Sunday, August 09, 2009

Global Warming Appears More Political than Scientific



Global Warming seems to be one of the premier policy agendas of the Slanted Left with a significant amount of science to back it up.

Indeed in this age of using science to validate all kinds of research that may have ethical difficulties by Christian moralists, Left thinking has become the politically correct standard for scientific research.

There has been a very real concern for the environment through most of my adult life. The science that has developed Global Warming hypotheses seems to be the path that Left thinking scientists have used to congeal the scientific community to a path to save planet earth. This is much like Darwinism (and the theory’s updated offshoots) has become the politically correct scientific explanation of biological life on planet earth.

As it is near scientific heresy to buck the validity of Darwinism; so also it is becoming scientific heresy to buck the validity of Global Warming.

Those who are politically and scientifically against global warming usually involve free enterprise thinking. The Left thinking politically correct scientific community has developed an epithet for those disputing the conclusions of Global Warming theory. They are called Global Warming Deniers. This is reminiscent of the vitriol rightfully reserved for Holocaust Deniers.

I have even read that some Global Warming enthusiasts believe that it should be made a criminal offense to be a Global Warming Denier.

Here is a look at politically correct Global Warming:

"The current warming cycle falls within historical changes, and the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years."
It is true that the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold periods due to the interaction of many factors, including especially small variations in the planet's tilt and rotation. A big difference now is that it is our own pollution causing the climate to change. This change is very rapid by historical standards, and it wouldn't be happening at this fast rate if the amount of carbon dioxide humans put in the atmosphere was less. (More Pro-Global Warming …)


Here is a look at politically incorrect views on Global Warming:

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2. (More at Junkscience.com)


Obviously I am no scientist. What I am seeing here though is a series of facts with two disputed conclusions.

This is just the science disagreement and how one side (the politically correct) has the ear of the Left while the other side (the politically incorrect) has the ear of the Right.

It is politics that is the friend of agenda focused science. It is the politics of the Left and the Right that tends to aid with the funding of science.

It is in the realm of politics that something is occurring that I am a relative novice in reading about. This is where the “Conspiracy Theory” paradigm raises its head.

I love a good conspiracy theory especially when the facts in the theory are difficult to pooh-pooh away with anything more than looking at the data and developing the theory behind it. Hence it becomes fun when it comes down to believing who said what. One of the great tools of conspiracy theory is to question the credibility of either the person promoting the facts or the science behind the facts.

I am seeing the promoters of a Global Warming conspiracy theory and the promoters of Global Warming science embarking on the ‘question the credibility’ campaign to discredit whatever to solidify a position.

Then I ran into a global one-world government directly related to Global Warming.

While I was Googling the pros and cons of Global Warming I came across an inter-governmental agency disagreement that seems to have been attempted to keep hushed. The hushing seems to have occurred because the report contradicts the pro-Global Warming policies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After the ‘hushing’ was exposed then the usual tactic of discrediting the author of the memo questioning the validity of the EPA’s data. Specifically Alan Carlin’s memo said the EPA recommendation to President Barack Hussein Obama to regulate industry was based on outdated thus questionable data. The questionable data appears to blame industry for the Left science view that it is the cause of carbon dioxide release that contributes to Global Warming.

Carlin’s view apparently is the Right science view that the current aspect measured as Global Warming does not prove man-made carbon dioxide is the main contributor the Global Warming of the Left Science. (To read more on the Right science view of Global Warming look HERE.)

Now to the one-world government Global Warming conspiracy theory: Robert Ferguson writing for the American Thinker feels that President Obama’s appointment of global radical science promoter John Holdren as one of BHO’s unaccountable czars (in this case – Climate Czar), is reason to believe the Left is in bed with a certain U.N. agency which promotes U.N. control of a every nation’s energy policies.

The U.N. agency is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and John Holden is held up as the classic example of Leftist manipulation the U.N. seems bent on doing in the 21st century.

Here is an excerpt of a book review which illustrates the dubious nature of Left thinking science as it pertains to Global Warming:

Christopher Horner's excellent book provides a convincing response to this all-too-frequent complaint.

But how can it do so? Will not an "anti-global-warming" book of necessity consist of an account of scientists who dissent from the consensus? If so, will it not fall victim to the difficulty raised in our imagined objection? The book will pick a few favored experts to back up a preconceived political agenda.

Horner strikes at the root of this objection. It rests on a false premise. Contrary to what our objection assumes, there is in fact no consensus of scientists behind global-warming alarmism:

    Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way. (p. 157)




Appeal to the Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) is likewise dubious. Far from expressing a consensus of the world's leading climate experts, the reports of IPCC alter the opinions of the contributors to reflect climate alarmism. Horner quotes to great effect several protests by IPCC experts over the distortion of their views.

    Dr. Frederick Seitz … revealed that although the IPCC report carries heft due to having been the topic of review and discussion by many scientists, "the report is not what it appears to be — it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page." (p. 300)


Activists in charge of the report's summary exaggerated what the scientists had said to promote the global-warming agenda. (Ludwig von Mises Institute)


Then there is John Holden’s reputation of being made of the same stuff that Margaret Sanger believed (i.e. using eugenics like abortion to cull the weak and inferior from the strong and superior):

Consider that President Obama's top science adviser, climate Czar, John Holdren, is a long-time globalist who has endorsed and advocated for "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control the entire world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification for compulsory abortion and sterilization of American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. (American Thinker)


I encourage reading the whole Ferguson article at the American Thinker quoted above to get the feel for the Slanted Left Global Warming global conspiracy theory.

JRH 8/9/09

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

the question is what's John Houk's agenda? this article is narrow minded crap.

John Houk said...

Nay Anonymous,

Global Warming is eco-marxist propaganda crap.