In order to cut through all the hype and misinformation on global warming and get right to the facts with the least amount of reading, I would recommend reading items in this order:
1.) “The Satanic Gases” by Dr. Patrick Michaels (Professor Emeritus in Environmental Studies from Univ. of Virginia & State Climatologist for Virginia). Thousands of accurate global warming facts plus exposure of the intellectual dishonesty of formerly prestigious Science journals.
2.) “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” (2007) by Dr. Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder. Most likely correct natural global warming and global cooling explanation.
3.) The 20 Chapter refutation of the scientific lies in the “An Inconvenient Truth” at: http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm This can be ordered as a free booklet titled “Al Gore’s Science Fiction” from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
4.) “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Politicians, Science and the Media” by Dr. Patrick Michaels, 2004
Three very important articles on key global warming topics are:
1.) Dr. Benny Peiser, media and science journal dishonesty on global warming: http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/editorial_bias_and_the_prediction_of_climate_disaster_the_crisis_of_science/
2.) Dr. Patrick Michaels, refutation of the lies about Antarctica melting: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H
3.) Dr. Tim Patterson, refutation of Gore’s lies about the Vostok, Antarctica ice core data and more: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The global warming argument can't be refuted with climate facts, because it fails to address their most important unstated premise: emergencies necessitate dictatorship. No matter how many items you refute (the coasts aren't flooding, the polar bears aren't dying, etc.) they will always find another crisis that requires the government to seize control of industry and regulate all aspects of human life. Their claim is that humanity must be controlled in order to save it from itself.
Human survival does have prerequisite conditions that the government must provide, but maintaining a certain global temperature is not one of them. Life as a human being requires freedom to live by reason, which in most essential terms is freedom to reshape the environment. Civilization cannot be built upon the premise of regulating those activities which affect the environment because all human activity is ultimately focused on changing the environment.
Some environmentalists present themselves as pro-human - that since plants, animals, and man all live on the earth together, saving the earth for the polar bears is really the same thing as saving the earth for humanity. But while man lives in nature, his survival does not hinge upon his sustenance being delivered by nature in the way a plant depends on rain, an antelope depends on grazing, and a lion depends on antelope. Man’s chief survival requirement is the freedom to use reason to transform the environment into his means of sustenance.
The more consistent environmentalists like Paul Watson, President of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society have abandoned the ruse of pro-humanity. Watson likens humanity to a disease - "the AIDS of the Earth" in his terms. He proposes drastic population reduction as part of the cure, but even he doesn't go so far as to identify explicitly the meaning of his views. One doesn't make terms with a disease - if mankind is truly the AIDS of the Earth, then the disease should be cured, not merely limited. This is the only possible result of consistently applying the mystical belief that the Earth should be protected from humanity.
This is not a purely esoteric issue of extremes. The simplest act of sharpening a stick is an alteration of the environment and a tiny human population managed to wipe out the mammoths using stone age technology. If one accepts the environmentalist premises, there is no human population small enough and no technology backward enough to ensure that man won't alter the environment. The science of global warming is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the basic premise of environmentalism and its latest offshoot, the climate change movement. The fact that Gore and others distort the evidence to make their point provides some insight into their motivation, but pointing out their scientific errors doesn't refute their basic position. No amount of science will stop them because environmentalism is not about science. Environmentalism is based on a negative valuation of humanity's unique position in nature as the only creature that lives by reason, that is, by shaping its environment.
I agree with Steve's basic point that the deep environmental movement is not open to rational persuasion. But the average, decent citizen IS, and he is the one who will listen to arguments based on sound science.
As one example of how important the science is, look at the recent Supreme Court decision in "Massachusetts vs. EPA" The plaintiff's court filing alleged that CO2 of human origin would cause harm due to a rising sea level. The "science" behind this argument was never even contested by the defendant! If the EPA had merely provided a vigorous critique of the "science" of global warming, the Supreme's 5-4 decision might have come out much differently, and we might have been spared the coming deluge of damaging global warming legislation and regulation.
We need to get sound science out to whoever will listen, and this web site is a step in that direction.
Good start, Paul.
To follow up - I don't mean to imply that this isn't a worthwhile effort - exposing the global warming movement's propaganda is useful. But don't forget that the battle isn't about science. Even if the Warmer's scientific claims were true, the statist solution they advocate would not be a proper response. It might be possible to take some of the current political wind out of the Warmer's sails by exposing the flawed science behind their position, but that won't make the overarching anti-civilization movement go away. So yes, good job getting out the science facts - but don't stop there.
Marvelous Steve!
"Environmentalism is based on a negative valuation of humanity's unique position in nature as the only creature that lives by reason, that is, by shaping its environment. "
A superb argument against Environmentalism, exposing its metaphysical premises. I couldn't agree more with you.
Who is this "STEVE"?
Brilliant!
I'd like to communicate with him directly about a project I'm working on. hp111@yahoo.com
Regards,
H Persons
Who is this "STEVE"?
Brilliant!
I'd like to communicate with him directly about a project I'm working on. hp111@yahoo.com
Regards,
H Persons
Post a Comment