Emails have been captured (lots of them) showing how climatologists have been pressured to sign on to global warming hype, even when they thought the evidence was proving contrary (which it has been for 10 years). This post from Mark Steyn is chock full of links to fascinating articles which display both the agenda and nonsense of the global warming crowd.
For an interesting and informative take on the “wrongness” of global warming, see this feature. Global warming advocates have left a path of human misery. Liberalism, socialism, and environmentalism have caused more human misery than capitalism ever could.
Chris Horner from Planet Gore reports on the recent U. S. Chamber of Commerce’s call to hold a hearing on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). [Read: man-made global warming]. I have reported before on the dubious nature of the claims for man-made global warming. More and more information is showing that the last decade has begun global cooling. At any rate, whether the globe is warming or cooling, there is no definitive study on what extent the climate is affected by human activities.
What is disturbing is how much policy is being established on assumptions and working models, rather than on hard scientific data. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to hold a trial before the public. Call it Scopes II–a trial to establish whether humankind is causing climate change. This blog post offers a reason the EPA won’t go for such a trial.
Maybe our title question is one we are not supposed to ask, but, what if Al Gore and the global warming prophets of doom are wrong? Wouldn’t it mean that we could drive whatever cars we wanted? Wouldn’t it mean that we could have more–rather than less–babies? Wouldn’t it mean no more taxing of the gas that comes forth from cows? We could drink bottled water. We could recycle, or not. What a wonderful world this would be.
Once again, another report has been issued which renders the global warming hysteria dubious, if not an outright myth. According to this report, almost 90% of the temperature recording sites fail to meet the standards for accurate temperature measure. In other words, if your thermometer reads a warmer temperature, it might not mean the surface temperature of the earth is rising. It might simply mean that you shouldn’t place the thermometer in a black asphalt parking lot, or on a hot roof, or beside an exhaust fan. Putting the thermometer in places like this will cause the temperature reading to, um, rise.
This article bemoans the fact that Obama’s administration is not going to put a tax on cow burping. They attribute the lack of cow belching legislation to a powerful farmers lobby. First of all, it seems to me that it would have to be a ranchers lobby, rather than a farmers lobby. Nevertheless, the article presents a cynical attitude toward Obama and the democrats, insinuating that their lack of legislation is COWardly (poor pun).
According to the article, cow belching ought to be taxed because it is the single largest producer of methane. The article is derisive toward democrats because they are leaving cow belches unlegislated… for now. Has anyone stopped to think that legislating cow belching might be a government overreach? Is this not crazy?
It is but one more of the many examples of what kind of an ethic we are in for as we drift away from Judeo-Christian values incorporated in the constitution. If not a Judeo-Christian ethic, then whose? If it is a green ethic, then cow burps are just the beginning of the madness.
I just read this headline which says, “Evangelicals trail other faiths on global warming,” and I say, Kudos to evangelicals!
Then, I saw this headline, and I was again befuddled: “Christians call for greater action on earth day. ” Once again, I have no problem with caring for the environment, planting trees, and keeping waterways clean.
I do, however, have a problem with diving headfirst into a shallow beach, which is exactly what the global warming crowd has done. Beyond concern for the environment, this movement is ready to adapt an ethic based on the perceived impact to mother earth. This is (a) foolish; (b) dangerous. It is foolish because there is not proof substantiating global warming impact. Neither is it proven that our efforts sufficiently diminish such impact.
It is dangerous because a group of technocrats end up determining “moral” behavior for everyone based on unproven scientific theories. So, for instance, we are told we must use cloth diapers; then, we are told we cannot. One day we are supposed to drink bottled water; the next day we are not. We thought that recycling would heal our helpless mother, but then we learned that the recycling trucks do more damage than the recycling healed, and the net impact is supposed to be worse after recycling.
I’d rather base my morality and ethic on something more substantial than global junk science. Christians, don’t be afraid to get left behind by the global warming gang.
I have been speaking against the “Green Ethic” for some time now. I am considering changing the term from Green Ethic to Lunatic Ethics. Each time the global warming group establishes an ethical norm, science gets in the way and frustrates their global balance guidelines.
Click on the headline below to see the latest example of lunatic ethics:
Recycling Could Be Adding to Global Warming
Read this article, and you will know why the evangelical embrace of the Green movement is worrisome to me. Specifically, the Green movement is a fusion of bad theology with bad science. Call it a “Con-fusion.” This article, unfortunately, illustrates some of the muddle-headed thinking of Christians when it comes to the Green movement. Recycling is fine, of course, but it isn’t a spiritual exercise. In addition, the first commandment is not, “Take care of the earth,” as this pastor says. In fact, the command he cites is, “You shall not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat, you shall surely die.”
Equating this command with environmental injunctions against SUV’s and plastic grocery sacks is about as sensible as saying World War II was a little misunderstanding. Do we really think the command against eating the forbidden fruit is a statement on climatology? Really?
The Al Gore Green science is not science (see here or here).
The “God Is Green” movement is not godly, or biblical.
One of the things I have tried to keep folks informed about is the terrible new ethic on our horizon; it is more pronounced in Europe than it is here, but even in America the green ethic is alive and well. Not only is it terribly oppressive–outlawing such innocuous behaviors as drinking Dasani from a bottle–but now we find evidence, once again, that the Green ethic is not just oppressive; it is laughable. I have been warning you against hitching your ethical wagon to a green ethic that is supposed to undo the supposed effects of global warming; now, comes this article which asks how long will the next ice age last. In short, the article predicts that we are entering into another ice age. This time, the ice age may be permanent. I suppose we should all do our part now to engage in behaviors that will speed up global warming. Go help Ford and buy that SUV you’ve really been wanting. Maybe you should get a Hummer.
Wine lovers will obviously wish for global warming this weekend as killer frosts invade the vineyards of New Zealand. The situation is so bad that fossil-fueled helicopters are being called in to thwart the frost. In fact, every helicopter in New Zealand is on the case, hoping to accelerate the pollutants which cause global warming so that the ground might be warmed and frost might be averted. (Actually, this isn’t what the helicopters are attempting.) They are simply trying to prevent frost from killing off their wine industry. Seems global warming has turned a cruel, cold hand against New Zealand this year. Read the sad story for yourself…