mad, Mad, Made World of Climatism”. SHown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.

Maybe they just can’t help themselves, note the pictures on the wall.

Here is a screencap of the website relevant section:

View original post 95 more words

Ms. Laframboise is just good at this. (Covered in multiple outlets, but this one says it best and with class.)

—————————————————————————————————-

It’s too darn hot
It’s too darn hot
I’d like to sup with my baby tonight
and play the pup with my baby tonight
I’d like to sup with my baby tonight
and play the pup with my baby tonight
but I ain’t up to my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot
It’s too darn hot
It’s too darn hot
I’d like to stop for my baby tonight
and blow my top with my baby tonight
I’d like to stop with my baby tonight
and blow my top with my baby tonight
but I’d be a flop with my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot,
it’s too darn hot
it’s too darn hot
I’d like to fool with my baby tonight
break ev’ry rule with my baby tonight
I’d like to fool with my baby tonight
break ev’ry rule with my baby tonight
but pillow you’ll be my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot
it’s too darn hot
*BRIDGE*
According to the Kinsey report
ev’ry average man you know
much prefers to play his favorite sport
when the temperature is low
but when the thermometer goes way up
and the weather is sizzling hot
Mister Adam for his madam is not
cause it’s too too
it’s too darn hot, it’s too darn hot
It’s too too too too darn hot
I’d like to call on my baby tongiht
and give my all to my baby tonight
I’d like to call on my baby tongiht
and give my all to my baby tonight
but I can’t play ball with my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot
it’s too darn hot
I’d like to meet with my baby tonight
get off my feet with my baby tonight
I’d like to meet with my baby tonight
get off my feet with my baby tonight
but no repeat with my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot
it’s too darn hot
I’d like to coo with my baby tonight
and pitch some woo with my baby tonight
I’d like to coo with my baby tonight
and pitch some woo with my baby tonight
but sister you fight my baby tonight
cause it’s too darn hot
it’s too darn hot
According to the Kinsey report
ev’ry average man you know
much prefers to play his favorite sport
when the temperature is low
but when the thermometer goes way up
and the weather is sizzling hot
Mister GOB for his squab,
a marine for his queen
a G.I. for his cutie-pie is not
Cause it’s too too too darn hot
It’s too darn hot
It’s too darn hot

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

A resolution before the US Congress implies that global warming will increase prostitution. Cole Porter disagrees.

hear Ella Fitzgerald sing Cole Porter’s ‘Too Darn Hot’

John Brignell maintains a very long online list of things that are being blamed on global warming. Absurdities abound.

According to a Loch Ness monster hunter, Nessie may be one of its victims. The New Scientisttells us that climate change might make fish deaf. The Times of Indiareports that basmati rice may become less fragrant. Reuters quotes a Japanese politician saying that the final Olympic games may be those held in 2016, since global warming poses “an immediate threat to mankind.”

In other words, global warming is analogous to a Rorschach test. Whatever reasons an individual provides for being concerned reveals far more about their own assumptions and preoccupations than it does about the climate.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee now wants the…

View original post 373 more words

I have a quote below that I pulled from Anthony’s site (WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/26/newsbytes-global-warming-downgraded-james-lovelock-recants/), which he pulled from Bishop Hill (link below), with additional credits, from James Lovelock.

I love that Lovelock says fundamentalists have taken over environmentalism. I think despite the fact that he is a zealot himself, he finally noticed just how religious and dogmatic it all has become. Gaia, Mother Nature, or some ideal of greenness has come to replace God in the modern religion, which is a hybrid of the faith of our fathers, the love of nature, and simple self-worship. Read the rest of this entry »

Update:
I received a nice note back. I am mildly impressed. So far so good. They said they would forward my concerns to the fact-checker and the expert. No names nor qualifications, but oh well. Apparently if my concerns prove out, they will edit future printings. Hmm…
—————–
Dear Editor:
Regarding your issue on extreme weather, I must point out how exaggerated and even wrong nearly every statement in the issue appears to be.
Can you provide me references to back up your assertions? More importantly, can you provide me context wherein I can assuage the fears your magazine engendered in my children?
Perhaps you can visit this reference page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
and explain to me why each item is wrong, and provide at least two references to counter each.
Also, please don’t refer to the hypocrite-of-hypocrites Al Gore. He has recently proven his money-grubbing motives for all to see. Please refrain from referencing activists and radical environmental organizations. I’m looking for real science, where I can go check. No models that are proven more unreliable by the day, please.
Also, please reference this very old (for the internet) reference, http://scotese.com/climate.htm
Please explain to me Dr. Scotese assertion: “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
Please refer to, consider and understand, his figure. Please note that the current commonly referenced temperature that the earth has risen to since the Little Ice Age is 14°C. Please note that Dr. Scotese indicates a slightly lower temperature, of 12 or 13°C. Alarmists predict a 1, 2, 3, even 5 or 6°C increase over the next several decades. These projections are proving daily to be grossly exaggerated. Still, please explain how a temperature that has obtained for nearly the entire prehistory of life on earth can be so catastrophic. Please.
Before I make a point about the paleotemperature record, please let me point out a simple truth for perspective:
The global temperature as estimated from paleological proxies varied between 10 and 25°C, with two very brief (geologically speaking) excursions to approximately 27°C. Note: 10°C = 283.15K and 27°C = 300.15K. From that, we see that throughout the history of life on earth, the temperature has been remarkably stable. That is, 17K is less than 6% of 300K, thus earth’s global mean temperature is 290K ± 3% or less. Remarkably, stable. AND, currently we are well within the natural bounds.
Now, my final point regarding the Scotese graph. Note that the hottest excursion EVER according to the paleological record was just before the Early Eocene. That temperature excursion was 13 to 15°C greater than current earth temperature, more than double the wildest claims by the alarmists. What happened then? Was it a great extinction? Well, it seems some microorganisms in the ocean had a bad time of it, but quite the contrary, the main mammals emerge in the record then and primates about then too. Hmm… We seem to like it hot just as much as the dinosaurs did!
Further, with so much evidence that warm periods in the history of civilization were times of advancement in all aspects of good and civil society (the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period {we used to call these climate optimums until global warming became a cause for panic}), and cool periods like the Little Ice Age resulted in famine, disease, civil unrest, and war, why try to scare kids to death with computer model outputs that are proving more wrong every day? (We are well over 16 years now with no warming. Even the radical activist James Hanson has recently admitted to it. Not long ago the meme was it would take a full 15 years without increase to invalidate the models. Well?)
For a well reasoned hypothosis regarding why earth doesn’t overheat please see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/ (published here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/; http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/nm45w65nvnj3/?p=593f3e397da34c23b3806982df0b915e&pi=0)
Note: it is also why carbon dioxide, one of the three truly essential ingredients of life, will not significantly raise our temperature while we burn up all the available fossil fuel. (Note the three essential ingredients to life are dihydrogen monoxide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The first two are also responsible for a great deal of death, pain, destruction, and devastation throughout our world both now and throughout all of history. Not only do we live on a water planet, so there is no getting away from the dihydrogen monoxide, but it is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for at least 75% of the effect, probably more than 90%, maybe a full 95%. On a water planet–go figure.)
Weather is not getting more extreme. If the storm of September 1938 happened today, no one would consider Sandy significant. (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/hurricane/hurricane1938.shtml)
Every generation throughout the centuries has claimed the worst was upon them, or was just about to happen, if society did not repent and turn from its evil ways. What is different this time? The only difference is the source of prosperity, food, and shelter for all who enjoy abundant fossil-fuel energy versus “sin” or idolatry.
Please, I ask these questions in earnest. I truly would appreciate a full, detailed, point-by-point response. One lesson I live by and try diligently to teach my children is that it is always better to be corrected than to remain wrong. My sometimes-rebellious redheaded 19-year-old daughter still has not come to grips with the notion that some people would rather remain wrong than admit to it.
I have been accused of caring nothing for the future. But that is utterly false. I am raising five of the best children the world has ever known, and I want them to have a better place to live than I have. EPA statistics show we are doing better in pollution. Technological advances keep food and energy ahead of demand most of the time. Only short-sighted politics seems a real threat, and ideological demagogues masquerading as objective scientists. We need to remember Feynman. We ourselves are the easiest to fool. We must take pains do find out our mistakes and blind spots.
One final question: Will not the proposed cure certainly cause more harm in the very real present than the supposed disease will cause in the very distant future?
Sincerely,
Lonnie E. Schubert

I watched PBS Frontline earlier tonight, and I wrote the following, and sent it to Frontline comments and the PBS ombudsman.

Being in general conservative, I rarely watch Frontline, as your progressive views offend me, but I heard via Mr. Anthony Watts’ blog of the “Climate of Doubt” episode. I expected a one-sided hit piece. You even exceeded my low expectations. Have you no fact checkers? Could you not review the “97%” claim and read the shoddy paper from which it came? Did any of you read any of the Climategate emails? Do you not realize how impossible it is for the release to have been accomplished by an outsider? We normally hold whistleblowers up as heroes. Have you no one who might look into the facts of history for “funding” of skeptical views on the “science” of global warming? Could you not find the records that compare the billions of dollars funding the “team” and climate research, mostly from tax dollars, versus the thousands directed to skeptical efforts, almost entirely from private sources? What about the global situation versus just here in the USA?

The old saying is “follow the money.” What happened to that?

PBS recently interviewed Anthony Watts. Could none on your staff visit his website and review the breadth of references and discussions there of facts? Did any of your staff read any of the materials put out by the people and organizations you lambasted? If you did, you addressed none of it in the episode.

Dare I point out that we hardly have a consensus in science about such fundamentals as gravity? Do you not understand that arguments from majority and consensus are arguments from authority? Is not argument from authority the basis of religion? Science tests. Science admits ignorance and fallibility. Science checks, and checks again. There is no reveled truth, only reproducible results. Science is never settled. Climate science is hardly more mature and testable than psychology and the other soft sciences; some would say even less mature.

The alarmists and advocates of anthropogenic driven climate change that leads to catastrophe can readily and exactly be compared to religious fundamentalists. The easiest comparison is to the young-earth creationists. The group points to their authority in holy writ. They point to their technical training, degrees, honors, and scientific papers of their cohort, and they hand-wave regarding the circular and incestuous nature of their research and findings depending upon one another and a few agreeable and acceptable “outsiders.” I know this because I have been trying to stand for truth against such beliefs for nearly my entire life.

Truth will out. The facts will triumph. In the end, it will be the alarmists eating crow, or at least needing to. Whether they will ever admit their folly is another matter. (Shockley never admitted eugenics was bogus.)

In the episode it was stated that the sea will win. Of course. It will rise and fall as it always has, higher and lower than we can imagine, and we will deal with it. The facts are clear; sea level is not a problem. Even if it rises enough to matter, it will rise slow enough to deal with without catastrophe nor excessive economic hardship. Mr. Watts collects several sources of factual data here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean-pages/ocean/

Here is an easy to understand perspective on the whole thing: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/

If you succumb to your prejudice against Mr. Watts, perhaps you will better appreciate PhD geologist, Christopher R. Scotese and his paleomap project, which he started before any global warming controversy, here: http://scotese.com/climate.htm

Dr. Scotese describes his graphic, which clearly shows that the history of earth is MUCH warmer than the alarmists predict for our near future. He states, “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”

If you note, during the Tertiary, near the boundary of the early Eocene, the indicated temperature for the global average was approximately 14°C higher than the currently indicated global average. I hardly need to point out that this is much warmer than even the most alarmist of projections. Note also that the early Eocene is when we see the emergence of most modern mammals, including us primates, and ungulates did quite well, perhaps because a warm earth is a green earth.

Regardless of your fast-and-loose attitude to facts, truth, and testable science, and your obvious slant on politics, the most disturbing aspect of the episode to me was the hate. Yes, it is an overused and trite word nowadays, but you treated skeptics, including me, by association and implication, with ridicule and spite. It seems you must have conscientiously intended to make Dr. Singer seem to be a doddering and senile old codger, worthy only of your condescension. Us-versus-them is key to your argument. You alienate and even dehumanize those who refuse to conform to the consensus, establishment view. You imply I am heartless and selfish, focused only on myself and my own present comforts. Note that others are going so far as to medicalize skepticism. There seem to be efforts to lock people like me away as contrarians and deniers, putting us on par with the likes of Ahmadinejad, who for fanatical religious reasons denies the holocaust of WWII. (No one seems to suggest that he be locked away, at least no one from the left of the political spectrum.) So, you see, I take this all rather personally. I care deeply for my children, and I strive to provide a better world for my posterity for ages to come. I am simply convinced that Luddite views cannot work—they kill. Alarmism and apocalyptic thinking are invariably harmful.

Technology advances in ways that we cannot predict even over a few months. The world of today was unimaginable to people born only a century ago. The pace of change and advancement is quickening. We cannot tell what may or may not result from our choices decades hence. We never have. We never will. We must think ahead and plan wisely, but fighting weather via a war on fossil fuel is the epitome of folly. Thinking we can control the weather at all is the height of hubris.

As a closing note, you had Lord Monckton calling global warming alarmism by the title of Penn and Teller’s television series. Keep in mind that these champions of the con point out that we just don’t know. They point out that there are many motives that are not compatible with science and sound thinking that drive environmentalism in general, and global warming alarmism specifically. They don’t quite call it a hoax, but I agree with my Senator.

%d bloggers like this: