Global warming argument has serious flaws

In this piece, I will commit a number of heresies. The Inquisitors of the Church of Ecology know where to find me. Let them come: I remain armed with the First Amendment and a proud tradition of liberty.

In order to more effectively commit heresy, I will explicitly enumerate the doctrines of New Environmentalism, which is the religion of the Church of Ecology. Please note – I do not suggest that these are the views of everyone who believes global warming is a concern. They are, however, common among activists, socialist politicians and the news media. I explicitly reject all but the first.

The first is that global warming is occurring. This is the organizing principle of the Church. They do not even bother arguing the point. I know this from experience. You might think you had questioned the existence of Canada.

Innocent skeptics – the sort who are unfamiliar with the debate and so do not know their own heresy – are treated with a sort of patronizing charity. They are gently, but firmly, informed that there is no such possibility and that the Oracle of Science has spoken. The Church is willing to tolerate this class of persons so long as they stay out of policy discussions.

Informed skeptics have a different approach: They maintain that the 0.6 (yes, that’s zero point six) degree increase in average temperature over the past century is no cause for assuming it will continue. In fact, we conservative types tend to remember history a little better – and we remember the 1970s global cooling scare.

Seriously, search the archives of The New York Times, Newsweek or the Christian Science Monitor.

Finally, the scientific skeptics are relegated to the extremes and no one may hear their heresies. For example, how many of you know that some scientists actually question the validity of the very concept of a “global temperature”? These are real scientists at major universities (in Europe, no less) and they seriously contend that an average global temperature is like “calculating the average number in the phone book.”

The second doctrine is that this warming is unnatural and we are to blame. The Church is forced to participate in this discussion, though it likely seeks to categorize it with the first as an unarguable and foregone assumption. There are a few major problems with this claim.

First, there is no good way to tell if the warming is unnatural, as climate change is a major part of any planetary ecology. In the words of one eminent biogeologist, “The system requires no external driver to fluctuate by a fraction of a degree.”

This warming period may be natural. It may also be temporary. In the next decade, we may see global cooling. Or perhaps temperatures will remain relatively stable. This isn’t just Hume’s problem of induction writ large. The Church’s acolytes are making seriously problematic inferential assumptions – which is to say, there is no good reason to believe temperatures will continue to rise.

An Internet news journal reported the following about the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has maintained the world’s longest continuous worldwide record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels: In 2002 and 2003 there were “recorded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 2.43 and 2.30 ppm (parts per million) respectively . Did human industrial output somehow increase 55 percent during those two years, and then decline by that amount in 2004? Of course not. For the record, (the scientists) concluded that the fluctuation was caused by the natural processes that contribute and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

The third and final doctrine is that this warming will cause catastrophe. Therefore, we are both technologically capable and morally required to act. This is perhaps the most absurd.

First of all, even if you suspend disbelief and accept the other doctrines of the Church, it seems a little silly to respond with more human intervention in the environment – and these are just such the actions proposed. Like in 1975, when “scientists” suggested covering the ice caps with soot to curb their growth.

The claims are designed to elicit compassion. For example, the claim that the world’s poor will suffer the worst. Millions of impoverished Africans will be plunged into the depths of famine. Barely self-sustaining regions of the world will see their stability totter with the rapid decrease in crop viability and fresh water supplies. Disease, they tell us, will overtake poor areas of the world, and currently “sanitized” regions will see the re-introduction of old diseases.

These claims are nothing more than rampant speculation. What about the regions of the world currently in drought or famine? Why don’t we suppose that these regions will benefit? What about very cold regions of the world, where agriculture is currently impossible? Will these regions become fertile?

Even if warming is happening, even if it is the fault of humans, it is dangerously unclear what the effects of this warming will be.

The actions that environmentalists want us to take are draconian, to say the least. Implementing these policies is particularly bad for the poor and amounts to the same sort of backwards socialist class warfare as Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or, for that matter, European Socialism.

The Church of Ecology has planted its flag in science. This so-called science is really a dogmatic political stance that is probably wrong and extremely dangerous in its implications.

The “political necessity” of dealing with impending doom means that objectors to this must be controlled or silenced, their views marginalized. Anti-action politicians must be thrown out of office and dissident scientists must be discredited or disenfranchised – or worse, jailed. Sane people may not disagree.

The Church’s inquisitions have already begun.

Information from – The Patriot Post, Science Daily, United Press International