Global Warming; Crackerjack
Science
Professor Bob Carter,
a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, has thrown
cold water over the "global warming" theory, saying it is neither
environmental nor scientific, but rather," a self-created political
fiasco." Carter says the public has been brainwashed by politicians and
bureaucrats into believing world industrialization has created "climate
change" that will lead to widespread disaster. However, a period of
similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940 before industrialization
really began followed by cooling between 1940 and 1965, a period during
which human-caused emissions were accelerating. Credible scientists were
silenced by governments that used "public relations experts to craft
carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases." Carter explains
that "[C]limate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles." He acknowledges
it is fortunate that modern societies have developed during the last
10,000 years of relatively warm climate. More scientists are coming
forward to de-bunk global warming as over 60 leading international
climate change experts have gone on record to urge Canada's new
Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to carefully review global
warming policies. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for
implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a
proper assessment of recent developments in climate science, they wrote
in the Canadian Financial Post last week. "'Climate change is real' is a
meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public
that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."
Afraid to
Speak
The voices of scientific reason have been largely silenced in the
heated debate over global warming and those who try to quell alarmist
propaganda have seen their grant funds dry up and their scientific
integrity questioned. Federal spending on climate research has ballooned
since the early 1990's from a few hundred million dollars to $1.7
billion today and scientists who don't adhere to the party line don't
share the rewards. No protests were heard from the scientific community
when, in 1992, then Sen. Al Gore held congressional hearings to
intimidate scientists who disagreed with his "Earth in the Balance,"
global warming alarmism. They still said nothing when Vice President
Gore tried unsuccessfully to persuade Ted Koppel to further discredit
dissenting scientific voices. Scientific journals also contributed to
the lie by refusing to publish articles by those who questioned
fashionable climate change spin. In 2003, instead of following the
recommendations of the draft U. S. National Climate Plan to improve
knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council chose to
emphasize impacts of warming - not whether it would actually happen.
Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science says today, only
the most senior scientists can defy the "iron triangle of climate
scientists, advocates and policymakers."
"Balance of Nature" Doesn't
Exist
"Nature is
chaos and change. Disturbance and change are the only constants in
nature," said Randy Simmons, director of the Institute of Political
Economy at Utah State University. Simmons discussed biodiversity and
conservation during the "State of the Rockies" conference at Colorado
College on Monday. "The assumption that there's a 'balance of nature' at
stake in the raging debate over endangered species is a myth, Simmons
said. "As a result of this 'balance' mythology, money spent on species
conservation has been misdirected, misguided and downright stupid," he
said. The current push by environmentalists and government agencies to
artificially create a pre-European Garden of Eden that probably never
existed, "may even create harmful conditions," Simmons added. He cast
doubt on the government's re-introduction of non-endangered wolves into
Yellowstone as a revisionist view of conservation science and cited
historic journals as evidence that there probably were only a few packs
in the region, not the hundreds of government wolves that are currently
wreaking havoc on game animals and domestic livestock. "Setting aside
wilderness areas to protect species will not preserve some remnant of
the past, but will lead to conditions that have not existed for the past
10,000 years," Simmons explained. Changes are needed to the Endangered
Species Act to reflect the realities of nature, "[A] new [law] would
recognize that a balance of nature; or nature undisturbed is an
impossible goal."
No Consensus for ESA Reform in
Senate
Not
surprisingly, a "bipartisan" group of senators has failed to construct a
suitable bill to reform the antiquated and unsuccessful Endangered
Species Act. Four members of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee have been trying to draft reform legislation to eliminate the
House-passed provisions that mandate government compensation to private
landowners whose property is rendered unusable by endangered species
regulations. Rodger Schlicheisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife,
welcomed the news. "It's hard to see, with an extremist piece of
legislation like that, how anything acceptable (to radical
environmentalists) could result." "Moderate Rhode Island Republican
Lincoln Chaffee is very pessimistic about something happening this
year," said his spokesman, Stephen Hourahan. Chaffee is facing
re-election this year. To sign the letter urging repeal of the ESA, go
to www.RepealESA.us.
