The Nov. 11 New Yorker editorial -- Getting Warmer -- is a typical example of global warming advocacy. It starts out sounding very certain about global warming with sentences like this:
[T]he evidence that human activity is changing the planet’s climate has continued to mount, as has evidence of the consequences.
But later, when discussing criticism of the theory, you get less certain sentences like this:
Though it's impossible to determine exactly how much of the current warming trend is the result of atmospheric changes wrought by man and how much is caused by natural climate variation, the vast majority of credible studies in fact point to the former as the more significant factor.
Scientific certainty is crucial because there's nothing uncertain about the freedoms environmentalists propose to take away from us. Without scientific certainty, the alleged global warming can never be curtailed by government action, only mankind will be curtailed. And that is the real goal of environmentalists.
Here's what is being said about some of those "credible studies." From a National Post article by Tim Patterson, Kyoto debunked:
The growing number of scientists who dispute the treaty's scientific foundation [regarding global warming] have become increasingly vocal, regularly pushing their case in the media as groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice.Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday [Oct. 28] in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.
(Hat tip: Adam Ierymenko, via HBL)
One of those vocal scientist is S. Fred Singer, whose group, The Science & Environmental Policy Project, is known for debunking the "science" of environmentalism. In a recent press release, Singer commented on global warming and the Climate Stewardship Act:
"The UN-IPCC science panel, which is most often cited by supporters of this proposal, based its conclusions on three major claims. And although widely publicized, none of them pass muster. They have been or are being disproved by actual data."
But just to cover their bases, environmentalist scaremongers have a new doomsday scenario: Global warming could trigger a new ice age.
Posted by Forkum at November 13, 2003 07:42 AM
|