I know this space is usually reserved for talk about religion and the affairs of state, but sometimes you can’t help yourself. It is impossible to avoid the global warming debate anymore, and there are similarities in that debate to many others. The idea of politicians debating scientific evidence to draw conclusions of their own is not good. So I’m stepping over to the world of politics and examining where global warming and the debate that goes with it fall in the world of politics.

So where, if anywhere, does global warming fall in the world of politics. The answer quite simply should be nowhere. It is a scientific debate, and best left to those in science. Unfortunately, any cause that can be debated eventually ends up being politicized. Of course, the money to study anything comes from the government (most often), and nobody will pay to study something that doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t think global warming exists, it very well might — but I’ll get to my opinions later. What I mean is that when a topic becomes so politicized, it is hard to see the actual truths of that topic. An issue like the climate should not be analyzed and debated by politicians. Elected or not, politicians are not qualified to make major scientific decisions. Sadly, we now have a situation where people are basing their beliefs on a scientific issue on what their political views are. Like evolution, the science should speak for itself, not be twisted as if it were simply political rhetoric.

If global warming exists (meaning man-made and dangerous), denying it’s existence based on political beliefs could be catastrophic for the Earth and humans. But on the other side of that, if global warming is not man-made, and is not happening right now (at least at the dangerous levels being preached about), and it is acted upon based on political beliefs, the results of those actions could have negative catastrophic affects.

So who’s to believe when it comes to the science of global warming. Is it Al Gore? Is it the United Nations? Individual climatologists? The answer is that all of the scientists should be listened too. Al Gore is a former Vice-President. He is in no way now, nor was he ever professionally trained and educated in the field of climatology. He majored in Government in college. He was in the House and the Senate. He is a professional politician. He is exactly who should not be listened to on issues of science. When you make $100,000 for each speaking engagement, would you want your cause to go away?

There is far too much money to be made on the “global warming - yes” side. Like any other issue, if you can show that your issue needs research, you’ll get a lot of money. There is an enormous amount of money being made researching global warming and it’s effects. There is no money to be made if the issue goes away. If there were to be unanimous agreement tomorrow that global warming is not man-made, and is not a risk to humans, thousands of people would be out of jobs. Again, I’m not saying that this is all a hoax for people to get rich off of, I’m just pointing out that there are personal and financial reasons for people to promote global warming. That’s never good for the pure science of it.

To many people, there is an accepted consensus among scientists that say global warming is real, man-made, and it will be the fall of man. Ask any environmentalist and they’ll tell you that denying global warming is as bad as denying the Holocaust. They’ll tell you that there is no argument, and that global warming is accepted scientific fact.

But it’s not.

Global warming is far from accepted as scientific fact. There are many skeptical scientists out there. Despite what Mr. Gore says, this is not a consensus. Take for instance the 400 scientists from 12 nations that the Senate identified as having disputed man-made gloabl warming.

How about the 100 scientists who signed an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, urging the UN to accept global warming as a natural phenomenon?

Or the international team of scientists who went to Bali, urging the world to have the courage to do nothing?

How about the some 500 instances of scientists disputing at least one claim in the global warming argument in a recent analysis of peer-reviewed literature?

Then you have the founder of The Weather Channel calling global warming “the greatest scam in history.” He has also supported the claim that the warming has stopped and the Earth is actually cooling down once again.

Both James Hansen of NASA, who is known as the father of greenhouse theory, and Richard Lindzen of MIT, the most renowned climatologist in the world have predicted just a 1 degree Celsius temperature increase in the next 100 years. Lindzen also said in the Wall Street Journal that ,

“These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.”

While this may not be a consensus against global warming, it is at least enough dissenting voices to rule out a consensus in favor of global warming. Acting on unsound science could have disastrous effects later on.

Many scientists feel that the cause and effect behind the global warming premise is just plain wrong. The lack of proof linking carbon emissions to global warming still lingers. While the hypothesis is in place, the evidence is not.

Unfortunately, only the doomsday predictions sell, so that’s what keeps showing up. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, has been called by many one-sided and inaccurate (there are many more). But it’s doomsday prophecies made it a hot ticket.

If there is anything to conclude on global warming it’s that there is no consensus — in either direction. Politicians should stay out of this. The scientists need to do their jobs with the proper peer-reviewing techniques in place. Like all other issues, eventually they will get this figured out. Warming or not, unfortunately we just don’t have the conclusion right now. And that is the only conclusion that you can draw on this issue.

This is not as cut and dry as the evolution vs. creation debate. On that issue, you have all of academia vs. some religionists. Not exactly the same as Ph.D. in climatology vs. Ph.D. in climatology from somewhere else. This is an issue that shouldn’t be politicized and should not be nearly as publicized as it is. We don’t need our children indoctrinated with global warming fears before our top scientists are in agreement. Let’s let this play out before we all change our lives. I only want to make the point that this issue is open for debate, no matter what you hear on CNN or from Manbearpig, as well as point out the problems you have when science and politics mix.

Obviously, I’m not a scientist. But like everyone else, I have an opinion on the topic anyway. The evidence that we have from geological records indicates constant fluctuations in temperature throughout history. Making major decisions based on a 1 degree Celsius warming over 100 years is a bit extreme. The nature of climate is change. There have been continuous cycles of heating and cooling for as far back as we can measure.

Basing my opinion off of the evidence that has been presented, I believe that we can accept that the Earth’s temperature is higher now than it was 100 years ago. But from what I’ve come to understand, the rise is not out of the range of the normal fluctuations. I do not feel that humans are having any effect on the climate. I think that what we are risking more by drastically changing our lifestyles and societal ways to stop global warming, than we are by letting climate change run it’s course and adjusting our lives to it.

Climate will always change. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Let’s keep our science and politics separate.

Feel free to share...

Discussion

No comments for “Global Warming in Politics”

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.