More Errors in Climate Change Science

By Caomhin

In a perfect world, I would know at least envirofascist who would admit they were wrong about taking a Chicken Little stance.  However, as we all know, the world is not perfect and I’m not holding my breath.  I wonder where Al Gore is right now:

The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.

The claim, made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, came in a paragraph with several errors. Data indicates the ice could melt by 2350. The assertion went virtually unnoticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.

I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting a key word in the text above: could. I could win the Powerball, but I’m not holding my breath on that either. It’s possible that the Himalayan glaciers could melt in 340 years, but they are not positive about that scenario either.  As many of us have asserted, the panic infused nature of the Green Movement is and was unwarranted.

I’ve never advocated destroying the environment and accusations of such are humorous to me.  We can all do things to help the environment such as recycling, reusing plastic bags (I think it’s common practice now that grocery bags are used as trash can liners), properly dispose of batteries, used oil, etc.  I find littering to be a horrible practice, basically it’s nothing more than sheer laziness.  I love going to the zoo or just seeing animals out running around (and here in Pennsylvania, believe me, you will see deer in abundance as well as many other animals).  The point I’m making here is that there are many common sense and easy measures each of us can take to protect our environment.

That being said, however, I find it reprehensible when politicians and individuals use the environment for their personal gain.  I also find it to be sure insanity to handicap the ability of Americans to economically heat their homes, provide for the their transportation, consume goods, or to have a strong economy and a path to prosperity in order to satisfy those in the Green Movement.  There is little doubt that absent of government action we have seen a response from corporations to develop more efficient products from vehicles to paper products.  This has more to do with reacting to consumer needs and demands as well as advances in technology than it does with government intervention.

I argued against government regulations demanding increases in fuel efficiency, not because I’m against more fuel efficient vehicles, but because government intervention will do more harm that good.  There’s no doubt that the auto manufacturers have been developing and have produced much more fuel efficient vehicles than they have in the past.  This has been a steady progression with the occasional jump in efficiency as new and/or improved technologies have been introduced.  However, once a government edict is introduced, in order to accelerate this process, the business model suddenly and violently shifts, which disrupts business and cash flows as well as the ability to maintain manufacturing levels of current vehicles, which results in government mandated increases of R&D while slamming the brakes on production (affecting auto workers as layoffs become a more likely over a prolonged period of time) of current vehicles whether or not demand exists in the marketplace.  It is through government action that the American worker and consumer is harmed while pursuing a governing “goal.”  Regardless of whether you find the goal worthy or noble, the action undertaking has severe and debilitating side effects, the strength of which depends on the scope and size of the regulation.

The rush to decision making in order to help certain causes often ends with negative side effects.  Many times, especially with regards to the Green Movement, we have seen politicians and acolytes of the movement try to dictate to the citizens of American and the world how to live and have attempted to brow built and instill a guilt trip on them for how they live.  You should not feel guilty for trying to provide for you families or to improve the quality of your life.  You shouldn’t doubt in humanity’s ability to develop new and improved technologies as our scientific understanding develops.  We have solutions and energy sources that will work, some of which can be implemented now (nuclear), some of which are still being perfected (hydrogen and clean coal).  We will get there but it will take time to perfect the science. Efforts to bend the learning curve, demand unrealistic measures, and to spread fear about proven, workable solutions (again, you can reference nuclear) will only serve as draw backs.  In the meantime, don’t be afraid to live your life and certainly don’t let the apostles of control make you feel bad about taking care of yourself and your families.


0 Responses to “More Errors in Climate Change Science”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: