In today’s western world there is a new moral and political movement, called environmentalism. Most of the environmental talk is specifically about global warming. C02 emissions are destroying the planet, and it’s our fault. Cars, planes, factories, electricity, petroleum products are among some of the things that are ‘at fault’ when it comes to these environmental problems. The greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm up making the ice caps melt. This in turn will cause the sea level to rise by twenty feet or more. Thousands of species and acres of forest will be destroyed, not to mention the loss of whole land masses and the utter destruction of millions of lives. Something must be done now, and we might already be too late to change the oncoming devastation our world and way of life has wrought. These are among some of the things many people around the world are hearing in the news, from politicians and even friends. Global warming is no longer considered a debate; there is said to be a consensus among scientists that all the evidence shows something must be done about our environmental problems. However, there are many scientists who actually disagree with the litany and who are adamantly against putting immense amounts of resources towards stopping the ‘man-made’ problem. These scientists also believe putting resources towards trying to stop global warming would cause much more harm than it would help.
This environmental movement has many causes. The media uses ‘scare tactics’ in order to convince the majority of the public their side is correct. This is not to say that there is no scientific evidence that shows a correlation between certain environmental problems and human involvement. The mainstream media, however, will often use pictures of polar bears clinging tenaciously to a tiny slab of ice or animations of sea level rising by twenty feet. These depictions are often followed with sentiments of what must be done to prevent these disasters. Protocols like Kyoto call for drastic cuts to our energy, and these cuts will harm our economy. These drastic ‘doom and gloom’ pictures rarely ever show the whole story, and many scientists are speaking out against these explanations to what is going to happen to our planet. Skeptical scientists are also explaining that things need to be done in order to help our environment, but we need to look at where our money goes and make sure funds are going to the right places.
Funding on both sides are under constant attack. Environmental advocates attack people who claim that global warming is not a problem. They are then accused of being in the pocket of big business. Environmental skeptics say there is huge funding that comes from the government and that scientists have a vested interest in keeping people scared in order to keep funding going their way. The question is finding out which side is correct. The problem occurs because they are both right, in ways. However, the vast majority of research funding is publicly funded. Scientists do, in many cases, have a vested interest in making sure the funding goes their way. Scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus, Bjorn Lomborg explains how research funding works in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. “Research is basically a question of revealing truths about ourselves and our surroundings, be these man-made or natural. But research does not simply come about of its own accord, it has to be financed. This means that the problems to be investigated are influenced, to some degree, by the interests of those who finance the research.” He continues to explain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the majority of funding coming from the public, but it does have some built in lopsidedness. Since funding is public and the government and taxpayers want results, the research money is more likely going to flow where there are the most problems, (2001, pp. 35-37).
Dr. Roy Spencer, the current U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua Satellite, says that “scientists need there to be a problem in order to get the funding they want,” (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007) The net result of funding being lopsided like it is, is mainly that scientists may bend facts or “massage” the data, as Bjorn Lomborg puts it, in order to ensure they continue getting their funding. This is not to say that individuals who might be paid by corporations haven’t done their own massaging. An important point to realize is where a particular researchers funds’ are coming from. It is also important to find out who is using facts properly and who is not.
An enormous number of jobs have also been created because of environmentalism, specifically in the area of global warming. One website, Ecojobs.com, boasts over five hundred environmental jobs ranging from educating the public to studying the effects of global warming on ants in California (Environmental Career Opportunities, 2006). Because of the enormity of the problem, it has grabbed the attention of the taxpayers and thus the government. Literally billions of dollars have gone into the research of global warming. Researchers who want to accrue a government grant to continue their research must simply claim there is some correlation between their research and the global warming problem. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist was interviewed in a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
"If I wanted to do research in, for example the squirrels of Sussex, what I would do, and this is anytime from 1900 on. I would write my grant application saying, ‘I want to investigate the nut gathering behavior of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming.’ And that way I get my money if I don’t mention global warming I might not get the money" (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007).
This may or may not be a problem, but the problem does begin when we allow facts to be misconstrued and bent in order to allow certain research to continue over other research. Founder and former president of Greenpeace Patrick Moore has said that organizations like Greenpeace have shifted from environmental movements to political activist movements, “and they have become hugely influential on a global level.” In fact, he explains one of the reasons why he left in 1986 was because of a major shift in the policy, and that this came about because of two reasons.
"The first reason was because by the mid 80’s the majority of people agreed with what people in the environmental movement were saying to do. When a majority of people agree with you it is pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. In order to remain ‘anti-establishment’ they had to adopt more and more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace it was amidst a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. I told them, ‘you guys, this is one of the elements of the periodic table you know, I’m not sure it’s in our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. Also a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo Marxism with them. These new members began to learn ‘green language’ in a very unique way to cloak their political agendas, which normally has more to do with anti-capitalism and anti globalization then they do with anything to do with ecology or science," (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007)
This shift from environmentalism to the political realm has given these ‘environmental’ organizations huge influence in the government, and has effected many policy decisions. A problem with this is that these organizations do need problems to remain problems. Many policy decisions are now being based off of different things like climate models which predict what might happen if we continue to live and do the things we are doing.
There are several fundamental problems with making enormous policy decisions based off of things like climate models, which is where many of the policy makers get their ‘facts’ from. One of the biggest problems is that any type of model that predicts the future is capable of huge inaccuracies. No matter the amount of work that goes into developing the research to input into a model it is still that, just a best guess as to what might happen. Regarding the climate models of what our future temperatures will look like, Dr Roy Spencer says that, “climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. There are hundreds of assumptions for one climate model and all it would take is one of those assumptions to be wrong for the climate model to be way off,” (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007). Another prediction that has been used enormously in the media and with politicians is the extreme sea level increases.
One major claim of the sea level rising, among many claims, is from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a report quoted in a book by Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dennis Avery Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. The EPA says the sea level has a fifty percent chance of rising one and a half feet by 2100. However, it also says it has a one percent chance of rising three and a half feet. In Dr. Singer and Dr. Avery’s book they claim that “newspapers would write it as: ‘The EPA says sea level may rise as much as three and a half feet in line with the warning of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).’” This unfortunately completely misinterprets the fact that the studies actually show there only may be an increase of one and a half feet and there is very little chance of any more than that by the year 2100. But as the saying goes, bad news sells and worse news sells better, (2007, pp. 46-47).
Another thing that does happen in the media is the outright blaming of most catastrophic hurricanes, tornados, floods or any other natural disaster being the fault of ‘man-made’ global warming. In most cases there is no connection between global warming and these horrible catastrophes. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit America in 2005, many global warming advocates jumped on the bandwagon of explaining it off as the fault of our industries, big SUV’s and anything else man-made. Whenever the facts show a different story however, the mainstream media almost ignores the facts outright. After Katrina, many media stories began explaining the link between an increase in major hurricanes and global warming. On the Frequently Asked Questions page of USATODAY’s website they asked Kerry Emanuel, an ocean climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), if he believed there was a link between hurricanes and global warming, he said “Storms are lasting longer at [higher] intensity than they were thirty years ago,” (Frequently Asked Questions). Whereas in an article written by author and editor in chief at The American James K. Glassman entitled “Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming,”
"Just go to the website of the National Hurricane Center... The peak for major hurricanes (categories three, four, five) came in the decades of the 1930s, 1940s and the 1950s, when such storms averaged nine per decade. In the 1960s, there were six such storms; in the 1970s, four; in the 1980s, five; in the 1990s five and for 2001-04, there were three. Category four and five storms were also more prevalent in the past than they are now. As for category five storms, there have been only three since the 1850s: in the decades of the 1930s, 1960s and 1990s," (Capitalism Magazine, 2005).
Dr. Emanuel and Mr. Glassman are both correct, the problem happens when the public mainly hears only one side of the story. As Dr. Emanuel says, storms are lasting longer at higher intensity than thirty years ago, but he simply doesn’t go back far enough nor does he cover the full story. Sometimes the media construes facts like this to make it seem as if these things are happening for the first time, although most people would be safe in assuming that hundreds of years ago there were category 5 hurricanes. This blaming of man’s C02 emissions for every natural catastrophe has led much of the public to believe they must do something about our environmental problem. In many cases this is good, but the problem begins when the facts and stories are twisted to present one view as being outright correct. This leads to certain policies which heavily damage the economy and thus many individuals ability to live a happy and abundant life.
In Dr Singer and Dr Avery’s book they discuss “the inherent danger of the Kyoto Protocol.” First they discuss how “the Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just seventy to eighty billion dollars a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation,”(2007, pp. 12-13).
Environmentalists do advocate alternative sources of energy. Many times these sources are considered very inadequate to supply a first world country, especially the United States with all of its energy needs. “The Kyoto Protocol would probably double First World energy costs before 2012, and might quadruple them after that year. Kyoto would thus impair or even cancel out the enormous beneficial effects of technology in people’s lives,” (Singer & Avery, 2007, pp. 12,13).
The two authors, Singer and Avery, explain many of the myths about ‘free’ wind and solar power, which they claim continue to fascinate journalists and activists. “Kyoto proponents assert that ‘renewable’ energy sources will not only be adequate for the needs of modern society, but the shift from fossil fuels to solar and wind will ‘create jobs.’ This is like claiming that repairing a broken window makes us richer; instead, it just gets us back to where we had been.” It is also noted by many energy experts that solar and wind power is very unreliable. The sun has to be shining and the wind has to be blowing in order for wind and solar energy to produce energy effectively. These forms of energy are also extremely difficult to store. “Despite the decades of heavy subsidies, solar and wind power provide only about half a percent of current U.S. electricity and almost none of its transport energy,” (2007, p. 13).
Lastly in the media and popular politics is the idea that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists who say global warming is man-made, and there is no longer any doubt. Professor Paul Reiter a former lead author on the IPCC report and Pasteur said in his interview on The Great Global Warming Swindle, regarding this consensus of scientists on the IPCC.
"If you look at the bibliography of these people… it’s simply not true, there are many of the people on the list who are not even scientists at all. Those people who are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and they become part of this fifteen hundred so called scientists," (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007).
Also Professor Richard Lindzen, who was also a former author on IPCC, says, “in order to get the number up to fifteen hundred and more they have to start counting reviewers and government people or just anyone who came even close.” He says that many times they are not even asked if they agree with the consensus and may even disagree. Dr. Lindzen explains that whenever someone says that all scientists agree on a subject, any subject, that this is pure propaganda, (The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007).
There are actually thousands of scientists from all over the world who have come out and said adamantly that they disagree with the consensus, many of them signing a petition or sending letters to inform politicians protocols like the Kyoto Protocol will only do more harm than good. The largest of these petitions to date is the Oregon Petition hosted by The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. This petition has over twenty thousand scientists that have signed it since 1998. The petition states:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth," (Global Warming Petition, 1998).
These petitions and letters have been and are constantly under attack for being inadequate as well as being outright lies. Dr. Singer and Dr. Avery show in their book how many proponents of man-made global warming attempt to discredit all opposition. “In the case of the Oregon Petition the detractors ‘discovered’ a few fake names on the list of signers and reported them.” At the same time this was happening a group called Ozone Action, based in Washington, D.C., had sent a letter to President Clinton entitled “A scientists statement on global climatic disruption.” This letter showed that it had two thousand six hundred and eleven scientists from America and all over the world. It stated that they all endorsed the evidence of man-made global warming as being ‘conclusive.’ It was later found out by an organization called “Citizens for a Sound Economy (a group opposing climate alarmism) only about ten percent of the letter’s signers had experience in fields connected with climate science. The signers did, in fact, include two landscape architects, ten psychologists, one traditionally trained Chinese doctor and a gynecologist,” (2007, p. 66).
The point is that no one is really positive about what is causing the global warming, and to make major policy decisions that could costs billions of dollars and a huge loss of jobs is quite simply a bad decision. One major theory that is coming out actually credits the current warming to our Sun. A book by Henrik Svensmark, who leads the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center, and author Nigel Calder, titled The Chilling Stars: a new theory of climate change. Dr. Svensmark and Mr. Calder explain a new theory of climate change that is now becoming widely accepted by many scientists. “When the biggest of them [stars] expire in mighty supernova explosions they spray the galaxy with atomic bullets, the charged particles are known as cosmic rays. As a result those exploded stars do indeed chill the world, by making it cloudier.” They later explain how when the sun is more active, it sends out rays that push these particles away and thus this leads to a cooling of the Earth. The reason this causes a cooling is because when a star explodes and sends its cosmic particles (atomic bullets) through to Earth’s atmosphere, they set free electrons which combine with water vapor as it condenses and form clouds together. It is these low lying clouds that cause the Earth to cool or it is the lack of these low lying clouds which cause the Earth to warm up. So when the Sun’s solar activity pushes these particles away the Earth warms, because of less low lying cloud cover, and when there is less solar activity from the Sun it doesn’t push the particles away and this causes there to be more low lying clouds and thus cooler global weather, (2007, pp. 1-10).
Julian Simon (1932-98) was a professor of economics, University of Maryland,
"This is my long-run forecast in brief: the material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today’s western living standards. I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse," (2001, p. qtd in. Lomborg).
It was Julian Simon whose studies and forecasts of the future inspired Bjorn Lomborg to write his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. In which he explains several times there are many environmental issues that must be covered, it is however important to understand where we are now in order to move forward. Dr. Lomborg says “we are doing good, but not great.” There is room for much improvement; for example, the fact that eighteen percent of all people in the developing world are starving. The thing that needs to be understood is not that there are no problems, but that we need to realize that the environment is improving and move on to more important aspects of the environment. The world is getting better, more people are living longer our goal should be to continue this trend and find the best possible means to help every living human being live longer, happier and healthier lives. (2001, pp. 1-67)
Bibliography
Environmental Career Opportunities. (2006). Retrieved Apr 23rd, 2008, from http://www.ecojobs.com/
Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved april 19, 2008, from USATODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqhurw.htm
Glassman, J. K. (2005, Sept 3rd). Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved Mar 14th, 2008, from Capitalism Magazine: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4391
Global Warming Petition. (1998). Retrieved Apr 15, 2008, from Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. New York: University of Cambridge.
Durkin, M. (Director). (2007). The Great Global Warming Swindle [Motion Picture].
Singer, S. F., & Avery, D. T. (2007). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Svensmark, H., & Calder, N. (2007). The Chilling Stars: a new theory of climate change. Campbridge: Totem Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment