‘The most ass-kickin' writer to come along
in a decade!’
-The NY Times
‘Glad to see you're getting it right.!’
Reframing the Issue of Global Warming
Commentary by Greg Lewis / NewMediaJournal.US
To cite but one example: From the late 1920s through the 1930s, as Joseph Stalin carried out his murderous consolidation of power in the Soviet Union, Trofim Denisovich (T.D.) Lysenko emerged as the leading proponent of a scientific position that would become the basis of Stalin's collectivization of agricultural production in the Soviet Union. Lysenko's muddy and unsupported "theory" of plant development which held incorrectly that environment, and not genetics, was the critical factor in determining how much time it would take a plant to mature was applied widely in an attempt to improve the productivity of then-recently collectivized Ukrainian farms. The resulting disaster saw as many as five million kulaks (as the group of peasants singled out in Stalin's brutal collectivization strategy were called) die of starvation, in no small part because of crop failures that resulted from the application of Lysenko's theories. Policies based on Lysenko's work were also at the core of the Great Leap Forward, Mao Tse Tung's agricultural reform of the late 1950s and early '60s in communist China, during which as many as 30 million Chinese people, again mostly peasants, perished from hunger.
In promoting speculation as fact in the service of a political agenda, Time is partaking of the same unbridled and politically motivated arrogance of so many who have done this in the past. No one has better expressed this arrogance than one Stephen Schneider. Schneider is a "scientist" who has criticized the overwhelming and indisputable evidence that Bjørn Lomborg amassed against the case for global warming in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Schneider has said this about what scientists need to do to convince people that global warming is real: "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, make little mention of any doubts we might have . . . decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
In other words, it doesn't really matter what the evidence indicates. Never mind that Lomborg presented a meticulously researched and massively documented (The Skeptical Environmentalist contains more than 3,000 footnotes!) case against global warming and many other environmental disasters predicted by "science." What really matters to environmentalists is to promote an anti-capitalist agenda, specifically one which says that industrial civilization is bad for the environment across the board, in the current instance because it tends to generate inordinate amounts of the gas carbon dioxide, which ostensibly contributes to the greenhouse effect, which in turn is going to lead, possibly within our children's lifetimes, to massive changes in the earth's climate that will render many regions of our planet uninhabitable and create unimaginable chaos in our descendants' lives.
Never mind that, to cite only one counter argument among many, the United States is a net decrementer of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because our country is literally so green that the huge quantities of oxygen emitted into the air by our forests and other green spaces far outweigh the amount of carbon dioxide our cars and lawnmowers and manufacturing and power plants and other diabolical creations of our capitalist society manage to throw off into the atmosphere. And never mind that it is only in advanced capitalistic societies that real progress against the ostensible threat greenhouse gases pose is being made, that it is in modern western industrial democracies where the most effective progress in cleaning up the environment is occurring.
In fact, the real polluters, the heaviest contributors to the greenhouse gas problem, are generally developing nations, which are following the same relatively unregulated path toward industrialization that our own country pursued through the first half of the last century. The good news, though and Lomborg, again, makes this case convincingly is that when industrialization and modernization in these developing countries reaches critical mass, they too will, as we have done and continue to do, clean up their act.
But the real problem with the global
warming hysteria that is being perpetrated by otherwise intelligent and
educated scientists who should know better is that global warming itself
is a phenomenon that has only become an issue in the past decade or so.
Take a look at these dire predictions about the climatic future of our
planet from a 1975 Newsweek Magazine article entitled "The Cooling
The article went on to paint a doomsday picture of crop failures and widespread starvation due to the dramatic cooling that had been taking place in the previous quarter century and was continuing at a rapid pace. The question is, What happened between 1975 and the early 1990s, when predictions suddenly reversed and scientists began to caterwaul about global warming and the disastrous effects of the increase in the earth's temperature many of them had begun to "observe?"
First, there is the rise of the computer model as the digital "bible" of so-called scientists. A computer model is a program into which its users enter suspect and incomplete and inevitably inaccurate data and arrive at conclusions about the future of our planet that have virtually no way of being verified but will inevitably, if their conclusions are somehow weighed against the outcomes they purport to predict, prove those who stand behind them to be absolute idiots, except for the fact that those who have have stood behind them will be long gone by the time we can verify or discredit their conclusions.
(On the plus side, Paul Ehrlich is
still alive to see what an idiot he was. Ehrlich predicted in the early
1970s that before the turn of the 20th century, the "population bomb"
would explode and that hundreds of millions of people would die in the
massive famines that resulted because of overpopulation. Not even close.)
Unless and until we stop listening to such disingenuous charlatans as Stephen Schneider and start paying attention to the fact that none of the credible data gathered on the issue of greenhouse gas-generated climate change, when brought together and analyzed responsibly, point to anything remotely resembling the "crisis" that so-called "concerned scientists," in collusion with I'm-happy-to-be-led-by-the-nose liberal-agenda media honks, are trying to sell us, we're doomed to be inundated by so-called "news" that predicts our collective climatological demise because we failed to limit our carbon dioxide emissions.
The bottom line is this: It's not
that we need more data (though the data we gather over the next decade
and beyond will certainly be a welcome addition to the rather funky and
incomplete stuff collected thus far); it's that we need a more dispassionate
and less agenda-driven assessment of the data currently available to us
in order to better determine where we (and our planet) stand with regard
to the issue of global warming. Until such credentialed (albeit compromised)
scientists as Stephen Schneider and his cohorts stop making global environmental
issues the occasion for America-bashing and unsupported scaremongering,
we can be assured that they are not using their knowledge and authority
to serve the interests of the people of this planet.