Too Late for Education? A Discussion About the Left and Their Version of "Climate Change"

Pundit Press is proud to present an emailed article that we received from one of our best readers, JB (signed MOAtty). You may remember that he was the one that sent us the chronologically sorted "Unexpectedly Compilation." This time he's sent us an excellent on the Left's version of "climate change." Once again, it was too good to not share:

A conservative pundit recently engaged in a noble effort to educate the 2012 Republican presidential contenders on how to intelligently discuss “climate change”, urging the candidates to begin by stating: "I accept the opinion of the large number of scientists who conclude that human activity has helped cause the warming we've experienced so far." Unfortunately, there is absolutely no justification for such a Romney-like concession. This inane hand grenade of a statement sabotages any candidate-education project and grants an unearned victory to the ignorance of the other side.

Where to begin? First, who are these scientists? The reputation of the Union of Concerned Scientists, e.g., leaves much to be desired. The Climategate “scientists” were caught trying to “hide the decline”. A surgeon may have studied a lot of science, but what does a surgeon know about climate? Al Gore, who majored in journalism and political science, has talked endlessly about all the "scientists" who agree with him. Who has reviewed the relevant credentials of any of this "large number of scientists"?           

Second, an opinion is not science; anyone can have an opinion, but it is not a hypothesis or a theory, much less a law. And science is not settled by consensus. Large numbers of scientists have been wrong many times throughout recorded history. The consensus about the Earth being the center of the universe comes to mind. It almost cost Galileo his life.

Third, the Earth generates a share of its own warmth. It consists of a ball, approximately 25,000 miles in circumference, with a relatively small iron core and a relatively thin crust; in between is an enormous mass of melted rock called magma (commonly known as lava when it regularly bursts out through a volcano). The crust, in effect, floats on a sea of magma, as pieces of the crust (tectonic plates) grind against each other, generating earthquakes. Think of an egg with a relatively thin crust; think of its liquid center being raised to the temperature of molten rock; would you want to hold it in your hand? Obviously the Earth's crust provides more insulation, but other celestial bodies (e.g. moons of Jupiter), which are not volcanically active, seem to be notably colder than those that are.

Is the world really burning?

Fourth, the Earth is, cosmologically, a close neighbor to the Sun. The Sun is a gaseous ball, generally pegged at about 2.7 million miles in circumference, consisting of a gigantic, ongoing nuclear fusion reaction. Sunspots (giant storms) rage on its surface. The energy continuously belched out at us through its massive flares and prominences is almost unimaginable. Yet the usual suspects snickered at Vice President Cheney when he correctly suggested that sunspot cycles affect our climate. Moreover, the ultimate fate of the Earth is to be literally consumed by the Sun. As the Sun burns through its nuclear fuel, it will gradually morph into a “Red Giant”, growing exponentially in circumference and engulfing the orbits of the inner planets, incinerating them in the process. Maybe Al Gore can come up with some massively intrusive regulations to prevent that process.

The point of all of the above is that there are massive natural forces at work on our planet that we are powerless to affect, as powerless as are microbes on a laboratory slide to affect the temperature in the laboratory. It is astonishing hubris, as well as ignorance, for the usual suspects to declare CO², a naturally occurring gas that is essential to all life on Earth, to be a "pollutant", and to suggest that by gathering opinions from a "large number of scientists" we, in our majestic intelligence, can determine the precisely correct amount of this essential gas that we should permit to exist, and the exactly correct temperature at which we should attempt to maintain the Earth.

Yes, there is natural climate change going on, as there always has been and always will be for as long as the planet exists. No, we do not need presidential candidates who will make the concession urged above. We need candidates who will stand up and call the left’s version of “climate change” what it is: a power and money-grabbing scheme of historical proportions. One might expect, when people step forward and declare themselves ready to be President of the United States, that they would already know such things. If our candidates do not, maybe we need some different candidates.

MOAtty
6/29/11

Please bookmark!