OK let’s settle this Global Warming crap once and for all…
I am now going to address all of the concerns that have been brought to my attention this summer. I usually do not get this passionate about issues, but people in the liberty movement are acting so contrary about this issue to how they usually act it has made me lose some faith in the movement. Granted this is not universal but FAR too many people and organizations are attacking global warming for me not to care.
So the first thing one must understand is that this is an issue ONLY in the political arena not in the scientific community, one scientist I talked to was actually surprised so many people were questioning it. This is because so few in the actual scientific community question it.
Secondly, I think this entire summer I have seen one editorial that was not tied to some sort of political organization questioning global warming and even he admitted SOMETHING was happening.
I have asked repeatedly; show me ONE scientific society that questions global warming… that cannot be done because there is not even ONE. Earlier in the summer I received a link that said that there was one The American Physical Society… it turned out that the info was false and the APS put up a notice on its website affirming it’s belief in global warming. So now the people denying it are getting so desperate that they have to LIE about people supporting it, and as I previously wrote a petition that was circulated that allowed ANY scientist to officially deny global warming yielded less than one percent of scientists who could have signed it. To quote Borat; pretty impressive numbers… not! It is also pretty ironic to claim that the people you disagree with are claiming something entirely for political purposes when the ONLY groups you have promoting your idea are political ones.
Then I was told to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle so that I could see a counter to Al Gore’s movie. I want to pause here and say that it was NEVER Al Gore’s movie that convinced me, in fact it made me think that those who support it were doing so for political reasons and question, though not care about, global warming. Not to mention the fact that using these two movies to show the two different sides of a scientific debate is like using Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore to show two sides of a political debate, they are not very representative of what is really going on.
At any rate I watched the movie and it is pretty much a piece of crap from beginning to end. Many scientists had issues with it including two that were ACTUALLY IN THE MOVIE; these scientists have stated the filmmakers completely misrepresented what they said… If I remember correctly that is exactly the same thing that some people showed in Michael Moore’s documentaries have said (namely employees of North Country Bank, the bank at the beginning of Bowling, who are from my hometown). y’all are in great company.
The movie gave one compelling argument; jobs are being created to study global warming and the detrimental effects that it will have, and that is the reason that so many scientist support it. Now that seems pretty logical… until you stop and think about it objectively for five seconds. OK so if this is true it would mean that all scientists care about is researching things that will get them grants, a pretty damn bold, and quite frankly insulting, statement. But if that is true than why do so many scientists in fields NOT related to global warming, or scientists in related fields who intend to study something other than global warming, all of whom will be competing for grant money, buy into this? They have no incentive to help their colleagues get jobs or grants at the expense of their own, and if all scientists care about is the money then, well, you can see how this is falling apart. The coup de grace of this argument is that the Society of Petroleum Geologists states that it believes in global warming… these are people who will not only not receive grant money, but could potentially LOSE their jobs, working for oil companies, if global warming is real. If scientists are influenced by what will provide them with the most income, these individuals would surely not claim that they believe in it… but they do…
Another issue that has come up continuously is the global warming vs climate change debate. If there was anything that was ever political it is this. Scientists did not start using climate change because they started to doubt global warming; the two have been related since the start. Basically climate change is used as more of a long term word to describe what is caused by global warming. Again this is an example of a debate that is not going on in the scientific community, I will address the GW/CC issue more in my conclusion.
One argument I heard this summer, that was incredibly unfair, was that German scientists in 1930’s claimed Jews were inferior, and that scientists in Galileo’s time thought the world was flat, except for him of course, and that scientists in the 1800’s thought that blacks were inferior to whites, so why then should we just accept what scientists say? And doesn’t this prove that scientists are politically motivated? The first two don’t apply because the scientists would have been killed for saying anything else, Galileo himself is officially on record as saying the earth was flat and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The latter doesn’t apply because there was no demand for scientists NOT to say that. Now days if you disagree with global warming you might get a New York Times best seller or hired by the Cato Institute. Which also makes me question the grant money argument because there seems to be a hell of a lot of demand for scientist who DON’T believe in global warming, the fact that the supply just isn’t there and not showing up, makes me kind of question the theory that scientists are economically driven to a certain issue and opinion about that issue.
Another popular thing to do is attack the extremists in the environmental movement. This is incredibly ironic because the liberty movement suffers from exactly the same type of criticism. Even though the vast majority of economists agree that free market and limited government principles work best, the critics ALWAYS focus on the anarchists, who as you all know represent a very small fraction of us, and make those of us who are more moderate look like we agree with everything the extremists say which is simply not a fair assessment. Same thing applies to global warming; most people who believe it exists are not blaming it for everything bad that happens in the environment.
Here is what I think is happening… I think that many in the liberty movement feel, correctly btw, that most people in politics don’t know or don’t care enough about science to 1) give a shit about the issue or 2) understand what they are talking about. So they find little things like the global warming/climate change “debate” to “prove” that scientists are questioning global warming, most of the other ways they go about proving this either distort facts or take things out of context. I see liberals, like Naomi Cline for example, do this kind of thing all the time and it absolutely sickens me, it is quite frankly destroying many social science fields and is bringing politics into academics, which is something that should NEVER happen, even in political science (there is actually a way to OBJECTIVELY study politics and it is what REAL political scientists do). The people who are doing this including Cato AFP and Heartland, Organizations that have many great ideas and tirelessly fight for freedom everyday, ought to be ashamed, by not acting like the liberal mudslingers you have gained support and prestige, now you are risking all that.
The scientists who now question global warming are much like the scientists who used to question if smoking was unhealthy. Strangely enough Fred Singer, one of the most well known global warming deniers has made it his mission to weigh in on the smoking debate as well, and to get paid by big tobacco to say so. The majority of us in the liberty movement have approached the smoking issue by NOT arguing the science, but arguing the liberty of the issue, a much better approach. Of course regulation isn’t the answer… but SHOW THAT instead of denying global warming. Most would agree it would be very wrong and inhumane to tell industrializing countries to stop producing, but don’t tie that argument into “global warming doesn’t exist.”
The real reason that scientists tend to support Democrats, other than the fact that many Republicans think that the earth is 6,000 years old and don’t believe in evolution, is because Democrats LISTEN to them and offer solutions. Our side tells them they are wrong. I have news; most people, and scientists don’t care about politics. Now let’s say you are one of these scientists and all of a sudden you hear politicians talking about this issue, an issue you know and care about. Some politicians are offering answers and saying you are right, others are offering nothing and saying you are wrong, you don’t know anything about politics so you don’t know that the answers offered are not the best, who are you going to support, my guess is the ones who are not calling you stupid.
Denying global warming is losing votes and respect for the liberty movement, never have I encountered an issue, with the possible exception of socialism, where I could so clearly see one side is right and another is wrong. By all means attack Al Gore for being a hypocrite, offer free market solutions, fight regulation, make fun of the extremists (but realize there are just as many, if not more in the liberty movement), and defend the people of third world countries, but don’t deny what the vast majority of scientists, except the ones working for you, are saying. A few weeks ago even Penn and Teller refused to say that global warming was complete bullshit (though they put the same assholes I have been talking about on the show and did many of same things I have been criticizing).
Please please PLEASE think about what I have just said and learn from it.