Image by garlandcannon
An article in the Washington Times discussed skeptics of global warming are ‘treated like a pariah’. The post starts, ‘Scientists suspicious of climate change theories say they’re increasingly coming under assault – treatment which will make other analysts likely to present contrarian perspectives about global warming.’ The post mentions an instance of this by mentioning a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his place for speaking out against the sources of climate change by the government.
Most skeptics do not assert that climate change isn’t happening, they simply differ with what’s causing it, and yet they’re treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2004 found that, ‘Changes in the solar cycle – and solar output signal – are understood to cause short term climate change on Earth.’
In a rage of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s film, an New Zealand professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has openly said, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so feeble that they’re pitiful. It’s just unbelievable that they, and his picture, are controlling public interest.” In response to using pictures in Gore’s picture of glaciers breaking off, Dr. James Roebuck, a professor on marine geology and former marine research worker at the Geological Survey of Sweden, said that, ‘The breakage glacier wall is an usually occurring occurrence which is due to the regular progress of a glacier.’
Makes sense, particularly since history tells us that glaciers go, after all, that is what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the ending of the last ice age about 10,000 years past. Perhaps my recollection is not really great, but I do not believe folks were driving SUVs 10,000 years past. Another intelligent use of pictures to falsify facts that Gore has in his film is that of a polar bear apparently stranded on a bit of a broken ice berg that is off, saying that polar bears have become extinct due to global warming.
Nevertheless, there are a number of things wrong with this evaluation, to begin with, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Franklin Kane, ‘the area of the Arctic where increasing temperature is allegedly endangering polar bears revealed changes since 1940 but no total temperature rise.’ Second, if the polar bear is in such risk according to Al Gore does a recent government survey in Canada reveal they are not decreasing, but instead growing in numbers?
Thirdly, the very notion of a polar bear ‘stranded’ on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, ‘They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they have been monitored swimming endlessly for 100 kilometers (62 miles)’ Professor Kane, speaking about Gore and his personal campaign, said, ‘The guy is an embarrassment to US science and its many great professionals, lots of whom understand (but feel unable to say openly) that his propaganda campaign is largely based on junk science.’
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the reasons for global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he’s not, but even if he was, he’d still be a hypocrite. It was shown that Al Gore does not just practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, ‘Folks all over the world, we need to solve the climate catastrophe. It is not a political problem; it is a moral dilemma.’
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the quantity of electricity the typical American does. It was reported that Al Gore uses up twice as much the electricity in one the average American consumes in one year.
In analyzing that there’s more evidence to establish the foundation for a decision that changes in climate are more related to a growth in the temperature of the Sun as opposed to sway of individuals, we must analyze why attempts to debunk this myth are stifled and those who speak out are assaulted. Actually, there are reported instances of scientists who speak out against the man made theory as having received death threats. There’s even been discussion of connecting as being equivalent to those who deny the Holocaust.
In a recent op ed piece in the Boston Herald remarking on the report issued by the UN, Eileen Goodrich wrote, ‘Let Us simply say that global warming deniers are now on a level with Holocaust deniers, though one refuses the past and the other denies the current and future.’ This is an opinion that is really upsetting, not because there’s reason to scientifically suspect the man made theory, but because this is a scathing assault on freedom of speech, significant and the most critical of all rights and liberties.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare the discussion is finished, and actions must be taken promptly. What’s this activity they are thinking about taking? Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the united kingdom, has openly called for a ‘new world order’ to fight the threat of climate change. Thus let us take a look at this New World Order that is being executed to fight the threat of global warming.
One important thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no argument, is an UN recommendation that we levy ‘a world-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions’. Most individuals will hear this and think, ‘Great, polluters have to be taxed’. Well, this means people that drive automobiles will be taxed, because according to when you drive your automobile, Al Gore, you are causing global warming. This is not any joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, ‘The government is throwing its weight behind a ground-breaking strategy that would force motorists to pay 1.30 pounds sterling a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads’. That’s about $ 3.00 per mile.
A study conducted by a specialist in transport and infrastructure found that, ‘a Birmingham commuter might wind up paying about 1,500 pounds sterling a year for driving 19,000 miles.’ That is equivalent to about $ 3,000 per year. I do not understand about you, but I do not understand many folks who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to levy a growth of taxes on diesel. The European Commission proposed to ‘increase the minimal tax on commercial diesel fuel by almost 20% over the next seven years’. This, they assert, is to help shield the environment because it’ll act as a hindrance for individuals to drive.
This is simply outstanding news, because as anyone who has driven in the previous two years understands, gasoline costs are simply too low. Another issue arising out of the notion of taxing individuals for how far they drive is how it’s done. Based on the Transportation Secretary in the united kingdom, ‘Every vehicle would have a black box to enable a satellite system to monitor their journey’. This has been raising issues in the UK of a rise in government plans and Big Brother technology. Suggestions now being made in Canada urge that, ‘Canadians would pay an additional 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps’, reflecting strategies in the European Union. !
James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a nonprofit environmental organization specialising in carbon.
James Nash is only in charge of the contents of this post.