Posts

Should We Care That Global Warming Stopped?

The right wing, imperialist-sympathizing, Texas oil-funded, British political magazine, The New Statesman, has just published a piece on global warming in which the author, David Whitehouse, states: For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. … Read More

By / December 24, 2007

The right wing, imperialist-sympathizing, Texas oil-funded, British political magazine, The New Statesman, has just published a piece on global warming in which the author, David Whitehouse, states:

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

For those who missed the sarcasm, The New Statesman is anything but right wing. Their interest in the threat of global warming could only be journalistic. Whitehouse holds a doctorate in astrophysics, and is the former on-line science editor of the BBC—which, as far as I know, gives him two more scientific credentials than Al Gore. So, when he explains:

[W]e are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data,

You’d think people would listen. Why, then, is it a certainty that they won’t? For starters, the anti-Western trend in left wing thought is all-encompassing. The West, so the story goes, has exploited everything it could get its hands on in order to feed its rapacious capitalist machine. The victims include all non-Westerners and, now, the planet itself. This is a very attractive approach for those looking to make a quick judgment along history’s good guy-bad guy lines. Why not? After all, it’s not without some merit. It’s easy to point to the slave trade and colonial rule, and make a sound moral determination in the non-West’s favor. Deeper digging produces some compelling counter-arguments, but if you’re looking for a go-to stance then “the West is evil” is a lay-up. In regards to global warming, the logic proceeds as follows: atmospheric warming is caused by CO2 emissions; CO2 emissions are the result of industrialization; industry is synonymous with the West. Thus, global warming is caused by the West, (the U.S. in particular.) This is tailor-made for an anti-U.S. institution like the United Nations. It’s also compelling stuff for universities, where anti-Western doctrine, and climate data, are generated. (This should get interesting, as China is about to surpass the U.S. as an emissions offender and there are virtually no checks on Chinese industrial pollution.) Out of concern for their careers, university researchers are scared to speak up against standard global warming theories. The other engine driving the global warming scam is none-other than the evil lifeblood of industry itself: American capitalism. Al Gore and co. are fond of saying that when Americans find a model allowing them to make CO2 reduction profitable, they’ll lead the way in more considerate use of the planet. As it turns out, American marketers are far ahead of Al Gore. They’ve found that model. An article in the American Thinker has some interesting data comparing the countries that signed onto the lauded Kyoto treaty on emissions reductions to the U.S., who didn't sign: * Emissions worldwide increased 18 percent. * Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21 percent. * Emissions from non-signers increased 10 percent. * Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6 percent. Clearly, something other than a commitment to international treaties has landed the U.S. in the 6.6 category. A few weeks ago, I read this off the label on my Poland Spring bottle:

The lightest 1?2 liter bottle ever produced*, the new, 100% recyclable Poland Spring Eco-Shape™ bottle is not only less impactful on the environment, it’s purposely designed to be easy to carry and hold. And because it’s lighter, it requires less energy to make – resulting in a reduction of CO2 emissions.

What thrilling news. I had been so guilt-wracked (not to mention physically burdened) drinking Poland Spring in the past. The company has tapped into the decision making process that most well-meaning people adopt when out shopping. If there’s a regular bottle and a “less impactful” bottle next to it, shoppers will opt for the one that eases their conscience. It’s the same process that drives the casual thinker to choose non-West over West. “Why not?” And it’s a marketing phenomenon with millions, if not billions, behind it. The earth can’t afford to stop warming. Too much money’s riding on that mercury. A year ago, I was touring the Fox News newsroom (Fox News!) when my host told me with pride that they would soon be upgrading everything there to the most state-of-the-art environment-friendly equipment. Why not? Here’s why not. Because, as a letter sent to the UN Secretary General, and signed by 100 prominent scientists, stated, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems."

Problems even more real and pressing than how to satisfy our anti-Western self-righteousness. Or how to assuage our own Western guilt by choosing a different bottle of water at the supermarket. So, the planet cools while global warming fear mongers tell the corporations they despise exactly how best to get their dollar. Meanwhile, money and research that could be put towards the relief of a thousand genuine problems goes down the drain. There’s another casualty of the climate madness: the integrity of scientific methodology and debate. People say, “most scientists now agree . . .” having forgotten that consensus of opinion is not a valid factor in scientific determination. Or at least it wasn’t. Now, a show of hands is all it takes to determine that “the debate is over.” This, unlike climate change, is catastrophic. As Whitehouse puts it, “[T]he wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.” Whew! At least he didn’t say “any financial cause, however profitable.” It's Christmas, after all.

Tagged with: