In the next few weeks we'll be relentlessly scrubbed with eyewash,
brainwash and hogwash, all designed to cleanse us of any doubts that
global warming is a proven menace to mother Earth.
there's the Democratic global warming legislation rushing through
with a denouement expected soon. Second, the rush to pass the
legislation is fueled by the upcoming United Nations meeting on global warming next month in Copenhagen. President Barack Obama and Democrats want to be able to go there with a goody basket of economy-busting measures that will show the world that America is with it.
bad, because the alleged "scientific" evidence of a coming man-made
apocalypse is incomplete at best and, more likely, manipulated for
wisdom. According to climate alarmists, only "skeptics" or "deniers"
would ignore the "scientific consensus" that the planet is doomed
without draconian acts of economic self-immolation. We know this
because Al Gore, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and European smarties have told us so.
also the view of the United Nations-sponsored Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group-1
-- the climate alarmist's bible. It contains, they allege, all the
evidence you need to justify their frenzy.
that study itself has been studied by an independent group of
scientists who concluded that the IPCC bible is wrong. They said the
IPCC document "is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores
scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the
authors' pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted
in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC's
called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
(NIPCC), published its own analysis in a tome called "Climate Change
Reconsidered." The 856-page, nearly two-inch-thick volume did what all
good science requires: check the work of fellow scientists to see if it
stands up to a rigorous review of the available research, data and
claimed that "most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90
percent certain) due to the increase in anthropogenic (man-made)
greenhouse gas concentrations" (Emphasis in the original.) Wrong; the
opposite is true. Blame it on natural causes, the NIPCC said.
IPCC claims that global warming will wreck humanity and the Earth.
Wrong. The NIPCC concludes -- using the data and science available to
the IPCC -- that a "warmer world would be a safer and healthier world
for humans and wildlife alike."
computer climate models to reach its dour conclusions; the NIPCC rips
the methodology, challenging the reliability of models to make such
cosmic predictions. The NIPCC reveals that the IPCC failed to consider
naturally occurring "feedback" factors that reduce the impact of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Reviewing the empirical data, the NIPCC
finds no evidence that climate change in the last century is
unprecedented. Nor do the data demonstrate an anthropogenic effect on
climate change. Nor is there evidence that anthropogenic factors are
melting glaciers, raising sea levels or precipitating other
catastrophic weather or climate changes. The IPCC ignored research
probing solar activity as a cause of climate change. It ignored
research showing that rising carbon dioxide levels actually increase
plant growth to the benefit of all mankind and the planet. It ignored
research that global warming will improve, not harm, human health and
increase, not decrease, biodiversity.
will condemn these findings as unspeakable and unthinkable. They will
point to who is doing the research or who is paying for it, while
ignoring the substance of the research. They won't bother contacting
Chicago-based Heartland Institute, the report's publisher, to get their
perhaps the only indisputable fact in this entire argument: The science
is not settled and claims of a scientific consensus are an
exaggeration, if not a deception. A scientific consensus -- if such a
thing even exists -- would be surprising for any issue that is as
complicated as this, involving so many different branches of science.
As a layman struggling to comprehend this avalanche of science, I was
struck by one truth: Beware of any "science" that claims to fully
describe in single theory any phenomenon as complex as global climate
change. Trying to tie it all up in such a neat package, as climate
alarmists do, is a trap for the simple-minded.
This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune