For years, many conservatives have doubted the science behind the global warming "crisis."
Whenever conservatives express these opinions, they are mocked and ridiculed mercilessly by liberals who insist "sound science" supports the conclusion that mankind's activities are causing the planet to grow warmer every year.
Remember the Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, starring former Vice President Al Gore (the inventor of the Internet), who took his case for global warming to the movie-going public in 2007? That film underscores the inconvenient truth for environmentalists -- that the global warming debate is big business. Forget the film. Gore himself is testament to this; he's made millions from the debate.
The recent -- and it should be mentioned, highly illegal -- release of hacked e-mail exchanges between prominent scientists seems to indicate that engaging in political activism is as important to modern-day climatologists as gathering favorable data. In one particularly interesting e-mail, a leading researcher laments that he "can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.'"
These kinds of comments have now raised significant doubts about whether climatologists are overstating the nature of the "crisis," Regardless of the protestations (and scoffs) from biased environmentalists, a long shadow has now been cast over the legitimacy of the entire subject of man-made global warming. Superficially it appears that "chicken liberals," hell bent on convincing the world that the sky is literally falling, are piloting the debate for their own self-sustaining purposes.
Particularly interesting is the media's role in this perpetuated crisis. In almost every article on the subject, anyone offering a skeptical viewpoint is explained away as having an ulterior motive to poison the atmosphere and pollute the environment. But those who work for organizations like the World Wildlife Fund's Global Climate Initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Stockholm Environment Institute don't have their motives questioned at all, despite the fact that they owe their very livelihood to ensuring the "environmental catastrophe" of global warming is a foregone conclusion.
The plain fact is, if the debate suddenly comes to a teeth-chattering halt, with the conclusion that man doesn't have an impact on the planet's temperatures and that recent warming trends are all part of the Earth's cyclical climate fluctuations, these people are out of a job.
Everywhere you look, there are stories about the pressure on scientists to tamp down their usage of phrases such as "global warming" or "climate change" because of skeptics, but very few people discuss the fact that climatologists depend on the alarmist nature of their work to perpetuate funding for their programs. The argument, that global warming skeptics are trying to "maintain the status quo," is so absurd it's laughable. For the past five years, "global warming" has been the status quo. If anything, climate change skeptics are doing their due diligence to ensure that sound science, rather than sensation, is motivating scientific conclusions.
There is a much greater pressure for scientists to dramatize findings or create biased outcomes, especially when the bread on their table is paid for by public grants generated by these public fears. Simply put, anyone who makes their living off a crisis -- real or manufactured -- understands that the perpetuation of the crisis keeps them employed. In some cases, it even makes them rich (just ask Al Gore, whose speaking fees as of 2007 averaged $175,000 per engagement).
In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, Sarah Palin urged President Barack Obama to boycott the Global Climate Summit in Copenhagen, until more clear, unbiased and convincing evidence emerges.
Palin's commentary is intriguing for a number of reasons, but most noteworthy is her acknowledgment that weather patterns are indeed changing and that these changes are cause for legitimate concern:
I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
Palin's conclusion, that the president should boycott the summit, is wise not necessarily for the message it would send to anyone, but merely for prudence's sake. Basing an international carbon footprint "deal" on environmental evidence that has recently been called into question is be foolish under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately, America is not under the best of circumstances. Which means going to Copenhagen to iron out an international environment deal at a time when Americans are suffering their way through a stagnating and brutal recession at home shows extremely poor judgment.
Any deal Obama reaches in Copenhagen will come at a cost to this nation's tax-payers. It'll mean tougher sanctions on businesses, lower wages and less money to hire new employees.
Come to think of it, I guess making nature more hospitable is an excellent goal for the president ... after all, his economic policies may result in many home-owners having to go out and live in it.
Join Me on Facebook | Get My Twitter Updates 
Top Photo © Science Library/Getty Images
Bottom Photo © John Moore/Getty Images
Comments
I am interested to know where you earned your degree in Science from and where your peer revieved publications are that you draw your conclusions from.
Science is defined by the scientific method. Climate science addresses the question of what the possible effects are of releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere due to human activity, and if it has any effects on the global ecosystem. Now no one can doubt the hard data that greenhouse gases have risen since industrialization…it’s been measured, and no volcanoes arent the culprit (less than 1% actually). We have also measured a marked increase in global temperatures on the whole, and an overall decrease in polar sea ice and glacier volume. Now some argue that this is just natural variation, and we cannot disprove that, BUT it seems pretty coincidental that greenhouse gases have increased at the same time.
Global warming is not a scientific Law, meaning that it cannot be tested in every possible circumstance, but this does not mean that pundits with no formal science education can refute the data based on personal opinion. If you skeptics really want to fight this you will need to come up with your own TESTABLE hypotheses and reach a general consensus based on the analysis of proven climate data.
Has global warming affected all places equally? No anomalies do occur and it is to be expected in such a dynamic system but the overall conclusion is that overall the temperature has risen and will continue to rise if greenhouse gas concentrations rise. Again, I’m not sure how a couple of emails can discredit insurmountable amounts of real world data or how worldwide data can be abused to form a vast conspiracy so think what you’d like…and remind Big Oil to keep sending those checks.
I’m not arguing science. I’m arguing methodology. There’s a big difference. Incidentally, where did you get your degree in science? Because, you’re certainly not a writer.
Ahh, yes. Exactly what I was talking about in my article. Sorry to disappoint you, friend. I’m not on anyone’s dole. “… [I]nsurmountable amounts of real world data” … you’ve really swallowed the Kool-Aid. Did you ever stop to question the accuracy of the temperature readings from previous centuries? Because “real-world” scientists have. It’s one of the reasons why there can be no absolute surety in the matter. The devices used to measure temperature and barometric pressure have only become measurably accurate within the last century. Unfortunately, it takes accurate data from more than just one or even two centuries to make a determination about the global effects of carbon pollution. Especially since the planet has been alive for roughly 4 billion years.
Incidentally, those who dare to question the legitimacy of the global warming hypothesis aren’t denying that pollutants harm the environment. I think most people would agree that pollution kills fauna and flora and that man’s impact on the world can be seen in the number of extinct and endangered species. Even conservatives agree that it’s important to be good stewards of the Earth. Unfortunately, there’s no historic proof that global warming isn’t anything other than a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Meanwhile, people in America are suffering terrible economic hardships right now thanks to a housing-market collapse and wild, out-of-control spending. The last thing we need is a new expensive, job-killing policy based on unproven scientific data. When leading scientists privately admit that the Earth’s recent cooling trend is killing their prospects for research funding because the new data is calling the entire global warming debate into question, I’d say that is enough to at least make other researchers — who do not have a bias — to reevaluate the evidence.
You don’t have to be a scientist to see that.
Who did you say you work for again?
This is still insane that scientific theory becomes a political argument. It’s madness.
Forget the argument over whether or not global warming is real, although I tend to believe it is. Something noone talks about is the fact that the majority of our streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans are polluted beyond recognition. This may account for much of the problems we face environmentally. The salintity of the water can easily be affected by many different chemicals that are spewing into our water systems. How could something that composes about 75% of the earth have an affect on it?
I do agree with the facts that just because a few bad apples tried to massage the data to further prove their point that doesn’t automatically erase much of the forensic scientific evidence that has been out there for the past 100 years. Global warming could be caused from greenhouse gases. But what if it’s being caused by nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, PCS in our water systems, or other variables that many people on both sides never discuss. It is not a law, but a theory. There is a lot of evidence to back the theory. But just because it is not a law does not mean we should ignore much of the evidence. Nor should we throw out all scientific research because of a few bad apples.
Another question, how do we prove the credibility of these “hacked” emails. What if the “hacked” emails were in fact fabricated from global warming naysayers. How can we ever prove that they weren’t fabricated.
Needless to say, the indisputable fact is we are doing some serious damage to our environment. For anyone who doesn’t believe that, go drink the water of the Ganges River. Tell me how it tastes.
These aren’t just “a few bad apples,” William. If only that were true. The reason this story is such a big one is because these are the field’s leading climatologists. Also, the “forensic scientific evidence” you discuss only gauges the last 100 years; the historic climate cycles of our planet going back to its birth are all just hypothetical scenarios. It’s not a fact like 2+2=4. If scenarios on global warming differ from institution to institution (which they do), that makes them by definition hypothetical.
Clearly, pollution is no good. I think everybody can agree with that, and no one will argue that pollution harms the environment. And clearly, people are working to alleviate this problem through recycling programs and environmentally-friendly vehicles, etc. The question, though, is whether man-made pollution — as opposed to bovine methane pollution, for example, — is enough to alter forever the climate of our planet. The skeptics — and that’s what they are; not naysayers, since there is no definitive “say” for them to “nay” — simply want to make sure that the data collected is unbiased and fully provable. Yes, pollution is bad, but it doesn’t necessarily equal global warming.
The scientists and the university whose server was hacked have acknowledged the authenticity of the e-mails, but maintain their usage in the media has been taken out of context.
B.S. Chemistry – Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
and pursuing a Master’s degree in Immunology.
I am employed and yes, pay taxes. I won’t specify my employer due to the sensitive nature of our work.
No I am not a professional climatologist but as a scientist I can interpret research…it’s my current job.
I don’t really need to defend my credentials because I am not taking up a contrary position to the current IPCC consensus. I have read, and questioned and come to my own conclusions…based on defensible data, not political ideaology. In fact, I vote Republican on occasion too.
Ok so Exxon doesn’t give YOU money to discredit science-my apologies-but it is well known that Big Oil does release “junk” science to artifically create controversy much like Big Tobacco used to. Some scientists are even on Big Oil payroll, and some are not. A handful, very much in the minority, do refute the current consensus based on their own findings but these claims have been addressed by the IPCC and have not altered the current consensus. Call it conspiracy if you like opinions not based in fact cannot be logically argued.
Of course pollution is bad, but I’m not arguing pollution, I’m arguing atmospheric carbon which as of now, is not classified as an atmospheric pollutant. Pollution harms directly, EXCESS atmospheric carbon harms via changing global climate
Other tidbits:
- The exact temperature record is from 1850, but ice cores, tree rings, geological data etc. give us a much longer look back into our climate. If skeptics doubt the current view of modern and paleoclimate data then start providing evidence to support that view.
-I’m not sure what you mean by faulty temperature records. Peer review tends to address such error and either you trust it or you don’t. Urban heat island effects are not the reason, nor is fudged data, nor is sun activity (we are in a deep solar minimum actually). If you think that the data is wrong then prove it.
-Current cooling is taken out of context. Yes 2009 was cooler than record warmth in 2007 but still well above the recorded mean surface temperature. Like I said, global climate is dynamic and anomalies can occur. Climate scientists do not refute this and openly talk about this.
-The economy is important and I feel the effects of the current recession as we all do. Seeing as myself and millions of others have their retirement riding in investment markets, I certainly hope for a strong US economy. I do however know that we also need an environment in which to live. The NYSE doesnt grow our food or supply our drinking water or the air we breathe and just as the economy needs stewardship, so does our environment. Acutally if warming continues, the NYSE will be underwater eventually so ignoring emissions now wont help later.
In closing I think that the debate between all of us is how Climate Change will affect our daily lives. Some think that radical change now is worth the economic upset, others are more moderate and still others want to do nothing. I am in support of moderate change that allows for our economy to adapt to the new challenges. Changing climate means changing food availibility. Science tells us that we can expect water shortages and food disruptions which would destabilize even the strongest economy so using this recession as an excuse to do nothing is irresponsible. Remember after all that money cannot be eaten.
I appreciate the comments, and don’t worry, I’m not going to try to prove anything — I’m a writer (a very low-paid writer, in fact), not a scientist.
My main concern is how the current debate is going to affect the economy right now. And, if we look at my article, that was the main point. Yes, I call into global warming into question, but my point there is that while many of the skeptics appear to have money-driven motivations, we can’t forget that many of the proponents do, too.
Let’s assume for a very brief moment that global warming is the cataclysmic threat alarmists claim it to be. The question, for me, becomes, “Will the economy rebound quicker than global warming will destroy us?” I believe it will, and if that’s the case, then that is the time to pursue the science behind the debate and, if appropriate, make the necessary changes. Certainly, no one can argue that solar- and wind-powered electric and water-powered vehicles hurt the environment, and, in a perfect world, we’d all have these things as part of our daily lives. The problem, unfortunately, is that these things are not only expensive, the technology is in its infancy. When people are out of work and suffering, and conditions are continuing to worsen, that is not the time to make radical changes that will keep our nation’s businesses (big or small) from hiring or make life more difficult and expensive for people who are already down and out. Let the economy recover, then implement these changes if the science warrants it. That’s the point of my piece.
Now, assuming that the debate over global warming is overblown, then that is certainly not the time to go tinkering with things that could have a negative impact on the economy. In either case, the economy is the immediate problem, and should take precedence over the debate over global warming. Get the economy moving again, get people back to work, and then revisit the debate. In the meantime, the questions about these e-mails can be dealt with. I think the arguments from the right will be far less vociferous when the economy is more stable. There will still be skepticism, of course, but there always will be.
JQ
What I am saying is maybe pollution is the primary cause. Yes we have created more carbon emissions in the last 2 centuries. But we have also polluted our water much more than ever before. My point is could that be the cause of our problems and many people are misreading it. Whether or not someone wants to argue climate change they can. But noone can dispute the fact that a lot of permafrost and ice caps are melting very fast. Again, could our man made actions be the cause, maybe. More specifically I am asking is it more related to water pollution than carbon emissions. I’m sure they are interrelated. But again I never hear any scientific research looking into the possibility that polluting the water is the culprit or at minimum an extraneous variable in the experiment.
B. A. Engineering Science
B. S. Electrical Engineering
M. S. Electrical Engineering
M. S. Engineering Management
I once dated a J school graduate.
Practicing Irish Catholic. That’s the richest kind.
I mention my religion because so much of climate change has to be taken on faith. There is very little question that the planet is getting warmer. There is considerable question whether man’s activities are the reason for this increased warmth. I am agnostic. By the time that we get ‘absolute proof’ that climate change has a man-made component, it may be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Tom Friedman wrote an artcile on this yesterday. He’s only half right.
Since the planet is getting warmer, the correct answer is to cool the planet. It’s not let’s ‘curtail man’s activities and pray that the planet gets cooler’. For example, we know that volcanic gases cool the planet. When Mount Penatuba erupted in the 1840’s the planet suffered through a year without a summer. The winter after Mount Helena erupted was the worst in my memory. Two garden hoses, one at each of the Poles, at an elevation of 10 miles, could spew enough volcanic gas to cool the planet. Blue water absorbs heat. Clouds and snow reflect it. Solar powered cloud generators, producing enough clouds to cover 3% of the world’s oceans could cool the planet.
I’m not endorsing either of these alternatives. I’m sure that the law of unintended consequences would be in full effect. My point is that we are looking at an effect and guessing at a cause. That ain’t good science.
Friedman is correct in that limiting green house gas emissions will get us to a better place. The social consequences might be worth the expenditure. Since we really don’t have a price tag on this yet, let alone legislation, it’s too early to tell.
Possibly you’ve noticed that not even Japan follows the Kyoto Protocol? I want to see what is proposed. It is too early to condemn the effort. Let’s see what comes of this.
Hello. I read somewhere & I only read it at one source so far (don’t ask where, I don’t remember) that those emails were not stolen or leaked: they were on a publicly available server. I haven’t the resources to research this “factoid”. It would be something for some tech-savvy person to rediscover & publish!
To all the people who try to defend the phenomenon of global warming on Earth by stating that “Global Warming is a fact…” or “there is so much data proving it…”, you should really learn to think for yourselves. How do you know there is proof? How do you know there is data? Because the newspaper says so? Because you saw it on TV? Seriously, the raw data that started this hype has been gotten rid of by the “scientists” who put forward the claim for global warming due to “space restrictions on their computers.” That’s a fact. The raw data is not available any more! The CRU only has touched data that has been proven wrong on many occasions by real scientists.