|More fuel to the fire, as it werePage 6 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)|
Once again, logical arguments backed by scientific facts and widely held opinions of many climatologists and scientists, as opposed to the fear-mongers and those motivated by the potential profits available from the creation of a crisis.
OK, let's check out the logic behind your source. Phil Brennan, author of your cited piece, is a veteran journalist who has published previous pieces claiming, among other things, that smoking is not addictive and that high gas prices are entirely the fault of environmentalists with a secret communist agenda.
He recently wrote:
The next time you stand at the pump and watch your hard-earned dollars go gushing into your car’s fuel tank, remember who did this to you. And this is hardly the least of the crimes committed by the environmental fifth column. In the name of the socialist doctrine they conceal within their breasts, they have imprisoned you and our fellow Americans in a web of destructive regulations that are slowly strangling out economy.
And that’s what they want. When the economy hits bottom, they have Karl Marx waiting in the wings to take charge.
While I'm sure there are those here who agree with his assessment, offering his writing as the epitome of logic and science has to be considered a major stretch.
There was indeed a letter sent to the UN by some scientists refuting the prevalent perspective on global warming, essentially asserting that we're better served adapting to a warming globe than trying to minimize emissions. Interestingly, that letter was put together shortly after Exxon offered $10,000 to any scientist willing to write a letter contesting the latest IPCC report from the UN. You can read about that here:
The Space and Science Research Center, despite it's impressive sounding name, is an upstart organization that has been in existence for less than a year and according to their own website consists of exactly three scientists, all of whom are convinced solar activity is the ONLY influence on global climate, a view not shared by the rest of the climate science community.
As for the earth cooling since 1998? That's a classic cherry pick, since depending on whose numbers you trust, 1998 was either the hottest year in the past century or very close to it. If we were to compare the last ten years to 1997, on the other hand, almost all of them have been hotter. A great graph to put it all in perspective can be found here:
That graph does indeed show every year since 1998 to be cooler, but it also shows that the year 2007 was eighth warmest on record since 1850, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. That hardly indicates a cooling trend to my logical analysis. The graph shows a clear warming trend with no signs of a reversal.
You do make one valid point - that there are profits to be made from reducing our carbon footprint. A number of economic studies have indicated that the savings from increased energy efficiency combined with new jobs created by an emerging sustainable business model will more than offset any economic losses created by aggressively addressing climate change.
As for fear-mongering, I'm sure Paul Revere was thought to be a fear monger by some when he woke up the countryside that fateful night. In his case vindication was swift. We're operating on a little longer timeframe with this issue, but the fact remains that every national science organization with any connection to the climate has confirmed existence of anthropogenic climate change based on peer-reviewed studies consistent with the time proven scientific method.
We can listen to the established scientific community or a radical journalist.
I know which source logic steers me toward.
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)