To The Daily Sun,
To question the validity of man-made global warming or as it's now called, climate change, as caused by increasing levels of CO2, is akin to "junk science" or "junk knowledge". At least that is the implication proffered by Professor Cracraft in his April 7 column. He goes on to say at the end of his column, "In America we value education, science and empirical search for truth but actions often speak louder than words."
But then, acting like Bill Nye, the comical science guy, Scott proclaims the following, "Many think that climate change is a hoax made up radical environmentalists in spite of the finding of 99 percent of climatologists." Hey Scott, climb off your unicorn for a second and try practicing what you preach. First of all, the goofy percentage often quoted is 97 percent not 99 percent. Maybe Scott misremembered John Kerry's use of that number while warning Boston College grads of the "crippling consequences of climate change." He must really believe Secretary Kerry when he warned us that "global warming is perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." Surely, Scott must know that this whole debate is more about "mass distraction" and "mass guilt-tripping", in order to give the progressive elites more time to bully and badger the masses for more money for "climate justice".
The 97 percent number came from a small and wholly inadequate sampling of scientists. Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute and Dr. Roy Spencer report that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. They go on to note that only 39.5 percent of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a 2012 survey believe man made global warming is dangerous. Scott probably is using the discredited United Nations International Governmental Panel on Climate Change and their doctored statistics and flawed climate models. Seems they have yet to answer the following question with any veracity: "How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions?"
Actually Professor Cracraft, water is the weather wildcard, at least according to Viv Forbes' Climate Change Digest. The past 17 years of rising CO2 levels without rising global temperatures would seem to indicate that the stuff we exhale cannot be the reason for global warming. Neither can it be bovine flatulence or pig belching for that matter. Viv goes on to note that "even if CO2 levels doubled overnight, most people on earth would not notice any difference."
You see Scott, most climatologists who are not sucking on the teat of the cash cow green movement, understand that "water covers over 70 percent of the globe, is about 50 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere and is a far more effective greenhouse gas".
So Professor Cracraft, just who is being "wacky" and just who is telling "big lies"? Oh, and just who are the real climate change deniers? I think Steve Goreham has nailed it in his book, "The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism." He says, "It's an ideology and it's a belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate." That way, folks who have been deluged with guilt for harming Mother Gaia will agree to adopt green economies — electric cars, giant wind turbines, giant solar panels, low flow toilets, squiggly, mercury filled light bulbs and soon temperature monitoring gauges in our homes. According to CBN News, the world already spends $250 billion a year on green economies. Who can forget the great success of Solyndra?
So where do the compassionate leftists come down on caring for the billions of poor across the planet who do not have adequate access to electricity? Wouldn't cheap electricity from coal be a godsend for these folks? Of course, but the wealthy elites will have none of that. The planet must be saved from an increasingly evident, non-existent crisis. Lord Christopher Moncton was worried about global warming caused by CO2 back in the 1980s. In a 2009 speech in St. Paul, Minn., that went viral, he revealed a secretive plan by the U.N. to establish an unelected world government that was crafted at the climate summit in Copenhagen. He has become a skeptic and is now far more worried about "global governance" than "global warming".
Do not hold your breath for Scott to come forth with any verification for his specious claims. Nor is it likely that he will apologize for his condescending remarks based on the "hoax of man-made climate change." Let's be real for just a minute, Scott. There has always been climate change and there always will be. Man's contribution to any global warming is minuscule at best. There is more evidence that we are entering a period of global cooling which will be far more deleterious to our environment, as past history has shown.
Oh and before I forget, I have good news for Lynn Rudmin Chong who is frightened about the melting at the poles. The Antarctic has record levels of ice while the Arctic has regained much of the ice lost over the past decade. You can now take a deep breath, Lynn.
The bottom line here folks is as follows, in my humble opinion. The good people of the 1970s and 1980s environmental movement have been co-opted by the eco-tyranny gang (read Brian Sussman's book of that name, if you dare). Their original desire for a healthy environment has been corrupted by the global elites overt lust for power, money and control. Lord Moncton is probably right on in his assessment about an unelected world government. That is what we all should be worried about.
Now, how to get Professor Cracraft to spend more time reading the works of Lord Acton and Lord Moncton and less time spent talking as though his best buddy is Lord Bumblebrook.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 476