by Tina Grazier
What if we, people I mean, are not responsible for global warming? What if global warming is a natural cyclic phenomenon? Environmental awareness has caused most Americans to be more conscientious about the way we live and dispose of things; it’s time we became more aware of the ways we study things and draw conclusions. We are being asked to make big decisions around this notion of global warming; decisions that can, and will, drastically change our lives. We deserve to have reliable information based on solid science before making those decisions. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that alternate scientific opinions are available; opinions from folks more qualified than the esteemed scientist, Albert Gore, among others. The environmental magazine Grist recently interviewed the former vice president who insinuated the American people were a bit stupid and then said:
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
An “over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous…for opening up the audience to listen”? I hear him saying…it’s OK to lie to them and scare the He** out of them so they’ll buy what we say…it certainly doesn’t sound like he respects our ability to understand or get to the truth.
Grist” also recently had to retract statements by staff writer David Roberts calling for Nuremberg-style trials for skeptics:
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Thankfully we need not look exclusively to these alarmists and opportunists as the only source for information.
Scientists know that the sun’s magnetic field shields or deflects cosmic rays away from earth. Since the sun’s magnetic field and sunspot activity has been high through much of the 20th century, some scientists have reasoned that decreases in cosmic radiation result in less cloud formation and this, my friends, accounts for a warmer earth…and now two such scientists have provided clear evidence.
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, directors of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen recently released the results of their experiments based, not in computer models, but in controlled experimentation that demonstred the chemical mechanism of cosmic ray action upon cloud formation.
You’d have to be Anthony Watts (and I’m not) to understand the paper these men wrote: “Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions”. The title alone makes me break out in a sweat! But, never fear, the scientists have also released two reports for the scientifically challenged: The “SKY
Experiment in Copenhagen”, a graphic description (see link below), and an essay, “Influence of Cosmic Rays Upon the Earth’s Climate”.
And, In case you have the courage to consider opposing views please visit:
There are consequences to rushing headlong in full support of the enviro-zealot’s. In addition to the global tax scheme directed specifically at American pockets proposed through Kyoto, there are other more subtle consequences. We have already seen the destruction of curtain industries that, had we taken a more reasonable approach, might have survived to continue to serve the employees and owners of those industries. We have seen laws that put ranchers, farmers, landowners and ordinary citizens in jeopardy and restricted land use. Paul Driessen writing for Canadafreepress in 2004 reported the rise in instances of lawsuits. Tax dollars go to pay the court costs in these suits whether frivolous or not. One example in his article “new global warming lawsuit
industry: Eco-activists add more junk litigation to their anti-civilization arsenal” pitted the Inuit Indians against corporations”
“EarthJustice, Friends of the Earth, the Center for International
Environmental Law and other groups were busy in Buenos Aires, persuading
Arctic Inuit Indians to sue an assortment of corporations for climate
genocide,…”
“genocide”?
Absolute proof of the claim would still raise questions about whether
corporations should bear the brunt of the environmental litigation. I’ve never heard of an industry that proposed hurting the environment or polluting the planet purposely. This is the villainy of 007 movies and Saturday afternoon matinees not serious scientists and others working to bring products to consumers.
Another front for the environmental zealots is money, cash, your tax dollars and in the process we fail to get a clear picture about global warming! In the article “Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.” Richard Lindzen writes in April 2006:
“…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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Is the warming of the planet an anthropogenic phenomenon? Al Gore and his motley crew believe that yes, man is the culprit. He has said we have only ten years before we reach the point of no return. I have a hard time taking this man seriously…as I said in a recent post, the threat of a new global ice age came and went in the seventies without much fanfare. The difference then was that people weren’t being targeted for manipulation, punishment and cash by well meaning do-gooders, media, junk scientists, opportunistic researchers, and cajoling politicians.