Eco-Religionists Bully Dissenting Scientists
Another great story was pointed out by Drudge today regarding the global warming hysteria, and how alarmism is what makes people rich.
From the Wall St. Journal Here:
There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Wow, isn’t MIT one of those really smart colleges? Don’t they have the best technology? Lindzen must be a paid stooge of the Bush administration. Unless he really knows what he is talking about.
Read the whole article if you get a chance. Lindzen makes compelling arguments about computer models and the state of hysteria.
Temperature changes have happened over time-is it caused by greenhouse gas pollution or is it natural which have happened over time is unknown. But whether or not greenhouse gases cause global warming, there is something people can agree on-getting rid of pollution is a good thing. How can we get cleaner energy? We must use nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, geothermal and in some cases use renewables. But renewable energies which will be explained is not so green as it’s sold and renewables can do environmental damage. We must reduce our use of natural gas and coal and save these fossil fuels.
Germany is building many coal plants to replace their nuclear powerplants and importing gas. Germany will be getting dirtier air from their coal plants.Windmills and solar panels, are sold as ‘green’, but they are not. They need more land, use more materials, generate less energy-both the wind and sun are intermittent. Windmills have killed endangered birds and bats. People who live near windmills have higher incidence of hearing loss, migraines, nausea, etc. Solar panels have dangerous chemicals some of which are carcinogenic. Yes, we must also use windmills and solar panels when possible, but let’s end the idea that windmills and solar panels are ‘green’. Windmills and solar (renewable energies) are based on how much sun and wind you get and when renewables don’t give enough, then coal as Germany does is used.
The main thing here is that we must save fossil fuels such as limiting natural gas to fuel cars and reduce coal usage. That’s why we must use nuclear/atomic power, geothermal and hydroelectric dams (when possible) combined. Nuclear/atomic energy has advanced greatly-they already use less Uranium which lasts longer & more energy. Thorium needs to be perfect. Physicist Kirk F. Sorensen is working to perfect the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. It must be said that people like me who support nuclear/atomic power also support geothermal, hydro-electric dams, etc. If a place can get 100% of it’s energy from hydroelectric dams as some places in Canada do, then those places uses hydro-electric & the need for nuclear is not there. If a place can get 100% of it’s energy from geothermal as Iceland does, then again, the need for nuclear/atomic energy is not there. Please know that those of us who support nuclear energy also support hydro-electric dams, geothermal, etc. We must use atomic/nuclear energy as well and know that there I am an environmentalist who supports nuclear energy.
Pingback: Real Questions for Candidates – Climate Change-Global Warming – Canadian Liberty
Pingback: Real Questions for Candidates – Climate Change-Global Warming – Power and Reality