Manmade Global Warming


This page was last updated on August 27, 2017.


The politics

The messengers

The data doesn’t matter

The quality of the “data”

Links to other comments

The language



This paper isn’t a detailed discussion of the science supporting or refuting the theory of manmade global warming (MGW).  Instead, the purpose is to explain why I’m skeptical.

Before I get to my MGW skepticism, here’s a summary of my energy position.  I’ve written for years I have no problem with “green” energies and I think most of us believe we should exploit all economically and technically viable energy sources.  By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera.  This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production.  What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “green” energies while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy.  Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.  This is not the position of most leftists most of the time.  Indeed, as soon as “green” energies get close to commercial viability, they are no longer deemed “green.”  We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.  We also saw this behavior regarding natural gas.  It wasn’t long ago lefties extolled the virtues of “clean” natural gas and lobbied for coal-fired power plants to be converted to natural gas.  Of course, that was before hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”) technology (in commercial use since 1949) advanced to the point it could tap the natural gas trapped in the Marcellus Shale formation.  Here’s a way to illustrate where the left stands using an impossible hypothetical situation.  If someone found a literally limitless underground pool of contaminant-free hydrogen that could be extracted and consumed cheaply around the world – even in impoverished countries - without environmental damage, would the left cheer or jeer?  The left would jeer, probably on the grounds consuming hydrogen generates water vapor, a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide.  The real reason?  Affordable and plentiful energy means freedom and leftists live to control the rest of us.

As I’ve written previously, companies harvesting natural resources must do so in a responsible manner and must have the financial and technological wherewithal to handle worst-case scenarios.  It is our responsibility to make sure the rules – enacted by legislators, not regulators - don’t cross the line between responsible and punitive using limited-government principles.  It is government’s responsibility to enforce these rules and to make sure everyone involved [businesses and government (local, state, federal)] is prepared (via drills, for example) to execute disaster plans.   In the very, very unlikely case we can’t do this while providing a commercially-viable energy source, there should be no drilling until we can.

Back to MGW, I am open to the possibility that man could contribute to global cooling or warming.  I know there are a few people who assert it’s impossible for man to affect the global climate, but I’m not in that camp.

I am, however, skeptical we are having an effect.  In no particular order, below are my major reasons for skepticism.

The messengers

To be frank, one of my major problems with the theory of MGW is with the messengers because they have no credibility in my eyes.  Though I’m sure there are exceptions here and there, MGW believers tend to be leftists.  As a result, they are the same people who tell us higher tax rates help the economy, government-mandated higher wages help the economy, cutting tax rates is bad, exploring for domestic gas and oil is bad, abortion is good, et cetera.

In summary, if Al Gore told me the Sun rises in the East, I’d get my compass and look out my window for confirmation. <g>

The source of a local teacher’s global warming training (see the next section), The Climate Project, is sponsored by Participant Productions.  In its own words, Participant describes itself as “a growing community of film lovers and activists who are dedicated to engaging their minds, sharing their passions, and improving the world around them,” “a film company with a mission to make the world a better place.  We believe in the power of media to create social change,” and “actors, filmmakers, issue experts, moviegoers, and activists from all over the world.”  The site also states “Each Participant film has its own social action campaign.”  Yes, An Inconvenient Truth is a Participant film.

None of this talk about “film lovers and activists” or “social change” should give anyone interested in an accurate assessment of the data and science a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Further, let’s not forget Al Gore – MGW’s evangelist-in-chief – is a career politician.  Mr. Gore, owning three homes – one a 20-room, 10,000 ft2 mansion – and flying around in private jets isn’t exactly reducing his “carbon footprint.”  According to a Tennessee Center for Policy Research press release, “The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.  In 2006, Gore [the 20-room mansion] devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”  It appears to me Mr. Gore doesn’t practice what he preaches.

To defend himself, Mr. Gore says he purchases so-called “carbon offsets” to reduce his “carbon footprint.”  What are carbon offsets?  It’s paying someone else to clean up pollution or not to pollute while you continue to pollute as usual.  It’s like paying someone not to eat so you can claim to be on a diet.

(To be clear, I have no problem with Mr. Gore owning multiple large residences, traveling in private jets, et cetera.  If you’ve been financially successful enough in your life to do so, I think that’s great.  My problem is Mr. Gore telling everyone to reduce their “carbon footprint” while he’s generating far more CO2 than the average person.)

Note, under the right circumstances, trading pollution credits is a proven way to reduce pollution while not economically crippling the affected businesses/industries.  Interestingly, the very people who tend to oppose pollution credit trading by business seem to have no problem with carbon offsets.

What Mr. Gore fails to tell us is he purchases at least some of his offsets from a company (Generation Investment Management LLP) he helped found and for which he serves as chairman.  As a result, in some cases Mr. Gore is doing no more than taking money from one of his pockets and putting it in another.

Is it just me, or is it convenient Mr. Gore has a direct financial interest in the MGW crusade he’s on?

If you thought the above was bad when I first wrote this piece several years ago, consider Mr. Gore’s latest stunt.  Mr. Gore was co-founder and chairman of Current TV, a cable/satellite network.  On January 2, 2013, Al Jazeera announced its purchase of Current TV.  According to Forbes, “Al Jazeera is paying about $500 million for Current TV.  That means former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s stake in the deal may net him $70 million.  Not surprisingly, much remains cloaked behind the deal’s burqa.  Some are criticizing Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against global warming.”  Yep, you read that right.  MGW’s evangelist-in-chief – complete with a Nobel Peace Prize for that scam – will pocket nearly $100 million dollars from Qatar-owned-and-based Al Jazeera, at least partially funded by Qatar’s crude oil production.  According to Mr. Gore, “Al-Jazeera shares Current TV’s mission to give voice to those who are not typically heard, to speak truth to power, to provide independent and diverse points of view.”

For comparison, let’s look at former President Bush’s house in Crawford, TX.  The Chicago Tribune reported then-President Bush’s “4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.  Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.  Systems such as the one in this ‘eco-friendly’ dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

“A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern.  The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home.  Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.”1

Would today’s MGW messengers be the same scientists who 40 years ago sounded the manmade-global-cooling alarm then almost overnight switched to manmade global warming?  If doomsayers of the 1970s had been correct, we’d be having this discussion from the middle of an ice age.  You may recall these folks claimed manmade particulate pollution was reflecting too much of the Sun’s energy back into space, thus reducing the Earth’s temperature.  (Note: To explain why their predictions have not come to pass, today’s MGW believers have resurrected the idea manmade particulate pollution is delaying the warming.)  During the 1970s, publications like Newsweek (The Cooling World; April 28, 1975), Science Digest, The Christian Science Monitor, and Time (The Cooling of America; December 24, 1979) published articles about the impending “ice age.”  In the late 1960s, we were told we’d all starve to death within the next couple of decades due to overpopulation and an inability to produce enough food for everyone.  In the mid- to late-1980s, we were told the oceans would be dead within 10 years.  Remember when we were told DDT was the bane of mankind, only to have millions of people die from malaria that could have been prevented by spraying DDT to kill the malaria-carrying mosquitoes?  (In 2006, after more than 40 years of DDT hysteria, the World Health Organization reversed its position.  What new data changed the WHO’s mind?  None.  All of the DDT science has been well documented since the 1960s.  How many million people died unnecessarily because of DDT “consensus?”) 

As a rookie engineer at the Texaco Research Center (RIP) during the mid-1970s, I worked with a fair number of scientists.  They are normal people, neither saints nor sinners.  To assume someone is above reproach just because he’s labeled a “scientist” (or engineer, reporter, and so on) is foolish.

In a 2013 interview with Bill Nye, CNN news anchor Deb Feyerick asked, “Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid.  What’s coming our way?  Is this an effect of, perhaps, global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?”  Yes, you read that right and it is not an urban legend.  Ms. Feyerick was apparently serious when she actually wondered if global warming could cause falling asteroids.

Here are some excerpts from a speech given by Secretary of State John Kerry (D) during a 2014 MGW trip to Jakarta, Indonesia.

“And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain.  It’s something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science.  No one disputes some of the facts about it.  Let me give you an example.  When an apple separates from a tree, it falls to the ground.  We know that because of the basic laws of physics.  No one disputes that today.  It’s a fact.  It’s a scientific fact.  Science also tells us that when water hits a low enough temperature, it’s going to turn into ice; when it reaches a high enough temperature, it’s going to boil.  No one disputes that.  Science and common sense tell us if you reach out and put your hand on a hot cook stove, you’re going to get burned.  I can’t imagine anybody who would dispute that either.”  As I note later in the paper, at one time “the science [was] absolutely certain” the world was flat, the universe orbited the Earth, and so on.

“First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

“I have to tell you, this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people.  Sometimes you can have a reasonable argument and a reasonable disagreement over an opinion you may have.  This is not opinion.  This is about facts.  This is about science.  The science is unequivocal.  And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.  Now, President and I – Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

“And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”  Mr. Kerry likened MGW to weapons of mass destruction four times – and terrorism three times - during the speech.

The rest of the speech is mostly the same shrill rhetoric.

Two days earlier, President Obama claimed MGW is causing drought in California.  Amazingly, though, this assertion was too much for even the pro-MGW New York Times to swallow without reservation.  Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute tells readers, “there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon.  Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems. … ‘I’m pretty sure the severity of this thing is due to natural variability,’ said Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.  To be sure, 2013 was the driest year in 119 years of record keeping in California.  But extreme droughts have happened in the state before, and the experts say this one bears a notable resemblance to some of those, including a crippling drought in 1976 and 1977.”  How long will it take for the link between MGW and drought to become “absolutely certain … [and] something that we understand with absolute assurance of the veracity of that science?”  How long will it take for those who don’t link MGW and drought to become “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues” and members of “the Flat Earth Society?”

Finally, not only does Mr. Gore refuse to consent to a debate on the subject, he refuses to take questions when they address the alleged factual inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth.  During the Q&A following his speech at the Society of Environmental Journalists in October 2009, a questioner’s microphone was cut off when he asked questions about a British court ruling that An Inconvenient Truth had significant errors.

The quality of the “data”

The winter 2007 edition of On Center, a Center Area School District (merged with the Monaca School District in 2009 to form the Central Valley School District) newsletter, contained a story about how a high school science teacher “recently completed a rigorous training program led by former Vice President Al Gore to spread the message about the threat of and solutions to global warming.”  That a science teacher would seek scientific training from a career politician was a cause of concern.

I visited CHS (now CVHS) the following day and requested a copy of the course materials the instructor planned to present.  The instructor said he received the presentation and the information contained therein during his training by The Climate Project and Al Gore.  The instructor was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the presentation (PowerPoint).  Since then, the instructor told me not everything in the presentation came from his training session.

On a side note, the instructor told me the school district did not pay for his training.  The teacher asserted he paid for his own travel expenses and The Climate Project provided the training gratis.

I critiqued the presentation and sent my comments to the instructor.  You can read those comments here.  If you’ve seen An Inconvenient Truth, many of the CHS slides are similar to those in the movie.

As I noted in my critique, I believe anyone should be concerned about the number of errors and misrepresentations I found.

All the errors and misrepresentations reminded me of a comment made by a Penn State – Beaver science instructor concerning the voting machine issue.  On the now-defunct Beaver County Coalition for Social Justice forum he wrote, “Perhaps provoking them [election officials] with stretched truths is an apporpriate [sic] tactic.  But let’s see it for what it is … a tactic.”  When do “stretched truths” become lies?  Keep reading.

A 2007 UN IPCC report asserted Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.  In January 2010, the IPCC conceded there was no science to support this assertion.  How did the claim get into such a high-profile report?  The IPCC admitted it simply had taken this “info” from a 2005 report issued by the environment advocacy group World Wildlife Fund and made no attempt to validate the claim.  Where did the WWF get the info?  From 1999 magazine interviews with a glaciologist.  Just as the IPCC, the WWF did not investigate the claim.  Where did the glaciologist get the data?  Nowhere.  The glaciologist acknowledged his assertion was speculation, not the result of formal research.

Was the Himalayan glacier mess just a case of something slipping between the cracks?  Nope.  The coordinating lead author (Dr. Muran Lal) of the IPCC report’s chapter on Asia said he knew the claim was not based on peer-reviewed research.  According to the UK Daily Mail, Dr. Lal said, “It related to several countries in this region and their water sources.  We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.  It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”  Translation: The claim supported the narrative the IPCC wanted to present so they accepted it without question.  You may recall the same thing happened in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team non-rape case.

We also find MGW believers don’t want to share their data with skeptics, even to the point of breaking the law.  If the data is legitimate and supports their positions, why would believers risk prosecution to hide the data?

We may have the answer from Phil Jones, former head of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit.  During a February 2010 BBC Q&A, Mr. Jones conceded there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.  Mr. Jones also conceded, though a trend, there was statistically insignificant cooling since 2002.  In a BBC interview, Mr. Jones said “two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming [to current alleged warming].  And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.”  Mr. Jones then said his data was insufficiently organized and the data sources were insufficiently documented.  What a difference Climategate and the uncovering of bogus claims have made.

The language

We’re seeing the same language tactics for MGW we typically see for leftist causes.  Here are some examples.

·       MGW believers rarely use the term manmade.  By simply referring to “global warming,” their implication is all alleged global warming is manmade.  It’s the same thing we see with the illegal immigration and stem cell research issues.  If you oppose illegal immigration and/or embryonic stem cell research, you’re branded as opposing immigration and/or stem cell research.

Now that global warming believers have been embarrassed too many times by weather colder than they expected, they have mostly switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change.

·       Weather and climate tend to be used interchangeably.  As a result, MGW proponents cite warmer than normal days as proof of their position.  Incredibly, even cooler than normal days are cited as proof of global warming because proponents claim weather variability is also a symptom of MGW.

Predictably, though, MGW believers suddenly understand the difference between climate and weather when the need arises.  For example, global temperatures dropped by nearly a degree during 2007, and the 2008 winter was colder than normal.  When presented with this data, believers either use the “weather variability is a symptom of MGW” BS or correctly note that one year doesn’t make a trend and thus is not indicative of climate change.  While correct on the second point, the believers also demonstrate incredible hypocrisy.  That is, believers will treat two warmer than normal days in a row during the hottest part of August as proof of MGW, but will reject over a year’s worth of data that shows cooling.

Another example of this behavior occurred during April 2007.  In some of my writings on this subject, I mention the MGW gang blamed the severity of the 2005 hurricane season on MGW and predicted an even worse season for 2006.  When 2006 turned out to be a very mild hurricane season, the MGW guys were silent.  Well, they’re silent no more.

I saw a piece on TV asserting hurricane experts determined the mild 2006 season was due to high altitude winds shearing the tops off of building hurricanes.  These winds routinely change tracks – some years at higher latitudes and some at lower – and during 2006 their primary track carried them over hurricane regions.  You guessed it.  MGW believers picked up on this and claim the 2006 change in high altitude wind tracks was the result of weather variability caused by MGW.  As a result, they also took the next step and claimed the mild 2006 hurricane season was a symptom of MGW.  As I noted above, it doesn’t matter what the weather is, any weather is proof of MGW to the believers.

I wrote the above before the 2007 hurricane season.  As a reminder, the 2007, 2008, and 2009 hurricane seasons were also mild.  That was four mild hurricane seasons in a row after believers guaranteed hurricane seasons would get progressively worse.  The 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons were active.  Most will remember 2012 for Hurricane Sandy (aka “Superstorm Sandy”), but Sandy’s impact was not because of its intensity.  Sandy peaked at category three before passing over Cuba and was at category one before making landfall in New Jersey.  Most of Sandy’s impact was the result of storm surge flooding the barely-above-sea-level areas of the New Jersey/New York area.  There were no major hurricanes during the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season.  According to The Washington Post, “The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in thirty years. … On average (1981-2010), 12 tropical storms form during an entire season, 6-7 of those go on to become hurricanes, and 2 of those reach major hurricane intensity (category 3+).  In 2013, there were 13 tropical storms, 2 hurricanes, and no major hurricanes. Even the two hurricanes that formed were just briefly minimal category 1 storms.  The last time a season ended up with only two hurricanes was 1982, and the last season to have zero major hurricanes was 1994.  The most intense storms this year had maximum sustained winds only reach 75 knots (Humberto and Ingrid).  Dr. Phil Klotzbach, a researcher at Colorado State University, noted that is the weakest maximum intensity for a hurricane during a season since 1968.”  As for the 2014 hurricane season, NOAA reported, “Tropical cyclone activity was somewhat below average in the Atlantic basin during 2014.  Eight tropical storms formed, of which six became hurricanes, and two intensified into major hurricanes.  In comparison the long-term (1981-2010) averages are 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes.  The NOAA Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index for 2014 was 72% of the long-term median.”

For 2015, NOAA reported, “Tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic basin during the 2015 season was somewhat below average. Of the 11 tropical storms that formed, 4 became hurricanes, and 2 reached major hurricane strength (category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale). In comparison, the 1981-2010 averages are 12 tropical storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index was 68% of the long-term median value.”

For 2016, NOAA reported, “Tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic basin during the 2016 season was above the 1981-2010 long-term average and well above that seen during the 2013-15 hurricane seasons.  Fifteen tropical storms formed, of which seven became hurricanes, and four reached major hurricane strength (category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale).  There was also one tropical depression that did not reach tropical storm strength.  By comparison, the 1981-2010 averages are 12 tropical storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes.  The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index, a measure that takes into account the strength, duration, and frequency of the season’s tropical storms and hurricanes, was 140% of the long-term median value.”

Harvey (2017) is the first major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. since 2005.

·       If you are a MGW skeptic, you’re labeled a “denier.”  The analogy to Holocaust deniers is intentional.  For example, columnist Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

·       “Carbon offset” has a fairly loose definition.  It can range anywhere from paying someone else to reduce their carbon footprint so you can keep yours, to simply investing in so-called “green” companies.

·       A couple of days after winning an Academy Award for An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore said, “more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say ‘rejected,’ perhaps it’s the wrong word.  They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.”  Yes, you read that correctly.  Mr. Gore referred to balanced reporting of the MGW issue as “bias.”

·       Scientists who do not buy into the MGW theory are regularly branded as hacks or bought off by business.  Scientists who support the MGW theory are called scientists, while scientists who don’t are labeled deniers, or skeptics if lucky.  The author of a letter-to-the-editor turned the tables and – correctly or not – asserted “Climatologist professors claim a broad agreement about global warming, but don’t say that agreement is only among themselves, who rely on government and grants to promote their agenda.”  Suddenly a believer saw the light and responded, “And all scientists are paid by someone.  If your argument held, that would mean there’s no science at all.  It’s all just ‘funded opinion.’”  Elsewhere, though, I’m sure the believer will continue to claim non-supporters are paid off.  Here’s an “Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations” with the subject line “Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.”  The 100 signatories are allegedly “Prominent Scientists.”  I can’t vouch for the individuals, but a quick scan of the list shows many are scientists from well-known and respected colleges/universities/etc. in the U.S. and around the world.

·       MGW believers tell us the science is solid, yet they constantly talk about consensus.  If the science were strong, they’d be talking about proof, not consensus.  At one time, so-called scientific consensus told us the world was flat, the universe orbited the Earth, man couldn’t travel faster than sound, and that stomach acid was the primary cause of ulcers.

·       In his movie, Al Gore drew an analogy between MGW skeptics and the tobacco industry’s denial that smoking could kill you.

The politics

If you saw An Inconvenient Truth, you know it was as much or more about Al Gore than it was about MGW.  If you doubt politics is behind the theory of MGW, do you need more proof than Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize (2007) for his advocacy?

You also noted Republicans were always the “bad guys.”  Republicans were the only ones making comments casting doubts on MGW.  The idea was to have us believe Democrats want to save the Earth while Republicans want to destroy it.

History, though, tells a different story.

In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution [S. Res. 98 sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)] 95-0 stating the U.S. should not sign any treaty – as in the Kyoto Protocol – that didn’t include all countries, whether developing or already industrialized.  95-0 means both Democrats and Republicans unanimously opposed the Kyoto Protocol and – as noted – a Democrat was the resolution sponsor.

U.S. environmentalists like to skip over the fact that so-called “developing” countries like India and Red China are specifically excluded from the Kyoto treaty.  In a letter President Bush sent to several senators in March 2001, Mr. Bush asserted the Kyoto pact excluded 80% of the world.

If MGW is such a pressing issue and has nothing to do with an economic, political, and social agenda, why did the Kyoto treaty exclude 80% of the world?

As a result of the above “sense of the Senate,” then-President Clinton – a Democrat – never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

In 1998, then-VP Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol for the Clinton administration in what was nothing more than a PR stunt.  Treaties cannot be implemented in the U.S. without the approval of 2/3’s of the Senate.

To make sure nothing was done in the U.S. about the Kyoto Protocol, the Clinton administration – with Al Gore as VP – included language in subsequent appropriation bills to make sure the EPA didn’t use any funds to “issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol” until the Senate ratified the treaty.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore assured voters the U.S. wouldn’t enter into the Kyoto treaty until it included developing nations.

This is not Mr. Gore’s opinion today.  When Red China recently said it would do nothing about MGW until after the U.S. did, Mr. Gore actually supported that position.  Again, if the MGW issue isn’t about an economic, political, and social agenda, why would Mr. Gore support Red China’s position?

During An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore alleges the success of auto companies like Honda and Toyota relative to companies like Ford and GM has to do with Honda and Toyota building “green” vehicles.  Apparently Ford and GM being saddled with $1,500 to $2,000 per car for healthcare insurance and pensions isn’t a factor in Mr. Gore’s world.  I’m sure Mr. Gore also believes Honda and Toyota being nonunion in the U.S. isn’t a factor either.

The data doesn’t matter

If the above doesn’t convince you to be skeptical, consider the following comment by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the wake of the Climategate scandal.  At the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, Mr. Blair said, “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.  It doesn’t need to be.  What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.  Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act.  Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

Yes, you read the above correctly.  Even if the science underlying the theory of MGW can’t be proven, we should go ahead with corrective programs just in case.  Though local lefties have been taking this position on the Beaver County Times website for a couple of years, this is the first time I’ve heard this nonsense from someone of Mr. Blair’s stature.  Keep in mind people of Mr. Blair’s stature previously maintained they wouldn’t support the huge economic consequences of climate change programs (cap and tax, carbon taxes, et cetera) if they weren’t convinced the science was solid, settled, beyond doubt, et cetera.  Now that the more we learn, the more the “science” looks suspect, the certainty of the science is now less important to folks like Mr. Blair.

If Mr. Blair now has doubts about the science, shouldn’t he treat it as good news and press for a thorough, transparent investigation?  After all, if MGW doesn’t exist or is an insignificant factor, knowing that would save the world from wasting trillions of dollars.  Remember, just as it is in our legal system, it’s the responsibility of MGW supporters to prove their theory.

Finally, ask yourself this question.  If “the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege,” how can there be “a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity?”  There can’t be, unless the “scientific support” is driven not by science, but by money, politics, power, et cetera.

Links to other comments

Below are links to some of my critiques of editorials and letters to the editor concerning MGW.

Report leaves little doubt

Greening the capitol

Listen to the warm

Don’t buy warming scam

Global warming threat is real

Hey, kids, help stop global warming

Global warming a hoax

Act now on global warming

Fund mass transit adequately

Global warming is all too real

1. Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home; Rob Sullivan; Chicago Tribune; April 29, 2001.

© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.