Much has been made of the debate on Climate Change, or “Global Warming”, in recent months, from the Copenhagen summit fail, to cap’n’trade legislation fail, to global warming fail, and to scientific research and data fail in general. Not being a scientist myself, but a more or less conscientious citizen with a decent brain and a skeptical streak (considering all the craze about global cooling a few decades ago), I took it upon myself to read up on the material, both for and against the hypothesis, over the past couple of months. As I suspected, the mounting evidence against the science behind anthropogenic climate change provides a fairly damning assessment of the hyper-politicized, unsupportable, and ideologically driven conclusions of global warming proponents. In short, the evidence against anthropogenic global warming or climate change is so far better than the evidence for it, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any evidence of anthropogenic caused climate change whatsoever. And yet the climate-change proponents, rather than reading the contrary scientific evidence and opinions, simply repeat the mantra. You would think there would already be suspicion when Al Gore became the heroic standard bearer, someone so obviously un-political, unbiased, un-profiting, and scientific. Al Gore the scientist, who, in case we had forgotten, invented the internet.
It is ironic (or perhaps not) that the very same people recently accusing conservatives of “fear-mongering” regarding various political positions have taken to espousing the very same “fear-mongering” tactics themselves, with declarations of impending doom and destruction, necessary and swift (read “unthinking” and “emotional”) action on climate change costing trillions of dollars and generating entirely new industries, without any recourse to entertaining climate-change debate. We were told by the white house, when presented with 30,000 scientist signees on a petition against the science behind global warming, that, simply, “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”. Except the white house and congress feel quite compelled to impose the results of their opinions on their citizens. And so it goes, and Obama simply repeats the mantra in his latest speeches that there is “overwhelming evidence behind global warming.” Unfortunately, I can only feel more and more underwhelmed by the rhetoric.
And the millions of dollars in funding needed by such scientific hacks? Our tax dollars at work! But as the liberal elites would condescend, why should they listen to the babbling of the uneducated proletariat? They themselves are like gods, understanding all things, and having the power to manipulate everything from weather to temperature by their decree. Cut a little carbon here, and a little there, and viola! If they were so compassionate and understanding, they would stop these winter blizzards and freezing spells from pelting their constituency in DC and across the mid atlantic…
In reality, I am actually quite fond of measures to reduce pollutants, increase energy efficient transportation, build cities that are sustainable and energy efficient, reduce use of harmful chemicals, promote clean water technology (and reduce wasted clean water), and simply return to a more organic existence. As a classical architect, one of the tenets of a more classical or traditional urbanism that I ascribe to is precisely that we should be moving away from the car and more towards walkable cities in relatively close proximity to each other, and should be using more traditional methods and materials in building (“green” modern architecture is far less green when one factors in all the chemicals, processes, and pollutant-causing fabrication of materials and construction that is required). So, initially I appreciated the potential side effects of global warming alarmism as a movement away from the way we have come to live to a cleaner and more humane one, though I was always dubious of the science behind the alarmism. Carbon a pollutant, really? Maybe we should simply issue breathing credits, and reduce unnecessary or overzealous exhalation (goodbye exercise).
Thus, it soon became evident that this was simply an excuse for wealth redistribution, purging our western guilt, and finding more eco-friendly ways to live exactly as we are living, not to re-examine how we live– rootless and suburban. And so, unfortunately, the revelation of a fabricated scientific consensus, manipulated data, and scientific censoring of opposing views and research, has brought what could have been a healthy debate into a tailspin. Further, the attempt to ram through global wealth redistribution and financial regulations immediately, when we later admit that we really don’t know all that much about climate science, and that our models don’t correspond to empirical evidence, rubbed many people, myself included, the wrong way.
So, I’ve left you with many assertions, but little supporting text to underpin them. Below you’ll find a series of links from http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ pointing you to a trove of information, which I hope you’ll take the time to read and assess for yourself. More links will follow once I have time to compile.