Ten signs that believers in man-made global warming don’t actually believe
Anyone reading through this blog will know that I’m not a scientist. OK, I am literate and not an easy pushover for rigid ideological frameworks, but what could I possibly add to a scientific debate? Yet my little layman observations have been gnawing at me for some time now. And while I have been a genuine agnostic about the man-made global warming theory, I find myself becoming increasingly skeptical and dismissive. Two reasons. First, because global temperatures haven’t really risen for a decade (although I readily admit that could just be a blip in the long-term data). Secondly, because the credibility of so many advocates of the theory feels well, shaky. And that’s what this nobody-asked-me-but post is all about.
One obvious caveat. Nothing in this post proves that the man-made global warming theories are wrong. Far from it. But I am proposing healthy skepticism and debate. There are undoubtedly serious people who believe in man-made global warming. Why are we not hearing from them? And why are we not having a real debate about global warming in the West? Well, perhaps because many leading activists, political leaders, and yes, even some scientists who claim to believe in the theory, don’t actually buy into it themselves.
Here are ten signs of the rot. Not my lack of faith. Theirs:
1) Lack of serious alarm about India and China
Both countries are poised to surpass the US as the chief belchers in the near future. Perhaps it was fine to talk about the rich Western countries setting an example back in the Eighties, but not anymore. Not in a grave crisis. Until I see genuine, freaked-out, sustained outrage over the trajectory of Indian and Chinese emissions, I have no choice but to assume that another agenda is at play.
2) Shunning Nuclear power
Nuclear power has problems—mostly legal ones based on bad science and silly movies, but also with potential weapons grade plutonium being siphoned off from breeder reactors. But if one seriously believes that global warming is a crisis, you have little choice but to start planning for a serious security regime using breeder reactors—Bill Tucker (my brother-in-law—yes, it’s a shameless plug) writes eloquently about such possibilities in his book: “Terrestrial Energy.”
3) Little or no interest in technical fixes
Could a hose to the sky spewing sulfur dioxide solve all our potential problems for 10 million dollars a year? I have no idea. But since the majority of global warming alarmists have shown tremendous interest in shutting down the world’s industrial economy (even though we are simultaneously told it is already too late) and close to zero interest in technical fixes, why should I accept that they consider this a serious crisis?
4) Little or no interest in planning for a world that is significantly hotter
Other than finger-wagging you-are-doomed rhetoric, where is the serious planning to save lives, particularly in the third world? Conversely—somehow we are expected to believe that green technologies offer all kinds of wonderful opportunities to make money and live better, but there is no opportunity in enormous swaths of farmland opening up. There is something distinctly cavalier about the environmental culture, something simultaneously frivolous and moralistic, say compared with the medical world.
5) No significant lifestyle changes at the top
This one’s a cheap shot right? Gore’s house, the endless global conferences in out-of-the-way locations with superb temperature control, the private planes? Yes, yes, but if you really believe in something, you don’t buy carbon credits, you become Ghandi. So I will acknowledge that it is slightly irrational, but it’s true: I am more likely to be persuaded by a person who has sacrificed for their cause.
6) Spin control part 1: “Global warming” becomes “climate change.”
Serious scientists don’t accept mealy-mouthed, hedge-your-bets, inaccurate portrayals of their theories. They stick to their guns, even if the climate has stopped warming for a decade or so, because they know something you don’t.
7) Spin control part 2: green technologies create opportunity rather than hardship
I have lived in the third world for great swaths of my life. I know who will suffer if every last drop of fossil fuels are not burned and every last fracking rock is not broken open to reveal the gas beneath. So I see this point for what it is: a frosting of sugar for the world’s bitter pill, and a recruitment strategy for the better minds of my generation. If global warming is indeed a crisis, and no technical fix is indeed possible, there will indeed be famine. Feeding people may not be particularly glamorous, but I would frankly take the global warming believers far more seriously, particularly those who state that significant warming is irreversible, if some of the better minds of my generation were working on agricultural technologies.
8) Refusal to entertain or seriously debate other theories.
This one is so obvious: The diminution of countervailing evidence (don’t look at global temperatures anymore, just look at the ice cap) rather than a serious attempt to re-work models based on new evidence. Character assassination (oil company stooges, “deniers,” etc.) of pretty much anyone with reasonable doubts. Microphones turned off. Well, serious theories can stand up to debate. In fact, they are strengthened by it.
9) The subtle disparagement of human progress and ingenuity
The assumption always seems to be that “we” are the ingenious, enlightened beings. It’s those “others” in the past—those stupid Neanderthal clods—who fouled the nest. Crap. I am inspired by the hard work, love, and hopes of my ancestors, from the hunter-gathers who survived under frightfully difficult conditions, to those who worked in the factories of the twentieth century. What I don’t respect is people burning books (ostensibly to keep warm a la “Day after Tomorrow”), or any other such down-with-daddy sentiments. For those who think that human progress can only be kosher under socialist world government, well come out and say it, but please don’t pretend you believe in climate theories that you don’t actually believe in.
10) The use of polar bears as a mascot
Yes, it’s a parting shot, but consider: Panda bears do not actually make China a cuddly, friendly country. The use of polar bears (particularly when there are more of them every year) does not make global warming alarmism any more noble or convincing—except perhaps, to impressionable children. Well, I’m not a kid. This is a silly symbol, signifying nothing more than cheap manipulation. It belittles an important theory which we should be seriously debating.
Low road to China…
“In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. (New York Times, October 22, 2009: full article here).
This one speaks to my heart, so I don’t really care if this post offends anyone. Krauthammer’s superb commentary on the Admin’s attempt to freeze out Fox News from the White House press pool will be found here. I’ll add one point:
When I worked in Beijing, any news outlet that dared to report on Falun Gong (or other forbidden topics) was frozen out of access to the Chinese ministries (not to mention great swaths of the Academy, the business community and so on). Yet the foreign press never really banded together, stood up, and said: “if X isn’t allowed in, we won’t attend either.”
It’s heartening that the networks stood up. But it’s equally disturbing that the administration would engineer such an incident at all. So I advise you to fasten your seat belts my friends, because this crossed the line, and it is going to be a very bumpy ride from here on in…
Fuggedabout Michael Savage already…
…you can catch me at the Cambridge Union Society tomorrow, 6pm, speaking on “Organs of the State.”
No Comment (slams down paper, leaves room)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100403262.html?hpid=topnews
PS. I will have something to say about this shortly. Just want to after I and my associate verify a few things.
PPS. And a late breaking hit:
(Door slams)
Kadeer speaks…
Can you really say you’ve met someone if you speak different languages? I sat beside Rebiya Kadeer while we gave our respective congressional testimonies a few years ago. Somehow, after listening to her speech, followed by a brief stilted exchange, I walked away deeply impressed by the simple dignity and the sincerity with which she presented the Uighur cause.
Clearly Kadeer was a great beauty, so it’s easy to understand, particularly given her self-made background, why the Chinese Communist Party initially made her into a poster-girl of Uighur euntrepenurial success. But once she entered Chinese politics, she refused to play the passive role that had been assigned to her. Like so many CCP success stories, it would end badly: Kadeer in prison, then exile. And the official insults: Kadeer is a “running dog” for Western anti-China forces, an enemy of the people. Following the arrest and torture of her sons, she was called a ”bad woman” who could not ”even properly educate her own children,” the sort of braying taunt–toying and twisting Kadeer’s parental instincts–one would expect from a mafia boss or perhaps a mongol chieftain. Those words should tell you more about the true character of the New China than a hundred economic reports.
Somehow, Kadeer never backed down. Now her people are dying and Uighur history is tracking the trajectory of 19th century Ireland. Colonized, starved, and raped for its resources, the Uighurs, like the Irish rebels before them (who made deals with whatever force constituted the enemy du jour of England), have looked for friends and resources anywhere they can find them, even among our enemies. In a few cases, that even includes Al-qaeda. But now it’s time to put away the murky, overheated, partisan debates about the former Gitmo Uighur detainees, and just listen to Kadeer. What’s happening in Xinjiang is not just a simple race riot. It’s a symptom of a state-sponsored Han Chinese racial movement that is metastasizing like a cancer.
An Occurrence on Fuyou Street
What really happened on April 25th ‘99–take 2. From National Review’s July 20, 2009 print edition; posted by some dude who can still afford print subscriptions (be sure to check out David’s website while you are there; particularly the links on organ harvesting). The evocative picture is taken from Jian Shou Wang’s blog/website.
All the nightmares came today…
Iranian nuclear warheads redux: The evidence that North Korea has tested a viable nuclear weapon, on the order of 10 kilotons or so, is indisputable. I don’t intend to repeat my entry “Iranian nuclear warheads — a technical note” here (scroll down the page a little), but I will say this: given the close links between the Iranians and the North Koreans on nuclear weapons development–the Iranians were present at the fizzle of 2006–this has to be seen as an Iranian test too. And if the Israelis intend to strike, they should do it now. And yes, it really is that simple.
Update: Gordon Chang, who has followed the North Korean situation closely for several years, outlines the Chinese responsibility for the nuclear test here. Read the whole thing with one caveat: I suspect that North Korea may have slipped out of the Chinese leadership’s control to some extent, particularly if there is a succession struggle taking place. But Chang is right on the basic inputs: North Korea gets 90% of its oil, 80% of its consumer goods and 45% of its food from China. And that’s leverage, and if the Obama Administration were to push the Chinese hard while rapidly installing theater missile defense in the region…well, that may be the only course of action left at this point.
Yet unless every ship, every plane, and every suitcase coming out of North Korea is going to be embargoed and examined from this point on (in actuality, close to impossible, given the porous border with China), my comment on the Israeli calculus stands.
Web warriors
The NYT rule: The New York Times seems like an intelligent paper, good writing, comprehensive foreign coverage…unless…unless you actually know something about the topic at hand. Then it’s usually, horribly, insultingly wrong.
I’m about to turn to my chapter about Falun Gong’s amazing penetration of the Chinese firewall, so this article from the New York Times, is a wonderful, brilliant exception to the NYT rule. Frankly, it makes me want to shout from the rooftops.
How many harvested?
Remarks on the 10-year anniversary of the Falun Gong persecution, chaired by Edward McMillan-Scott, Foreign Press Association, London. Read the rest of this entry »
