Calling Out the Climate Fearmongers

In the Financial Post, Peter Foster provides the context for the international climate-fest now going on in Bali:

The fate of the Earth hangs in the balance in Bali, but the issue is not whether humanity will succumb to a “climate crisis,” or how the international community might craft a successor to the tattered Kyoto Accord (Let’s call it KyoTwo). The real theme of this United Nations gabfest — like that of its 12 predecessors, and of the hundreds, if not thousands, of related meetings –is whether globalization and trade liberalization will be allowed to continue, with a corresponding increase in wealth, health and welfare, or whether the authoritarian enemies of freedom (who rarely if ever recognize themselves as such) will succeed in using environmental hysteria to undermine capitalism and increase their Majesterium. Any successor to Kyoto will be rooted in hobbling rich economies, increasing the poor world’s resentment, unleashing environmental trade warfare, and blanketing the globe with rules and regulations that benefit only rulers and regulators. Bali is not about climate; it symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek — or pander to — political power under the guise of concern for humanity.
Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment. The fact that the UN’s 1992 Rio conference followed hard on the collapse of the Soviet Union represented almost the passing of a poisoned baton. Capitalism had once been the enemy because it was alleged to make people poor. Now it was the enemy because of the alleged side effects of making them rich.

Meanwhile, four climate scientists have dealt another blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. They did an exhaustive comparison of observed atmospheric temperatures at various altitudes and compared the data against the predictions of global warming models. The abstract of the article states tersely:

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

Lead author David Douglass elaborates:

The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.

So far, science hasn’t had much to do with the global warming debate. I still think, though, that when voters understand that the “cure” for alleged anthropogenic global warming is for them to get poorer, interest in the scientific validity of the theory will be piqued.
To comment on this post, go here.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line