A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ~ Emerson

A few weeks ago, I was watching former Vice President Al Gore talk to Charlie Rose about global warming (November 4, 2009). What amazed me was the absolute certainty of his convictions. He simply had no doubt.

Rose: “Is there anybody that you know, who you respect, who comes to a different conclusion than you do?”

Gore: “Not on the basics of global warming science, no.”

Gore would later add that “there’s no serious disagreement on the basic science and the range of reductions that are needed.”

Oh really? No “serious disagreement?” How… convenient.

To Gore, the debate over global warming simply doesn’t exist. For him and his followers, global warming (the reasons for it, and the methods to stop it) is like gravity… It’s settled science.

This worries me.

Throughout history, humans have “known” many things. As "Men in Black’s," Agent K put it, “1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that global warming was totally manmade. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.” (I may have changed the third sentence a bit).

In other words, certainty has never been a substitute for truth.

Now, I am not a global warming denier. As a lover of all things snow, I have sadly noted Alaska’s rising temperatures over the past few decades.

I have also seen the statistics: In the 20th century, world temperatures increased .7 degrees Centigrade. This correlated with a worldwide carbon dioxide emissions increase of 30%. (Lawson, 10)

I am not, however, a global warming evangelist. There are simply too many holes in Gore’s theory.

For instance, climate models predicted that the Earth would continue to warm in the 21st century.

Did it? Nope. Earth’s temperature has not increased in the past 9 years -- despite a massive increase in CO2 emissions.

Are the models wrong? And if so, what does that mean about future predictions?

To these questions we are greeted with silence…

What really bothers me about Gore and his Disciples is the quasi-religious fanaticism that surrounds the global warming “mission” (as Gore calls it).

Dissenters are banned. Opposition is squelched.

You’ve probably heard about the recent controversy surrounding hacked emails of climate change scientists. In one email, the climate data didn’t mesh with the assumed global warming hypothesis. So, a scientist simply made up the numbers.

Very scientific.

True to form, global warming scientists have dismissed the emails as irrelevant to the debate…

Let’s look at other “irrelevant” data: Cosmic rays. According to Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre, “We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.”

What does this mean? Well, cosmic rays cause cloud formations. During high periods of solar activity fewer cosmic rays hit the earth. So, with fewer cosmic rays in the past quarter century, less clouds have formed. Warmer temperatures have resulted.

Svensmark does not deny that human activity is having an effect on climate change. But he does say that “by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.”

Gore’s disciples, of course, simply dismiss Svensmark (such a heretic) --
and then they make grand conclusions based on shockingly incomplete data.

There’s also ignored historical evidence. In Roman times (2000 years ago), and in the early Middle Ages (1100-1300 AD) vineyards grew on a commercial scale in England (Lawson,16). It’s too cold for that now.

On the other hand, during the 17th and 18th centuries (sometimes called the “Little Ice Age”) the Thames River in England regularly froze. It’s too warm for that now…

The climate is always in flux.

But Gore’s starting point (global warming is manmade) has determined his ending point (man can fix global warming). Gore wants more than a simple evolution away from fossil fuels (which would truly be great). No, he wants an economic revolution. A forced restructuring of the energy order.

Bowing to Gore’s wisdom, the President and Senate are trying to mandate a 20% drop in emissions within 10 years. The ultimate goal is to force an 80% emission drop in CO2 emissions.

That’s all fine and dandy – except that such quick, drastic cuts would devastate our economy (not to mention the emerging Third World economies). Billions of people would suffer -- all because of an unanswered theory…

Global warming may be rapidly occurring. It may be due manmade emissions. But… it may not. And there is little evidence that cutting emissions will change things for the better.

So, before we sacrifice ourselves on Gore’s altar, let’s demand that our leaders answer our questions. We cannot afford to blindly accept the global warming scripture.

Book Source:
Lawson, Nigel. An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming. Duckworth Overlook, New York, 2008.