By David Schussler
Global warming fears are being whipped to a new frenzy that is distracting us from real and imminent dangers from terrorist threats. Watch out for the political bait and switch that is about to occur in the political arena.
World wide headlines are now touting an end of the world scenario perpetrated and promoted by “a consensus of the scientific community”. A just concluded Paris meeting of scientists from 113 countries concluded Feb.1st, to opine that “there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities,” according to a top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon. Without challenge, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued warnings that global warming was “very likely” caused by human activity. This according to an MSNBC reporter on Friday translated to a more than 90 percent certain conclusion that it is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
The IPCC results were co-authored by Dr. Kenneth Denman, eminent senior research scientist and author or co-author of many climactic change publications since the 1980’s. Dr. Denman is funded by the fear he perpetuates not through his research as much as through his computer modeling of possible scenarios. How much humans have contributed to the global warming cause has never been fully determined, and is difficult to impossible to measure. About the report, Dr. Kenman states, “We’re hoping that it will convince people, you know, that climate change is real.”
Everyone knows that climate change is real. An outspoken speaker at yesterday’s televised reporting of the commission’s findings stated that the public just has to believe what this group of science experts is saying and since they are the experts, the public just has to accept their verdict and allow their government officials to administrate new changes for all of society. He was inferring that most of the American public are too ignorant to understand the science and/or make decisions affecting their own destiny.
There is no debate over whether human life affects our climate and atmosphere. There is still much debate, however over whether human changes affect planetary changes for the good or bad. Anything that we do to pollute our air, land, or water is not good. History and geological studies, however prove that our earth has gone through radical changes without the help of us. Whether or not these changes were good or bad is nebulous, or at the very least, subjective. Global warming, ice ages, extinction of entire species of inhabitants have all occurred without our aid or interference and is significant to us only in determining where we are at now and what the future may bring for our well being. Natural forces are far greater than human forces in determining our planet’s future and that is what all scientific studies show. Even with the superior technology incorporated into the newest computer models, the scientists involved tell us that there are too many synergistic variables not included that are constantly interplaying and whose results regarding heating and cooling of the earth and its atmosphere are at best a guess and at least debatable. A report contributor Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate Analysis Section says regarding the El Nino aspect of global warming, “The underlying hypothesis is that El Niño exists and plays a role in the Pacific Ocean as a means of removing heat from the equatorial regions of the ocean, where it would otherwise build up. An implication of this, if correct, is that further heat buildup from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would lead to increased magnitudes and/or frequency of El Niño events. Nevertheless, we do not expect this to be simple, and nature always seems to be able to come up with surprises as to just what the future holds.”
This is the key truth and statement that should be added on to every conclusion that every scientist makes regarding the hypothetical determinations of global warming. This is the statement that should be added on to the “scientific consensus.”
During yesterday’s press conference with representatives of the IPCC some reporters were already demanding carbon caps on industry and pressing the officials present, over and over, with alarm in their requests for immediate results regarding conclusions that haven’t even been made regarding the new IPCC report.
Dr. Fred S. Singer is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University. He is also the founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. He points out to us that “…. The scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most.” An opinion shared by many, many other scientists.
Dr. Singer points out that the IPCC reports are excellent but most people do not or can not read the 600 or so pages and few read the summary. This means that most of us rely on the reporting of the results from our major news outlets. You can be certain just from the questions that were asked at the news conference that the reporting we receive will be selectively biased by whoever delivers it.
At yesterday’s press meeting it was announced several times how many tens of billions of dollars President Bush has allocated over the past few years toward the research of global warming. Scientists who are skeptical about global warming are generally supported by non-governmental agencies. Why? Because if one was to write a proposal to a federal agency stating that they were going to do a proposal showing that global warming is not a real threat, they would not be likely to get funding. Climate science, in general, has become pathological and is clearly being guided by federal money. Even though much beneficial research is being gained, global warming results are necessary (as nebulous as they are) to attaining and continuing research financing. The alarmist misinterpretations promulgated by the fear mongering press demands it. There are many scientists now afraid to speak out for fear of losing grant money or permanence within their University’s walls.The health and well being of our nation and the peoples of the world are what is most important in life. What we do as citizens of the world individually and collectively impacts all of life and nature and we should always do our best as evolution continues.What we do as citizens of the world individually and collectively impacts all of life and nature and we should always do our best as evolution continues.We should not allow ourselves to be either led or mis-lead by fear down the wrong path but should choose for ourselves by education and common sense what is best for our families, friends, country, and world. We must not allow ourselves to be swept up in fear to institute changes to our society, industry, and economy that could hurt us in response to what possibly could happen in the next thousand years. We must also not allow ourselves to be distracted from the real threat facing our world today, “extinction of all non-Muslim infidels” by radical Islamic terrorists.What we do as citizens of the world individually and collectively impacts all of life and nature and we should always do our best as evolution continues.We should not allow ourselves to be either led or mis-lead by fear down the wrong path but should choose for ourselves by education and common sense what is best for our families, friends, country, and world. We must not allow ourselves to be swept up in fear to institute changes to our society, industry, and economy that could hurt us in response to what possibly could happen in the next thousand years.So, watch out for the “Bait and Switch”. Do not allow the global climate changes to become the new focus of our government and finances and news. We must finish the battle to overcome terrorist activities attempting to take over the world or global warming will have no meaning to anyone.
Loading ...
9 users commented in " Global Threat, Bait and Switch "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWell I certainly agree with much of what David said, global warming and the entire affect of the Universe are difficult to compute with present day technology that hardly gets the next few days weather forecasts correct let alone the next 100 years! However I am afraid the arguments David makes are severly lost in this delusion about the scope of the problem of “extinction of all non-Muslim infidels” by radical Islamic terrorists (off topic or what?). Or maybe too much TV, particularly Rush Limbaugh’s favourite show “24″, certainly not credible evidence of this threat, nor is the Bush re-election mantra 9/11 9-11 911 — there are still a lot of unanswered questions about that event being used to bait and switch to an attack on Iraq.
It is so sad that we can’t get a better read on so called ‘reality’ but surely we can be logical and realise that negative fear and loathing are common tools of nations to promote patrioticism and unity where good solid positive projects simply lack the stimulating adrenalin that mobilizes the more profitable economy of oil and guns instead of roses.
Global warming is today’s “we need to build bomb shelters” fear factor that keeps most of us from focusing on all the millions of people and children who are in much more immediate and dire need of our attention.
I fundamentally agree with David’s skepticism re: global warming, after all, an Ice Age is about 10,000 years overdue on this planet and our global warming may be all that is holding us back from a far worse plunge into frigidity… with snow here on the west coast and down in California this winter… it is pretty hard to sell global warming as a constant. It may be a noticeably changing variable at this time but the planet is in constant flux and it is hard to imagine ‘ant trails’ of cars over the massive landscape of our planet being a major force behind global climate change. Contributing factors perhaps but look at plants thriving like crazy next to roadbeds loving the CO2 as they do, we need more jungles not less.I am not going to say it is nothing, but I will say that it is hard to escape the fact that as a thing is viewed, so it appears which is very unscientific science.Watch for the media news stations to make yet another hit “series” out of this, until ratings drop and something else comes along. Ever since they spun the hit series “OJ on Trial” and “Iraq War I” and “Racism caught on Tape” and “9/11″ and “Iraq War II” ad naseum… they have not been reporting substantive news anymore but rather their own creative journalism, in serialization.
BBC News is probably the only cool-headed news station left, but I am immediately suspicious of buying anything that is over-sold and Fox News and CNN and 24 are so Neadrathal and sensational in their approach that this Global Warming story will become the next ‘unpatriotic’ thing to argue against.
Dear David Schussler,
I believe you are quite mistaken — if our planet undergoes climate change as specified by the climatologists in Friday’s report — TERRORISM will be the moot point. When you write “An opinion shared by many, many other scientists,” I wish that the citation for this “fact” could be included. Personally, I think the majority of the scientific community is quite decided that global warming is no longer a debate, and that human activity is accelerating the process exponentially. I’m curious if you saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” or if you abstained from it, thinking it was alarmist because the problem is only “cyclical.”
The idea that this is one big scientific community conspiracy is what I find unrealistic. Science inherently has always been cautious, testing absolutely everything before they deem it fact, as skepticism must be first employed or we’d have theories all over the place being called “fact” before they were proven time and time again. The scientific method prevents this.
Global Warming’s forecast is based on monumental amounts of data being scrutinized by naturally doubtful and meticulous minds. Fighting terrorism is important, but what I find most unbelievable about the position that terrorism is MORE important is that it proves we only care about ourselves in the now. People have been killed over land, religion, power, money, in wars for centuries, and I believe your fear of terrorism comes from a primal fear of death. I don’t want to die either, Mr. Schussler, but I’d rather die at the hands of the terrorists in my own home than have the weight of humanity’s and the world’s demise on my conscience. On the one hand there is my own life, in the other civilization, and our responsibility to ensure our decedents’ future at all.
Let’s say the terrorists win their battle and everyone must convert to their religious beliefs — I am more sure that some future person would stand up to a dominate society and cause a revolution movement than I am that we would live through the consequences of such global warming-caused predictions.
We can fight both. We need to get off foreign oil, oil that is FUNDING the terrorists. We do that by fixing our energy crisis, by converting to green, recyclable energies. This in turn creates jobs, is more affordable long term, utilizes renewable resources, keeps our planet clean and our money out of foreign oil owners’ pockets. This to me, seems a no-brainer, and I have no idea other than laziness, procrastination, and fear of a larger change to a progressive society why we haven’t already begun the process.
I understand your point, but you must realize you can’t have a problem with your engine unless you have a car. Fighting terrorism is important, but we - humanity - has recovered from wars before. How do you suppose we recover from consequences to our home planet caused by our own inaction?
A Concerned U.S. Citizen,
Gene Demara
The two options expressed above are, I’m sorry to say, typical talking points. I agree that yes we have to wean ourselves of fossil fuels. They are certainly not the most efficient ways to generate energy. Everyone agrees on that topic. There are however, socio-economic ramifications that must be addressed before we can make broad sweeping changes in the way that we use energy. The war on Terror, the cost of so called “green” energy sources, the incompatibility of these technologies for the average person to use in their daily lives are just a few issues that must be overcome.
The means of determining whether this notion of whether Global Warming is real or not is fairly easy to address in my mind. First of all, we have a relatively small amount of scientific data that really tells us what the climate record looks like beyond 150 years. Believe it or not - Parts of Greenland were in fact green when it was discovered. Surely, 1000 years ago, we did not have gas guzzling SUVs in heavy traffic belching out CO2 and CO into the atmosphere, yet, Greenland was green. Vikings grew surplus crops which were exported back to Scandinavia. There is archeological evidence that there were in fact farms (of certain plants that can adapt to the rocky soil) and even vineyards in the early days of Greenland. The name Greenland is not some ancient practical joke or sarcasm, it was in fact Green.
Turn to the 21st century. We have a fleet of spacecraft in orbit and on the surface of Mars. Every backyard astronomer has watched Mars for years. The polar caps - particularly the southern polar cap of Mars, are receding at an interesting rate - almost 10′ per Martian year. But there are no gas guzzling SUVs on Mars, just our solar powered, green friendly, rovers and probes.
So - what does this really mean? Does this along with unprecedented storms on Jupiter and Titan maybe indicate that there is something else going on here? Have we perhaps overlooked something else that may affect climate?
I suggest that everyone consider the large orange orb in the sky. We do not know very much about our Sun, let alone know how to predict something as complex as the reactions that occur within the Sun. I encourage everyone to look at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm. While the data there is a few years old and admittedly, the data is inconclusive; it still provides a reasonable discussion regarding what is happening on our planet.
Finally - to David’s point. If we all kill each other over religious intolerance, Global warming is a non-issue. With nuclear enabled nations who decide to support repression and terror in the name of a specific religion which feels it is superior to other religions, there is little hope for the survival of the human race. Frankly, I am tired of the intolerance of my religion and culture, which my grandfathers, great grandfathers and their fathers before them fought so hard to secure. Why should I have to tolerate intolerance?
I have to agree with David though.
Matt Ashe
Tuolumne, CA
We must finish the battle to overcome terrorist activities attempting to take over the world or global warming will have no meaning to anyone.
That linear type of thinking serves no one. There will always be a small group of determined bad guys trying to wreck havoc on those they despise. They may dream of ‘taking over the world’ but they don’t have the ability to achieve that aim. And they never will.
That threat pales in comparison to the very real, looming threat of a planet with rapidly shrinking habitable land, loss of arable soil and potable water. 7 billion people can’t all live on a planet in the throes of the predicted models of Global Warming.
Ignoring that fact to focus solely on terrorism is illogical. Working to slow and possibly reverse the damage to the planet can be done while keeping vigilance against the anarchists who are fueled by their hate and their twisted faith.
Multitask, young man.
- Lee
I am not a frequent commenter or visitor of blogs. I am a mother of 2 living a fairly normal, suburban American lifestyle. Although I stay at home to care for our 2 young sons, I have a MS and try to stay informed on the world of science and globalisation in particular. I am particularly concerned about the fate of the world because of my 2 sons. I love them fiercely, like a mama bear. Terrorism and global warming concern me in a way those without children could likely not understand.
I provided that introduction to underscore my request to you, Mr. Schussler. Please, Mr. Schussler, use your writing talent to write on topics you thoroughly research, or in which you are a recognized expert, or quote recognized experts. I am impressed with your writing, but am bothered by your tendency to mix established facts with your opinions without differentiating the 2. As I said, I try to stay informed, and pieces that do not inform others, except to your own way of thinking, make the web a more and more difficult place from which to learn. Again, you have talent, please direct it at topics in which you are expert.
Lastly, even if the scientific consensus (and I do not use that term lightly) about global warming is wrong, the implementation of the scientific recommendations to combat global warming would still have a profoundly positive effect on the world by way of reducing pollution that makes people sick (e.g., asthma) and reduces our quality of life (e.g., loss of open spaces). Implementation of the recommendations to reduce global warming also would likely reduce the importance of the oil market, thereby reducing the bank accounts of those whom you fear. How is that for ironic synergy?
Sincerely,
Rachel Miller
LeeUSA:
Wow - your logic is very interesting to say the least.
You say:”That linear type of thinking serves no one. There will always be a small group of determined bad guys trying to wreck havoc on those they despise. They may dream of ‘taking over the world’ but they don’t have the ability to achieve that aim. And they never will. ”
First and foremeost - I completely and utterly disagree with that. You obviously ignore the declining birth rate in Europe and the increasing immigration of muslims into Europe to fill the population gap. I disagee with you completely that this is a small group of bad guys. Why will not ONE imam, mosque or individual muslim publically and uncatagorically denounce terrorism against the west and the deaths of those on 9/11/2001? Please - tell me why SIR!
I’ll answer that for you sir - because you are flat wrong. The religon of love and peace is hell bent on destroying the very freedoms that allow us to have this discusion. Could we discuss this if we lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, etc? The answer is no. These demons will destroy this plant long before the this “Global Warming” will.
I implore you to look at ALL the data - not just that of Earth to determine what is really going on. Remember - Greenland was once Green! That was not a marketing trick or ploy to sell timeshares. It was a fact - a very long time before we had gas guzzling SUVs and cars.
It’s time to wake up people.
Rachel,
I hope your children and mine can enjoy both the freedoms that our forefathers have secured for us as well as the ability to enjoy a reasonable lifestyle. I’m not sure you have thought through your arguement.
I aske you to look through my earlier post, which you clearly did not and then form an opinion on the Global warming argement. I hope you do not have daughters, as if the Muslims have thier way, they will be wearing burquas and Hajibs. Mam, Have you ever worn a Burqua? I did - just to see what it was like. I was terrified. Surely, you would not want that fate for your children or grandchildren.
SierraMatt,
I implore you to have faith on both fronts brother. Good will overcome evil in all cases. And …. In a larger scope it is out of our hands. The best we can do is the best we can do. We can make people aware that radical Islamists are attempting to wipe out everyone else regardless of their peace and love beliefs. And we can improve our environment by healthy practices but we cannot stop evolution which will do as it will with the forces of nature in spite of our practices. In all cases we must stand up and fight for what we believe in for the sake of our children and our children’s children.
Great Blog!! Climate change is impossible for us to predict. Billions are spent on a large “scale bait and switch”. This pulls high end researchers off the streets, into the skys where the air is clean!!!
How many of these doctors would be doing useful work if they were not jetting around babling about (impossible theory chaos)—they would be working on curing (preventing) cancer on the city streets, and big oil would be taking liability damage on all fronts…..
Lets pull the causes of cancer into the light…..big oil big chemical….using thier product causes cancer just like cigarettes, they can be held liable
Leave A Reply