This letter appeared in today’s Mobile Press-Register, and it raises a few questions about the science and politics behind the so-called global warming “debate”. I’ll present it in it’s entirety, and will then address some specific issues.
Global warming claim a ‘hoodwink’
Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.
Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by Kenneth D. Slade of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.
I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.
The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. Slade is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.
Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.
In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.
I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.
And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.
THOMAS L. M.
Fairhope, AL
Now, Let’s look at some of the specific claims in this letter, and I’ll demonstrate why they are either misleading or just plain false.
Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.
Here the claim is that human activity cannot be proven to be the cause of Global Warming. That is entirely true, since science is an inductive process of discovering truth via discrete observations and hypothesis testing. In fact - science can never prove anything, although science is particularly good at disproving false claims.
The author implies that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and through this, makes two assumptions: that Global Warming is real (which I personally agree with, though it’s generally poor form to contradict the thesis of your essay in its opening paragraph), and that there is just a single cause or Global Warming. This is misleading, and paints an overly simplistic picture of the available data.
It is more accurate to claim that, on average, surface temperatures are indeed rising around the world, and that human activity, specifically the emissions of so-called “green house gases” are playing an increasing role in this temperature increase.
Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by K. D. S. of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.
Here there are several misleading claims. First, the author claims there are, “left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington”, which is only 51% accurate since the November elections. Second, the author claims that these politicians have a mantra, and that mantra is “blame warming on humankind.” Finally, the author claims that another letter writer, K.D.S. of Theodore, Alabama was correct is his assertion that those who intone this mantra have a desire to seek control over our lives and livelihoods. Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the first claim is, at best, barely more than half-true, then my guess is that the other two claims that flow from it are somewhat less true. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, we would be best served by assuming these claims are simply false, and ignore them altogether.
I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.
The misleading claim here us that global warming is actually part of a natural cycle. The basis of this claim is the authors belief that politicians (presumably the left-leaning, ones chanting the mantra above) are trying to “hoodwink” us. The claim is misleading because warming and cooling periods are indeed seen throughout history. Recent evidence, however, indicates that, natural fluctuations were responsible for most temperature changes through the first half of the 20th century, but since the latter half of the 20th century, we have moved outside the bounds of normal, natural temperature fluctuations.
As to Thomas’ belief that, “global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time”, I would humbly submit that the original case for war in Iraq might be a hoodwink on par with any in history.
The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. S. is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.
Here’s the crux of Thomas L. M.’s argument - he disagrees with the position taken by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen, and former US Vice President Al Gore, and claims that they cite “climate experts” but do not reveal their identities, nor have them debate climate experts (sans quotations, signifying greater credibility) who see things differently.
This is not entirely true. First, neither Teepen nor Gore are scientists, so they’re not actually required to outline their sources. Their central claim, that the vast majority of environmental scientists have concluded that the data for Global Warming is compelling, and that human activity is, at least in part, responsible for this trend is well documented - even within various agencies of the US government. For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several recent, informative articles on global warming (here). In addition, the National Climate Data Center Has a Global Warming FAQ that refutes Thomas’ arguments, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Further, a recent article by Science Magazine reviewed 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change, and concluded that 75% agreed with the consensus view that human activity is responsible for most of the warming seen in the past 50 years. The remaining 25% did not take any stance on the issue, and the article stated, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Now, this is also where the author takes a cheap shot at the “eco-left” by conflating and equating their goals and methods with those of Joseph McCarthy. While the eco-left most likely has its own agenda, it’s not likely that it’s anything like that of the infamous Republican Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.
Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.
Here’s where the author tugs at your heart strings. Be afraid of the scary, tree hugging Democrats. They want to take your job away and bury you under an avalanche of propaganda.
Ironically, the part where he says, “Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed”, is actually true.
In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.
Again, the suspenseful theme music plays in the background as liberals start to rise from the political netherworld of near complete powerlessness, and Nancy Pelosi leads the way toward the utter destruction of Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet.
I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.
Thomas, I appreciate your fear. Your government has been telling you for years to fear change, and to fear your Democratic neighbors. You’ve been played, however, since Democratic Americans are at least equal to Republican Americans in all things.
And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.
THOMAS L. M.
Fairhope, AL
OK - here’s where Thomas goes for the big finish. Not only are evil Democratic Americans out to “hoodwink” the good Republican Americans, but they’re actually trying to subvert the very core of our democracy. Up until the last couple paragraph, this actually seemed like a reasonable, though naive and poorly executed, argument that global warming is a myth. Instead, as we see Thomas’ scientific argument collapse, he relies more and more heavily on the Democratic bogeyman, claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow un-American and against workers.
More importantly, about one half of Thomas’ arguments are based on his belief, and his agreement with someone else’s beliefs. If we were discussing a religious point, then this might add strength and credibility to his case. Since, however, he’s arguing what is essentially a scientific point - about the existence of global warming and the role human activity plays in it - his beliefs are beside the point. They’re irrelevant, and simply cloud the issue at hand. Science, my friends, isn’t a democracy. There are certainly debates among experts, often about subtle nuances of various theories. In many cases, there isn’t any such thing as a “fair and balanced” view. Beliefs aren’t particularly valuable. Science is about evidence, and global warming is one of those cases in which the vast majority of the evidence is irrefutable - it exists, and we are playing an increasing role in it.
Please, don’t simply take my word - I’m no climate expert. Instead, look at the evidence yourself. It’s all over the place for anyone who cares to read it.
That’s what I’m saying though: despite some people’s obvious financial imperatives for dispute on the issue, there are overall more financial benefits for agreement.
There’s a tendency in every change to see it as being catastrophic and radical, unable to be dealt with properly because if it were an “easy” change then people would adjust seamlessly and never notice it in the first place. But every change means a response to change, and that response is always an economic force. In that respect, both the proponents and opponents of global warming are both being fairly conservative in their approach. No matter what the change, there’s an opportunity to be had. I mean, necessity is the mother of invention and innovation is one of the cornerstones of civilization.