Here’s a piece from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal concerning so called global warming (compliments of MCW). Anyone who knows me, knows that I am very skeptical of these types claims of any Earth warming and even more skeptical of claims that the industrial world is reponsible. There is good evidence for previous periods of global warming and cooling from times before man walked the Earth. Also, for the past eight years, there is some evidence that the Earth is actually cooling. But back to the point. Who benefits from such hype besides the moon bat, foam at the mouth liberals who use the issue to club Bush, big oil, SUV drivers, etc? Here’s a clue:
Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
It is an issue because those who make it an issue do so often because the issue becomes a tool for some other goal. The goal may be political, economic and in some of the more liberal Protestant churchs, even religious.
Next time someone rants about global warming, ask them to prove it.
