Global Warming is a Left Wing Power Ploy . . . Or is it?
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007
by Jeff Brown
Inner Projection
The sky is falling . . . and it's damn hot too.
According to some sources, it's a given. Global warming is real. Just ask Al Gore or watch An Inconvenient Truth. Probably more convenient to just rent the movie. Al's busy researching, mulling over his poorly kept piles of paper and referencing his three large monitors full of scientific data. But his opinion is of the popular variety, that which is also advocated by many well-respected scientists. But what about those equally respected scientists who oppose? Who's right? Well, I guess we can start by asking the question, have intelligent well-informed people ever been wrong before? Let's take a look.
Radio is just a fashion contrivance that will soon die out. It is obvious that there never will be invented a proper receiver! Thomas Edison
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson , President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
640Kb ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981
In a few years, all the great physical constants will have been approximately estimated, and ... the only occupation which will then be left to the men of science will be to carry these measurements to another place of decimals. James Clerk Maxwell, 1871
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Albert A. Michelson, 1894
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. We know that light is propagated like sound through pressure and motion. The radio has no future! Lord Kelvin
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
Space travel is bunk Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
Also in your pondering, consider how difficult it is to determine certainty. For example, you read in the news that researchers say coffee's OK for you . . . then it's bad . . . No wait! It's the best thing since the vegetable. Then let's consider wine. We hear researchers say it's good . . . it's bad . . . it's good . . . it's . . . (pause here for the worm to turn). And even second hand smoke is seeing a comeback. Many are hearing in the corridors of doubt that negative reports are merely unproven speculation seen as unmitigated fact.
But what about those who oppose Global Warming? What's their story?
According to Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he says "The Earth has often been hotter than it is now," "Only a tiny portion of green-house gases are man-made," "Most of Antarctica is getting colder," "The media only recently abandoned the 'global cooling' scare," and "' Global Warming' hasn't made hurricanes worse" ( The Politically Incorrect Guide (PIG) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, 2007 Regnery).
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; member of the National Academy of Sciences; and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) states "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age" (qtd. in PIG to Global Warming and Environmentalism, 2007 Regnery).
So where do you stand? Well, unless you have an advanced degree in science or have done extensive research you best stand clear of supporting one side or the other based merely on emotion. You're familiar with emotion, yes? It's what your purchases are based on and then later explained away with rationalized logic. "Of course I needed that $7000 112 inch flat screen. It's the first of its kind!"
One of the things a good critical or rigorous thinker must do is his / her homework. Don't jump on a bandwagon mis- or under-informed. A good critical thinker is disciplined at the art of self-examination. Don't believe that your assumptions are fact. You may want to believe a particular "opinion" merely because you can relate. "Of course those damn Yankees are lucky. How else do you win 16 more World Series than the next closest team?" We know who made this statement? Or "Of course nuclear energy is a viable alternative source of energy!" Who said this? Obviously someone who doesn't have a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
Most likely, there will never be a definitive or absolute answer. Why? Well, because of assumptions, those opinions that make republicans see liberals as diseased and democrats see conservatives as only thinking about their bottom line. But regarding an issue of such political importance, especially considering how tax dollars may be spent, it is something you need to research, keeping in mind that time determines your answer not discerning all absolute facts.
According to some sources, it's a given. Global warming is real. Just ask Al Gore or watch An Inconvenient Truth. Probably more convenient to just rent the movie. Al's busy researching, mulling over his poorly kept piles of paper and referencing his three large monitors full of scientific data. But his opinion is of the popular variety, that which is also advocated by many well-respected scientists. But what about those equally respected scientists who oppose? Who's right? Well, I guess we can start by asking the question, have intelligent well-informed people ever been wrong before? Let's take a look.
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson , President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
640Kb ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981
In a few years, all the great physical constants will have been approximately estimated, and ... the only occupation which will then be left to the men of science will be to carry these measurements to another place of decimals. James Clerk Maxwell, 1871
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Albert A. Michelson, 1894
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. We know that light is propagated like sound through pressure and motion. The radio has no future! Lord Kelvin
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
Space travel is bunk Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
Also in your pondering, consider how difficult it is to determine certainty. For example, you read in the news that researchers say coffee's OK for you . . . then it's bad . . . No wait! It's the best thing since the vegetable. Then let's consider wine. We hear researchers say it's good . . . it's bad . . . it's good . . . it's . . . (pause here for the worm to turn). And even second hand smoke is seeing a comeback. Many are hearing in the corridors of doubt that negative reports are merely unproven speculation seen as unmitigated fact.
But what about those who oppose Global Warming? What's their story?
According to Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he says "The Earth has often been hotter than it is now," "Only a tiny portion of green-house gases are man-made," "Most of Antarctica is getting colder," "The media only recently abandoned the 'global cooling' scare," and "' Global Warming' hasn't made hurricanes worse" ( The Politically Incorrect Guide (PIG) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, 2007 Regnery).
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; member of the National Academy of Sciences; and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) states "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age" (qtd. in PIG to Global Warming and Environmentalism, 2007 Regnery).
So where do you stand? Well, unless you have an advanced degree in science or have done extensive research you best stand clear of supporting one side or the other based merely on emotion. You're familiar with emotion, yes? It's what your purchases are based on and then later explained away with rationalized logic. "Of course I needed that $7000 112 inch flat screen. It's the first of its kind!"
One of the things a good critical or rigorous thinker must do is his / her homework. Don't jump on a bandwagon mis- or under-informed. A good critical thinker is disciplined at the art of self-examination. Don't believe that your assumptions are fact. You may want to believe a particular "opinion" merely because you can relate. "Of course those damn Yankees are lucky. How else do you win 16 more World Series than the next closest team?" We know who made this statement? Or "Of course nuclear energy is a viable alternative source of energy!" Who said this? Obviously someone who doesn't have a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
Most likely, there will never be a definitive or absolute answer. Why? Well, because of assumptions, those opinions that make republicans see liberals as diseased and democrats see conservatives as only thinking about their bottom line. But regarding an issue of such political importance, especially considering how tax dollars may be spent, it is something you need to research, keeping in mind that time determines your answer not discerning all absolute facts.
 Where authors and readers come together! |
This Article has been viewed 1,158 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (10 total)Jeff, Well, I'm sticking with my Evangelical Christian brothers and sisters who think that global warming is an issue that requires us to be good stewards of our environment. Would Jesus "think green?" It's a fact.James, But unlike us, Jesus knows with a certainty whether the issue of global warming is as real as those like Gore make it out to be. Personally, the jury is still out for me. I'm still looking at the "facts" from both sides. May we all understand definitively what needs to be done and may those with the most accurate response win. Jeff
Jeff, If there was a jury I'd vote. The votes were already cast by all the major societies and organizations, even the president's administrative team for global warming. What we have now are some malcontents that have come out of the woodwork to try and ruffle the feathers. And why does everyone point to Gore? We act like he started this momentum. There are more than a dozen major agencies world-wide that are on-board with the scientific findings. I don't get this second guessing. Maybe its because Gore is Democratic or something. If he was Republican eveyone on this website would jump on the bandwagon.James, Good point about Gore. I mean, one of those crazy liberals can't be right, right? (I'm thinking of Ann Colter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans). But I'm really coming from the mind of a critical thinker who says that it’s difficult if not impossible to derive an absolute answer to a question of great complexity. If you shut down or shut out the opposition (unless, of course, you're absolutely sure--ie: the sun is in the sky) then you may limit the scope of your understanding or miss "the answer" or maybe a better answer. It's just that I've marked myself wrong often because of my limitations. As one great thinker tells us, we are all equal in our infinite ignorance. Even Steven Hawking says no theory is absolute (kinda why some scientists like science--its open endedness). There are still many who argue against the Theory of Relativity, even though it’s been rigorously examined. Me? I'm no scientists, just some average smo trying to determine with limited faculties an answer to a question based on great uncertainty and complexity. Amen to those who have it figure out. But God bless us if they know it's right but it turns out wrong. God bless. Jeff
Jeff, You make some good points. Take care.
Jeff, Sorry, the last comment was mine.
Hi Jeff. Good article. I always applaud reminding people to think for themselves. And thanks for the reminder that "those in the know" are not infallible.Dianne, Thanks for the kind words. And yes, I have taught critical thinking (or logic in philosophy) enough times to know that we are much more fallible than infallible. It amazes me how people can be so unflinchingly sure about issues of such great complexity, such as global warming. I once heard that one of the greatest traits of a business person is a desire to learn--to be open to possibilities. That should apply to all. The smartest people are not necessarily those with great knowledge but those aware that great knowledge has great limitations, for we are all equal in our infinite ignorance. I tell my students that they have a lot in common with everyone, their ignorance. If we thought less like the mathematicians and scientists on the Island of Laputa and more like Gulliver post-travels, we would all be in a better place in a better world. God bless. Jeff
And this is the same scientific community that told us that we were going to die from Acid Rain, Bird Flu, Mad Cow Disease, etc. and how AIDS would destroy the world in a few short years. These enlightened scientists jump on any bandwagon that promises Federal Grant money and notoriety. The liberals/socialists ignore/deny FACTUAL threats to humanity like the Khmer Rouge slaughtering millions of people, Saddam killing hundreds of thousands, Hitler killing millions, African socialist/communist leaders killing hundreds of thousands, etc. MAN (socialists and communists) are a tangible, factual, realistic threat to humanity. Liberal, socialist sympathizers allowed this to happen. Government, especially United Nations, initiatives are nothing but politically motivated. Things like the Keoto (sp?) Accord punish the USA while letting communist China run wild. This is completely biased to cripple democracy and strengthen communism. The UN third world members and Communist giants HATE the United States and conspire to kill the USA. The USA is the ONLY thing on the face of the earth that keeps freedom alive . . . and this means keeping people alive and free from tyrannical murdering regimes. The #1 control of the earth's temp is the Sun. Believe it or not the Sun does not have a thermostat. It actually burns hotter and colder without any influence from man. And to that point, if a depleted ozone layer is allowing too much sun to get through then Forest Fires and "air pollution" would help the situation. What a mind blowing situation for tree huggers! If the likes of Al Gore truly believe this hooey and have intellectual honesty why don't they lead the way by driving tiny little hybrid cars, stop flying on giant charter jets and live in small modest homes (not sprawling mansions). Why do these socialists want to live one way and dictate that "commoners" should live in a diminished lifestyle. And about these hybrid cars, where do we dump all of these old batteries? How much pollution is generated to produce these batteries? IF you happen to believe Global Warming (which was originally a pending Ice Age, and is now switching to Climate Change) then you should look at the predictions of Edward Cayce who long ago predicted climate change because of NATURAL polar shifts - NOT from man made causes. Why did the Ice Age accelerate so quickly into a warmer environment without "emissions", "hydrocarbons", and other man made "atrocities"? All of this is a communist/socialist ploy where they create an IMMEDIATE CRISIS wherein the solution is always to give more control to the government. Only naive, subservient fools fall for this evil nonsense. Note the word EVIL! And a closing thought to test your intellectual honesty - If mankind is such a problem to the world, and these situations spell doom for humanity then wouldn't we be the ultimate stewards of the environment by removing our existence from the earth? Think about it. . .Jim, I'll refer to your one comment. "All of this is a communist/socialist ploy where they create an IMMEDIATE CRISIS wherein the solution is always to give more control to the government." What else are politicians about? Look up the definition of the word and to one degree it states "self-serving individuals." I know there are good people in all professions, but going back to Teddy Roosevelt the moves made by government have been for the economic welfare of the US, or in the case of global warming, US politicians. Hell, Woodrow Wilson went into South America bending arms behind backs to get what he wanted whether you were democrat or communist. You don't give, we'll make ya. Sound like any president you know? But few Americans really know what's going on. I love what Gore Vidal said about Americans not understanding why we were attacked on 9/11. He said it's because we live in the United States of Amnesia. Why do people so often forget who's behind all this global warming, cooling controversy? And where do research scientists get their money? Hmmmmm. That should tell us something. They aren’t making money through free enterprise. Jeff
Good handling of the controversy Jeff. In fact, excellent. I am on the extreme skeptic side personally but I still have my reasons for it. There is strong evidence AGAINST human causation for the current warming of the atmosphere, but all the proponents can say is the concensus of the scientific community agrees. It is not a concensus, it is just a lot of them. When people see the documentary produced by Ben Stein, coming out in April, they will see why there are so many who are following the leader in the Chicken Little mindset. There are a lot of scientists who fear to stand up against the other scientists. I have yet to see ANY proof, or even evidence, that this thing is from human cause. This cycle of heat rise started long before the industrial revolution, it has not reached nearly the height pf the last warming period in 1000 A.D. and 1400 A.D. (You could have grown apples in Greenland then---that is why they named it Greenland.) and it now shows every evidence of being stopped and possibly even ready to start a cooling trend. The IPCC falsified their charts to eleminate the last warm period. What I would like for any one of them--ONE--- to show me ONE reason they know this is being caused by humans! Other than the falsified concensus. Most say they will go with the concensus, I' won't. Again, you have handled the repsonse well.
Joel, Thanks much. I guess being a college instructor of critical thinking has really helped me, and my students hopefully, look at any alleged "answer" cautiously. I've seen too many times where people have flocked to a particular belief, mindset, product, opportunity, and so on, because everyone else is doing so. I've learned to be cautious when I hear a particular car, software, operating system, philosophy, belief is being jumped on by the masses. Thanks again.
If I read Revelations correctly - Jesus is going to be the worst destructive force our environment has ever encountered. Destroying the Heavens and the Earth doesn't sound very "green" to me.
This was so helpful. Thank you for your opinion.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.