BCT Editorial – 2/6/07


This page was last updated on February 24, 2007.


Report leaves little doubt about global warming; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 6, 2007.

Rather than do a point-by-point critique, I’ll make only a few – OK, a bunch of – comments.

As I noted in a letter from December 2006, I have a bunch of reasons to be skeptical about the religion of manmade global warming.

First, though, let me be clear.  I have no “religious” opposition to the idea man could contribute to global warming.  My point is the actions of the manmade global warming religion are those I see when people can’t present a logical case.

Second, it’s also important to distinguish between the normal global cooling and warming cycles the Earth goes through and the theory of manmade global warming.  Most people in the manmade global warming camp want us to believe man causes all climate change.

The editorial failed to note the subject report was written and issued by politicians.  The scientific report on which the political report is allegedly based won’t be published for another few months.  I’ll leave it up to you to guess why the editorial wasn’t forthright on this point.  I’m not saying the “scientific” report will differ significantly from the political report, only that the subject report wasn’t the scientific treatise the Times wants us to believe it is.

There should be no need for consensus about whether we’re undergoing global cooling or warming.  After all, all we need to do is look at temperature readings covering a statistically significant time period.  As I always try to make clear, the argument is over the cause of any cooling or warming.

The people who 30 years ago sounded the manmade global cooling alarm almost overnight switched to manmade global warming.  During the mid-1970s, publications like Newsweek, Science Digest, The Christian Science Monitor, and Time published articles about the impending “ice age.”  CNN did an ice age piece as recently as the early 1990s.  It would be interesting to know if the Times published any editorials with titles similar to “Report leaves little doubt about global cooling.”

I become skeptical when people try to sell their manmade global warming position using emotion and hysteria.  For example, former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix asserts manmade global warming is more of a threat than weapons of mass destruction.  Ted Turner referred to manmade global warming as the “single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced.”  Former VP Al Gore said, “Never before has all of civilization been threatened.”  The hyperbole has reached the point where some of these folks are now claiming there’s nothing we can do, even if we stopping burning fuel today.

If the problem is so important and transcends politics, why aren’t all countries called on to cut their production of so-called “greenhouse gases?”  Why did the Kyoto Protocol specifically exclude 80% of the world, including “developing” countries like India and Red China?  When Red China recently said it would do nothing about global warming until after the U.S. did, Al Gore actually supported that position.

If the science supporting manmade global warming is so strong, why do proponents want to cut off all discussion?  For example, The Weather Channel’s lead climatologist, Heidi Cullen, proposed that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) shouldn’t certify any meteorologist who doesn’t support the theory of manmade global warming.  Late in 2006, two U.S. senators [Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME)] sent a letter to ExxonMobil threatening the company if it didn’t stop expressing doubt about manmade global warming.

In a recent letter to the editor, the author asserted “[s]keptics distract us.”

If the science is strong, proponents should welcome debate and the opportunity to prove their position is correct.  Instead, they do the opposite.

If the science supporting manmade global warming is so strong, why do proponents attempt to smear anyone who disagrees?  In a recent letter to the editor, the author referred to alleged scientists who support the theory of manmade global warming as “genuine” and “professional.”  Elsewhere we’ve seen where scientists who disagree with the religion of manmade global warming are labeled as “deniers” and “hacks,” that is when they aren’t being accused of being bought off.

For example, columnist Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”  We shouldn’t be surprised, though.  These are the same people who liken conservatives to Nazis, even though the Nazis (National Socialists) were on the liberal end of the political spectrum.

If the science supporting manmade global warming is so strong, why do proponents attempt to equate climate and weather to make their case?  Here’s the non-technical difference between climate and weather.  Climate reflects long-term weather trends of a region.  For example, most of the U.S. is in what’s called a temperate climate zone.  During the course of a year, we can see temperatures from below zero to above 100°F.

Weather is what we see on a daily or short-term basis and may or may not reflect long-term norms or trends.  For example, having a relatively warm day in the middle of winter can’t be used to support manmade global warming anymore than an abnormally cold day during the summer debunks manmade global warming.

The manmade global warming camp told us the 2005 hurricane season (weather) was proof of their position.  Never mind that every hurricane expert debunked that position.

Ignoring the hurricane experts, the believers predicted a 2006 hurricane season worse than 2005.  When the 2006 hurricane season “disappointed” the manmade global warming group by having no major hurricanes make U.S. landfall, they tried to claim the mild season was also a symptom of global warming.  In other words, regardless of weather, the manmade global warming proponents claim the weather supports their position.  Remember when they claimed hot days during August “proved” global warming?  FYI, the summer of 1936 was 0.2°F hotter than 2006.

If the science supporting manmade global warming is so strong, why do proponents feel the need to lie?  For example, these guys are circulating a picture of polar bears allegedly stranded on a breakaway ice flow caused by global warming.  In truth, the picture dates back to 2004 when it was captioned by the photographer as “Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.”

If the science supporting manmade global warming is so strong, why do proponents feel the need to talk about consensus?  If the science is strong, consensus shouldn’t be an issue.  For example, when we heat water to 212°F at sea level, is it consensus the water boils or is it fact?

I have one other point about consensus.  At one time, scientific consensus told us the world was flat and the universe orbited the Earth.  Oh yeah, and as I mentioned above, 30 years ago scientific consensus told us we were undergoing manmade global cooling.

“Scientific consensus” also resulted in the banning of DDT to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes.  Last year, 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?

One last point about the words consensus and science.  Except in rare cases, they should not appear in the same sentence.

In conclusion, the editorial probably shouldn’t have quoted French President Jacques Chirac for support.  Lest we forget, this is the guy who in late January said about Iran, “I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb.  Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous.”


© 2004-2007 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.