Archive for the 'environmentalism' Category

AGW is Now a "Fact"

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

I’m not certain how long this has been the case, but apparently, news reporters are now stating in the tone of factual reporting that humans are causing global warming. In one article I read about the doomsday report from a “union of concern scientists,” AP writer Angela Delli Santi states “The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline, are a leading cause of the heating of the planet, known as global warming.”

Possibly, this reporter believes that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fact beyond question. It would be important to ask her why she believes this to understand how this hysteria is spreading throughout the pop culture. Another possibility is that she wants her readers to believe that AGW is a fact beyond question.

Reality doesn’t care what people believe, it keeps on behaving according to its identity or nature. What does matter is a how human belief affects everyone’s political freedoms and individual rights. When the Christians were acting in accordance with the “fact” of their god’s wishes during the dark ages, there was tyranny and misery with little advancement in technology. Witches were burned at the stake for mystically hurting others. Today, those clamoring for power or envious of the unprecedented success and wealth of the free market seek to force people to submit to the “fact” of AGW.

There is little appeal to science and reason, and those politicians who choose to cite scientific studies (e.g., Al Gore) pick and choose those papers that support their agenda while shamelessly ignoring papers that blatantly contradict the entire premise of AGW. They are not interested in knowing reality, but rather the conquest of humanity. After all, environmentalists operate on the premise that humans are innately evil because of their ability to create more wealth than primates. Interestingly, this is not too different from the Christian belief in original sin. 
 
Unfortunately these days, humans have increasingly fewer supporters. The political culture will progressively reflect this trend.

Politicians Use Music as a Substitute for Science

Saturday, July 7th, 2007

Politician Al Gore continues his war against humanity this weekend by organizing “Live Earth” music concerts to promote his totalitarian agenda without the need for rational argument. It can be safely assumed that virtually nobody attending these concerts understands the science (or lack of science) behind the IPCC’s fantastic claims.

However, these concerts will likely prove successful because, in part, (a) young people are taught by teacher’s unions that reason is not necessary to live, (b) those wishing to behave morally for the first time will latch on to this, or any, self-sacrificial hysteria, (c) young people are highly impressionable by music (when I was a child, I though that Iron Maiden was a way of life).

Even though the climate has always been changing, and there are countless studies that refute claims that humans are affecting the climate, politicians continue to trumpet a new socialist/fascist/communist/totalitarian world in which government power structures control the lives of all in the name of all that is not human.

It’s not difficult to understand why politicians seeking more power love environmentalism.

Updated IPCC Computer Climate Model

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

I’ve updated the IPCC computer climate model to include a start/replay button, and to further emphasize Gore’s role in humanity’s future. I’ve copied over the previous model so that any web links load the newest model.

http://www.rationalopinions.com/images/climate-model03.swf

IPCC Computer Climate Model

Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

In addition to human-hating environmentalists who wish to attack humanity’s prosperity, other groups are hostile toward individual rights and freedom (e.g., socialists, dictators, or anyone else envious of the prosperity of the west). Vilifying the industrialized world with charges of adverse climate change rallies many of these seemingly unrelated groups.

It’s important to understand how political and unscientific much of the international effort to address climate change is. These groups seek to convince people to allow further layers of government determine what they can and cannot do. These new government entities will certainly have the ability to bend the new restrictions for party members and friends.

To help reveal the agendas in the recent anthropogenic global warming hysteria, I’ve created a small Flash movie to illustrate the political motives of these seemingly objective groups. Feel free to distribute it far and wide, but please keep the credits intact.

http://www.rationalopinions.com/images/climate-model01.swf

Environmentalism is the Religion of Man-Hatred

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

Regardless of its origins and claimed intent, environmentalism has become the religion of man-hatred. According to environmentalists, all nature (that which is not human) is good, and normal human activity is evil. They view humanity as a pox on the earth, and tirelessly work to make human life morbidly miserable. Their end game is the elimination of humanity.

This may sound like an extreme accusation, but one simply needs to listen to their rhetoric and identify the premises of their arguments. Protracting their arguments in to the future reveals a utopia in which humans are simply wiped from existence (except perhaps a few environmentalists living in caves).

This perverted rewriting of reality has recently gain political traction mainly due to the aging of indoctrinated public school students, and environmentalism’s compatibility with Marxist and Kantian ideals of self-sacrifice. Modern political demagogues (e.g., hypocrite Gore and countless other Marxists) know that the ecco-conditioned public is ripe to be led to a more Fascist existence with their party being the voice of the “people” and of “threatened nature.”
 
If humanity is to keep from plunging in to another dark age with the environmental church replacing the god-du-jour church as the source of earthly punishment, we must immediately reassert the right of humans, INDIVIDUAL humans to exist and to act in their full capacities as rational beings—not to be arbitrarily scorned and jailed for living larger than sheep.

Paying lip service to environmentalism or staying silent in the face of such absurd claims about the proper role of all individuals allows humanity to slip further to this nightmarish statist future.

WHY do people BELIEVE in Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Friday, March 16th, 2007

I am not a climate scientist and have not read first hand accounts of studies and the methods of those studies. However, I am exposed to the media and have done some investigation in to various claims and aspects of the supposed issue.

Given the incredible face-value claim and package solution to this “problem,” I’m always amazed at how many people choose to believe it. Given that the entire array of facts and contradictions DO NOT support the overall conclusion that human exhaust is causing a rise in global temperatures and that the net effect of this would be catastrophic, why do so many people accept the whole package: socialism and all?

I’m beginning to see that the debate more about the lack of the rational mind and failing education/philosophy than about temperatures and gas emissions. Asking people why they believe it will be more revealing and relevant to humanity’s future than the junk science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007

This BBC channel-4 television program IS a “must see.”

As the global warming (GW) bureaucracy marches toward installing world socialism and tearing down the wealth creating factories, this documentary will show how this GW machine works, that the movement is political and not so interested in reality, and the endless manipulations that are being put on the public every day.IPCC created global warming?

It will at least prod some people to WAKE UP and start questioning the unquestioned, thus realizing that human-caused global warming is actually a rather bizarre claim when presented with all of the data.

If you love science, technology, and modern quality of life in the developed world, you should start paying attention because this GW movement is one manufactured/fertilized environmentalist tactic in the war against humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

If this link is broken at the time you read this, search for Global Warming Swindle on a search engine.

What Al Gore Doesn't Want You To Know….

Friday, February 23rd, 2007

This column by former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont appeared in the Wall Street Journal this week. I’ll put the link below (free, no registration required), and copy the text for when the link breaks.

http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country–grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate–so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive. Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars’s southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that “the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming.”

Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century’s warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to “Climate Change and Its Impacts,” a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and “average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s.” British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet “grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year,” and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won’t be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.

While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970–from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 “hockey stick” graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that “in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka’s malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths” in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring,” invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded “a ban, not just a curb,” on the use of DDT “even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control.” International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings’ experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Czech President is Unlikely Opponent of AGW Junk Science

Friday, February 16th, 2007

In the midst of the man-hating anthropogenic global warming (AGW) orgy, an unlikely dissenter emerged to speak up for reason: The Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus. He’s even apparently writing a book on his estimate of the issue.

According to the Drudge Report, he has made some biting yet insightful observations of the AGW hysteria. I’ll copy the interview transcript below in case the Drudge Report link gets moved.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …

A: …I am right…

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

 

 

Even Business Leaders Have Bad Ideas

Friday, February 9th, 2007

Today, the AP reports that Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic will offer a $25M prize ($5 for an initial “solution” and the rest over 10 years if the judges think the “solution” is working) for anyone who can create a method of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

He even has the gall to compare his prize with the 1675 longitude measurement contest that was eventually won by John Harrison. That prize was for something useful; Branson’s prize simply helps promote some passive-minded anti-human religion.

Do environmentalists really want a “solution” to global warming? They must realize that if a “solution” is achieved, they lose their back-door path to installing world socialism (the ulterior motive). But of course, anthropogenic global warming is not their only claim to hate humanity: they also have anthropogenic mass extinctions, toxic waste, habitat encroachment, population increases, and anything and everything else that humans ever do.

Also, wouldn’t rational people be opposed to such a machine? Who made Al Gore an expert in the “proper” level of carbon dioxide? He certainly doesn’t want you to know that CO2 was more abundant in the atmosphere during previous ice ages

The temperatures in Chicago this past week were never above 10F. Wouldn’t those residents have something to say about manipulating the atmosphere to make their frozen winters even colder? Perhaps this machine would incite a new civil war between the “ice age now” southern factions versus the “keep it warming” northern states?

What about all of the human deaths attributed to cold weather? What about the increase in vegetation that carbon dioxide should bring? That would help increase the food supply.

The only thing good to say about this prize is that it’s privately funded. I.e., all money is the result of voluntary free trade (except the tax breaks), and not the result of some overzealous socialist politicians seeking to cripple individuals by stealing their earned wealth to fund their religious environmental causes.

However, at the very least, if you care about rationality in the world, you would not contribute to Virgin Atlantic’s madness.