Environmental extremists routinely
assert a "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring, and
that human activity somehow causes it. This week, however, over 31,000
scientists spoke up and reduced that myth to a smoldering rubble.
The environmentalists' alleged
"scientific consensus" is much like the curtain in The Wizard of
Oz, behind which the supposedly infallible wizard dictated to his minions.
Beyond that curtain, however, the wizard was nothing more than an ordinary
little man perpetrating a fraud upon those who worshipped his doctrine. And
once Toto removed that curtain, the fraud was exposed for all to see.
Similarly, environmentalists'
mythical "scientific consensus" has served as a shroud behind which
they have sought to maintain an air of infallibility. By falsely claiming a
closed consensus and excoriating anyone who speaks out against their flawed
orthodoxy, environmental extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific
debate that might inhibit their political agenda.
That shroud, however, was further
torn this week by a 31,000-strong petition organized by the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the OISM's board of scientists,
"a review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences
of increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases
during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon
global weather, climate, or temperature."
To the contrary, the OISM notes that
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually increased plant growth
rates, among other positive effects. On this basis, the OISM concludes that
"predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current
experimental knowledge."
Accordingly, the straightforward
petition reads:
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 gases 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 evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and
animal environments of the Earth.
The petition itself appears
alongside a letter from the late Frederick Seitz, a former President of the
National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Seitz stated that "the United States is
very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of
energy and technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other
organic compounds." He therefore warned that, "this treaty is, in our
opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research into data on climate change does not
show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good
evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally
helpful."
It should be noted that the OISM's
petition effort receives absolutely no funding from the energy industry, or
from anyone else with a financial interest in the ongoing climate change
debate. Rather, its funding derives entirely from private, non-tax-deductible
contributions from individual donors.
Global warming alarmists will
nevertheless exclaim, like the "wizard" in The Wizard of Oz,
"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Their agenda
simply cannot tolerate dissent, contrary evidence, or objective discussion of
the matter. Instead, they cling to the claim of a false consensus, and liken
any objective disagreement to flat-earth proponents. According to Al Gore, for
instance, "there is as strong a consensus on this issue as science has
ever had."
Oh? Is it as strong as the supposed
consensus when Newsweek announced on November 23, 1992 that "the
advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed," and
that "the devastation will be astonishing?"
Gore's comment is obviously absurd
on its face. A scientific consensus does exist in well-settled scientific
subjects, such as the laws of gravity or physics. But this is certainly not the
case when it comes to climate change.
We can thank the OISM, its
leadership and its 31,000 participating scientists for helping shatter the
environmentalists' myth.
Source:
Go Patriots – Patriots Tea Party Andy Stephens, Webmaster, Anacortes
Washington
No comments:
Post a Comment