For Global Warming Supporters: Just One More Question [Updated]

Global warming "enthusiasts" just hate to answer questions and want those who ask them to just go away. But, just when the GW crowd thinks that they're in the clear, there's just one more question that can trip up their "well thought out" plan.

Here we go again...dealing with global warming activists who think that they can just outlast sensible people. They might outlast "sensible people" who give up rather than waste more time arguing with zealots, but they won't outlast me when they want to hide the truth and destroy our economy and, in the process, steal finite resources that could be used for education, research, medical care, and other programs with proven benefits.

The current issue at hand is that the GW Club continues, day-in and day-out, to declare that the scientific debate is over when it is hardly over. Continue reading to see what others think about the scientific debate and why the left is afraid to engage in one.

Almost every day I hear Al Gore and his disciples firmly repeat that the global warming debate in the scientific community is over. That's repeated so often and with such vigor that one must wonder if it isn't true, until yet another skeptic raises an objection or more questions, as was done in a recent WSJ editorial by Richard S. Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. His article titled EARTH IN THE BALANCE / Don't Believe the Hype / Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming, refutes claims by Gore & Company and asks why they are so afraid to allow debate.

Please read or scan his article to understand why he takes the position that the title indicates. Prof. Lindzen ends with this question on the global warming debate with three suggested answers.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

I thought, "I bet that the left has already tried to discredit this MIT professor in atmospheric science. I bet they have called him every name in the book for not 'playing along.'" So, I did a little research and wasn't disappointed. The global warming left doesn't like him and goes from tweaking science to attack him personally from here to here. I just wanted to be fair to to present the other side's links.

My concern over those trying to shut-up doubters led me to find another article by an Austrailian environmentalist, Jennifer Marohasy, PhD, whose concern for the envirornment and concern for the truth cause little doubt as to her sincerity.

She brings up the same question as to why "global warmers" don't want debate. Her post titled "Climate Consensus & The End of Science: Terence Corcoran versus Thomas Kuhn" starts thus:

"I grew up in a family where we would sometimes take a vote, and then Dad would decide. Dad had some respect for the idea of a 'majority' or a 'consensus', but I can't remember ever worrying too much about trying to convince my siblings to vote with me.

"As a scientist working for government, and later in a management position with the Queensland sugar industry, my colleagues used to try and impress upon me the importance of 'having the numbers' and what the 'consensus' position was.

"But I’ve always been less interested in who has the numbers at any particular point in time, and more interested in the argument. I’ve always believed that a solid logical argument should eventually win the day."

She then provides and analyses quotes from Terrance Corcoran in his article titled "Climate consensus and the end of science." Corcoran wrote this:

It is now firmly established, repeated ad nauseam in the media and elsewhere, that the debate over global warming has been settled by scientific consensus. The subject is closed. It seems unnecessary to labour the point, but here are a couple of typical statements: "The scientific consensus is clear: human-caused climate change is happening" (David Suzuki Foundation); "There is overwhelming scientific consensus" that greenhouse gases emitted by man cause global temperatures to rise (Mother Jones).

Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the other way around. More often than not, the consensus of the time -- dictated by religion, prejudice, mysticism and wild speculation, false premises -- was wrong. The role of science, from Galileo to Newton and through the centuries, has been to debunk the consensus and move us forward. But now science has been stripped of its basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and made subject to the consensus created by politics and bureaucrats."

Dr. Marohasy doesn't believe that the debate is "the end of science" as Corcoran wrote, but she opens the question, from the standpoint of a concerned environmentalist, as to why we can't have the debate that the global warming activists want to avoid.

I, personally, want a debate that goes on until we have, as close as we can, the scientific absolute proof. Until then, let's go easy on the spending for something that is still a theory and also backed by the radical left, which should raise some suspicion.

I watched Columbo enough to know that people who don't want to be asked questions often have something to hide. So, to the global warming supporters,"There's just one more thing." We're going to keep asking questions until we get a confession.

***** Update *****

John Stossel wrote a piece today titled "A Convenient Lie." Here's a little of what he has to say:

Climate always changes. "An Inconvenient Truth" implies that all serious scientists agree that it is a crisis, and that the United States must immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions as dictated by the Kyoto treaty the Bush administration so arrogantly refuses to sign -- the same treaty the Clinton-Gore administration didn't even submit to the Senate. But even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all nations signed the agreement and obeyed it, it would affect global temperatures by less than a tenth of a degree!

...Why don't we hear about (the alternative) part of the global warming argument?

"It's the money!" says Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

And the politicians would have one less excuse to take control of our lives.

Of course, the "Global Warming Davidians" will call Stoussel a liar and will attempt to discredit the scientists mentioned by him. You have to ask yourself why the global warming activists invest so much time and energy into winning converts and attacking doubters. For one thing, I do not think that it's because they care about the Earth or our lives.