Over break, I received a link to an article in the Huffington Post (a blog I studiously avoid) in an email my friend titled “Hell Has Frozen Over – Literally”.
The article is titled, Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted, and deals with the non-politically correct data which has been steadily building in opposition to the sealth-Luddite positions on Global Warming/Climate Change by Al Gore and others over the past decade and a half.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression “climate change” itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots — and even revolutions, including the French Revolution — were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
[...]
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as “flat-Earthers.” This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
And he continues to tear into Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and recent conventional wisdom, quite deftly. Why is this news? In my estimation it is because it is being carried in a liberal publication that a) has a level of influence with part of our country’s policy-makers; b) is unashamedly counter to their past direction; and c) it may be part of a signal of the end of the browbeating/blackballing of voices which question orthodoxy on Global Warming/Climate Change in support of an unspoken, yet distinct, anti-industrial agenda…
Disclaimers
1) I believe we, as Christians ought to be good stewards of God’s Creation, and all of the resources within it.
2) I believe the Western lifestyle is often wasteful.
3) Despite #1 and #2, I think we often get caught up in “environmentally friendly” programs/ideas/fads which do little (or actually do damage) – example: corn ethanol & food-based biofuels – because it feels like we’re doing something good for the environment, even if we’re not…
36 Comments(+Add)
Chris L.,
I am only vaguely familiar with the Huffington Post – it is a decidedly liberal news source, correct?
Calling it “decidedly liberal” is a nice way to put it. As far as it being a “news source”, I don’t know. It’s more like a collection of blogs.
makes sense, I guess my point was… the fact that they are saying Al Gore is wrong is significant since they are very liberal – correct?
Being an amateur astronomer I never bought into the global warming hysteria. Let me illustrate:
If you took every person alive on earth and had them stand on a 2′ X 2’square they could all fit into the county in Florida in whcih I live (Hillsborough). That’s right – 1 county could hold the entire population of the world.
Now how many of those people own a car? I would say liberally 25%. That means that they could fit in the city of Jacksonville, Florida. Are we to believe that many people driving cars can change the climate of the entire planet?
Please. And even if they could, the difference could not be measurable in the space of 50 years which is like measuring the first .0000000000001 of a baby’s life.
So relax and enjoy the ride, even if Gore’s theorum is true no one is willing to do what would be necessary to reverse the trend.
BTW – has anyone seen the new 2009 Hummer? Sweeeet!!!
Neil – yes, that is my point…
Neil,
Yeah, I think that’s the point Chris is making. For a liberal blog to be saying this means the evidence has to pretty overwhelming.
As far as my opinion on climate change, I’m pretty skeptical of the claims that it’s man-made as well. We can’t deny that we can impact many aspects of the environment, but as far as changing the entire global climate, it seems a bit much.
I’m all for reducing pollution and using resources wisely, mainly because these directly impact the quality of life of the poorest of poor people in the world. I also think that we need to do a much better job in disposing of hazardous materials and the like.
There are plenty of good reasons for going green, but there are a lot of bad ones as well.
Well, Chris beat me too it there…
I do especially like the androgynous look in the picture.
Secularism is their religion, evolution their gospel, Darwin their messiah, and global warming their reformation. The secularists need to win these battles so can they rely more on themselves and not on God. My hope is that the theme of global warming and the failure of the theory to be proven will help folks look to the One who really is in control.
I suppose I could have gone with a different Joaquin Phoenix pic, but the Commodus Caesar picture seemed more fitting…
Less Androgynous?
Rick, I think there are many Americans that can’t actually fit in a 2′ x 2′ square. Did you account for that in your math?
I reject your personal attack on my more rotund fellow citizens!
BTW Christian, make it 3′ x 3′ and they fit in Rhode Island.
Make it 4′ x 4′ and Ted Kennedy might even be able to squeeze in….
Seriously, imagine looking at earth from space. Imagine all its people in one little spot like Rhode Island. Remove at least 75% of them, and there are what the global warmers suggest are altering the entire planet’s climate.
Wow, what power we have. If everyone drove an SUV we would all be toast by now!
Without getting into the silliness of the debate that positions opposites in the most extreme stance, I think it is clear that there are environmental issues/concerns that should not be written off simply because “liberals” may care about them.
It might surprise some of you, but liberals are right about some things, just like conservatives are…
just say’n…
that being said, there’s a massive vortex of plastic and garbage in the pacific and atlantic that should be cleaned up since photo-decaying plastic is getting into our food supply.
that’s not being “liberal”, that’s called being smart.
another thing, the whole “we can all fit in florida” argument doesn’t mean anything.
Who cares if that’s the case?
How is that a realistic argument about the capacity/stewardship of the planet?
I mean, it would mean something if humans could live meaningful lives in a 3×3 square and didnt’ need to eat, defecate, not exercise, etc. etc.
That’s just silliness.
In some ways, I hope the ocean levels rise. I could end up with some waterfront property by buying inland right now.
NC. We actually agree on someting. We are stewards of God’s creation. We need to be **good** stewards and not only maintain, but improve and increase the value of the creation intrusted to us. However, when environmentalism is used as a weapon of control and unjust taxation then it has moved beyond **good** and into something else. I for one am greatful for the strides we have made in the last 30 years. I don’t want to return to the pollution of the 70’s. I happen to like clean air and water.
Also, these changes had to be imposed by government fiat. Businesses would not have made the changes on their own. But these changes were mandated by easily verifiable facts, visible (and smellable) by everyone. Global warming is another issue all together based on bad science with an agenda IMO. It needs to be exposed.
nc – most of the earth’s population will never own a car, which is the primary basis for global warming. The car itself has only been a major part of civilization for 75 years, and that is a very short time for a planet this size.
I agree with urban air quality issues, clean water issues, and other issues that seem reasonable. But global warming has no factual basis and a 75 year span is extremely insufficient as observable evidence.
OK… this is how silly this all is… Some are actually suggesting taxing farmers if they have over 100 cattle or sheep because they fart… errr I mean their flatulence add to global warming. How stupid is all this getting?
I say tax Al Gore for all his farts and every time he expells a breath (like when he talks) and we should fix the deficit and global warming at the same time.
iggy
I don’t care about the idea of Global Warming…true or not.
the anti-global warming crowd is many times guilty of using the questionableness of it to block needed regulation on chemicals in our water, etc. etc. etc….basically to marginalize reasonable rules that that mythical self-correcting business community won’t support.
I would say that businesses are under more pressure now to make changes to business practices and the like then previously. It’s all about keeping the customer happy, so if enough customer who are concerned about environmental issues make a fuss, there will be change.
Frankly, I still put more trust in businesses than politicians to make correct decisions. It’s typically the countries where too much power is in the hands of the government that have the worst environmental records.
I’m not saying that all regulation is bad, and on the whole it’s good. But regulations need to developed by people who actually have a clue, not blue-blood congressman protecting their seats.
The one question I had more than any other regarding “global warming” has yet to be answered.
I can’t imagine that there’s much (if any) overlap between proponents of global warming and those who believe in a young earth (6000-7000 years). So if the planet is millions or billions of years old, and your supporting data is 100 years old, isn’t that (hilariously) statistically insignificant?
On a lighter note, I read an article the other day about a college English dept that voted on the top 10 over-used/mis-used words and phrases in the language for 2008. One person wrote: “If I hear about one more company going green, I’m gonna start burning tires in my backyard.”
I agree with you, Brendt. 1000 years would be insignificant as observable evidence, so as you say 75 years is ridiculous. Let us also follow through with the same logic – if global warming is true and has revealed incontravertible evidence in such a short time, then the earth will only sustain life for another 100 or so years.
Who knew Henry Ford was the antichrist?
Who knew Henry Ford was the antichrist?
Doesn’t RW drive a Ford?
Actually the Global Warming is soooooo yesterday…. now many scientist believe we are entering an ice age.
Back in the 70’s they stated we were going into an ice age and if one looks at the record lows since August the trend is lower than normal temps.
I believe the earth has cycles… dry years/ wet years… warm years/cold years…. I think that most of the hubbub about losing the arctic ice is the fault of volcanic activity and has nothing to do with man…
It seems Yellowstone Park is getting ready to give a big belch soon… is that man’s fault? Are cows farting man’s fault… I mean back over 150 years ago they did not filter any smoke and millions of buffalo farted all across the plains for hundreds of years if not thousands… I guess later that caused the Dust bowl and great depression and the stock market crash years later… and it was all man’s fault for letting buffalo’s fart….
The only real change man was doing to the atmosphere was that we thinned the ozone layer back in the 80’s and 90’s… I know that was true as that was the age of Hair Bands… and now the ozone layer is said to be fine…
Hair Bands… are evil… and not green….
iggy
I never liked science. I was more of an English, History guy myself. So this comment over at Huff had me applauding it’s literary devices.
HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris,
Do you recognize the source of the quote, though?
In a number of ways, I think the play was better than the movie, though Nicholson as Jessep is hard to beat…
THAT was an amazing scene.
What I find unbelivable is the claim that the wonderful, natural gas that keeps us alive, Carbon Dioxide, is a poison and pollutant! Worse again, is the claim that we need to cut “Carbon emmissions”. I don’t know of many things that emit the element, Carbon.
Dave – do you guys actually get the news down there? Listen, any country that builds a giant fence to keep the rabbits out must be a technological treasure trove! Is it true all Australians eat a bloomin’ onion before every meal? Is it true that all young boys have kangaroos for pets instead of dogs?
And is it true that you guys exagerate your accent because secretly you all really wish you were English? Is it rue Darlene Zschech is the Prime Minister? America is just wondering about these things.
Dave,
The cynic, skeptic and critic in me wonders much the same thing -
Since the product of combustion of any hydrocarbon – no matter how “clean” – is H2O and CO2, you either need to declare one “the enemy” (water or carbon dioxide) if you are to forever keep the third world third, while crippling any industry in the first world. Since nobody would buy “water” as the enemy, poor ol’ CO2 gets the shaft…
Chris, the facts sure are emited! Water vapour is the #1 greenhouse gas, while CO2 is rather bad at it compared to even methane. Also, CO2 helps reduce water vapour, effectively cooling the evening greenhouse effect. Oops, another greenhouse lie – that it warms the planet. The greenhouse mostly keeps the planet warm at night, much like the clouds. Arrrg I could rant for hours!
Rick, I have to ashamedly admit that you are correct! Except for Darlene. She’s a painted w**** of Sodom, much like the spawn, Miley. EEeeEEEEVVvvvVVVVIIliIiILLL!!! Women Singing without head dress!11!!!!
Davew – you are my favorite Australian, just ahead of the Bee Gees!!
Russell Crowe is a great actor but seems a little troubled. I miss Steve Irwin.
Don’t worry Rick, I’ll be Stayin’ Alive for you, since it would be a Tragedy if died. Haw haw haw.
That’s what I found so brilliant about it. To craft that comment from one of the greatest movie speeches ever was awesome.