COMMENTARY

How to Cope

I recently got a note from a subscriber who expressed what a lot of my readers are probably feeling. While he found the commentary in TIA Daily to be "spot-on," he also admitted that "I find it very upsetting to read day in and day out how the world is choosing to commit suicide, with very little evidence to the contrary…. I just don't want to open up my email every morning to the doom and gloom that is becoming our world."

 ... I have been hitting my readers hard with bad news recently, because the bad news has been coming thick and fast, as President Obama reveals his full agenda. … I am not done yet … [but] I can assure you that things will eventually get better. We are in the first weeks of the administration of a newly elected and still-popular president, who is using those advantages to push his leftist agenda. But he will have problems of his own, he will encounter significant opposition, and his momentum will fade.

And that leads me to the second grounds for reassurance: things will get better because the good guys will keep fighting, and they will win some important battles.

In that spirit, I'll devote the rest of today's TIA Daily to a few examples of the kind of "legitimate and real-world sunshine" Jack is talking about. And these examples are taken from an issue that may seem to be hopelessly lost: global warming.

Al Gore may be presenting his global-warming pageant to a receptive Congress, but that is yesterday's news. It's the same show Gore has been taking around the country for years—though I should note that a tinge of ridicule at the messianic pretensions of "the Goracle" is beginning to come even from conventional left-of-center Washington Post types like Dana Milbank.

But what is actually news is that the data is increasingly clashing with predictions of global warming, as the earth continues a decade-long cooling trend, with snow falling in the United Arab Emirates "for only the second time in recorded history." "So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it."

And the closer we get to the imposition of draconian energy rationing in response to the global warming hysteria, the more scientists seem to be willing to stand up and be counted in opposition—and the more willing those scientists are to declare global warming a fraud.

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, has been speaking up for years and posted a response to Gore's recent Senate testimony on his website. After presenting a long history of the politicized science behind the global warming hysteria, he concludes: "I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a hijacking of public policy…. It is the greatest scam in history."

More interesting is a letter posted on the website of Senator James Inhofe—the man who kept global warming legislation at bay for most of the past decade, until he lost his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The letter is from former NASA atmospheric scientist John Theon, who used to be the supervisor of James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony helped Al Gore to launch his global warming crusade. Theon declares that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" and goes on to give his own view on global warming.

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

Another distinguished scientist has also spoken out recently. According to an article in the Princeton University student newspaper, Princeton physics professor William Happer "requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of…Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, 'stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant' and that humans are 'poisoning the atmosphere.'" Happer responds: "I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken."

But what is most interesting is Happer's description of his experience with global warming scientists when he was a research director for the Department of Energy:

"I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics," Happer explained. "They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in."

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

"They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings.… I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker," Happer said. "This guy looked at me and said, 'What answer would you like?' I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] 'Give me all this money, and I'll get the answer you like.'"

Happer goes on to describe global warming as a "religious cult": "I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this."

This is precisely the kind of example I am talking about. The very fact that things are getting worse will prompt more men like Theon and Happer to speak up and to defend genuine science against this political hysteria.

That will be the sort of thing that saves us, in the long run, and it will be the most important story of the next few years.—RWT

The following article by Rocky Mountain Foundation president John Dendahl originally appeared at www.familysecuritymatters.com and is reprinted here with permission of that Web publisher.

Nobel Gaffe – Peace Laureate Gore Is a Threat to Peace

By John Dendahl

On November 28, 2007, while ruminating on Al Gore’s astonishingly successful deceit (about which more below), I jotted some thoughts “on the back of an envelope.”

I noted that one of the great ironies of 2007 was Gore's sharing the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore’s climate change crusade, it seems to me, is a threat to peace. In fact, if the Nobel Committee’s current members could be transported back in time to about 1938, one might see another master propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl, similarly honored. Maybe sharing the prize with Neville “Peace in Our Time” Chamberlain.

(Riefenstahl produced Triumph of the Will and other propaganda for Adolph Hitler, but avoided conviction at Nuremberg for war crimes by convincing judges that her fascination with Hitler’s Nazis didn’t include knowledge of their Final Solution or concentration camp atrocities.)

The point there wasn’t to compare Gore to Hitler.  The point is that history is riddled with wishful thinking as to what will lead to peace. To be generous, let’s just say the Nobel Committee’s track record of late has been spotty.

While I would love to claim clairvoyance, I won’t.  About two weeks later, however, on December 10, Gore actually received his prize in Oslo and gave a speech in which a Wall Street Journal Web newsletter reported he “[warned] that world leaders who give short shrift to the issue of global warming are the equivalent of ‘those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat’ in the 1930s.” Adolph Hitler, eh?

There can be little doubt that the world leader first and foremost in Gore’s mind there is the man who defeated him in 2000 to become President of the United States, George W. Bush. His mention of Hitler is a clever reminder of slanderous comparisons of Bush to Hitler made from time to time by Gore’s political teammates like George Soros and MoveOn.org.

Gore has opened a huge question as to which position on climate change is the better fit for recalling Hitler, his or Bush’s. Leave aside the Nazis’ Final Solution of which Riefenstahl claimed no knowledge, and consider only Hitler’s quest for world domination. According to the source cited above, in his December 10 speech Gore “called for ratification of a United Nations treaty capping carbon emissions worldwide that would take effect everywhere at the start of 2010. Heads of state from every major country, he insisted, should meet every three months until the treaty is brought into effect. A worldwide tax on CO₂ would also be required ...” Does this not sound like someone seeking world domination for his environmentalist views?

Gore is the cheerleader for a pernicious worldwide fraud, a 21^st century threat that must not be ignored.

One reads ad nauseam these days that “the debate is over,” that scientific consensus now includes all but an insignificant fringe, that Earth is warming with apocalyptic potential, and that the warming is caused by mankind (mainly producing the dreaded “greenhouse” gas carbon dioxide – CO₂ – by burning carbonaceous fuels like wood, methanol, oil, natural gas and coal). Hmmm. Sounds to me like the diversionary tactic of a bunch of scoundrels about to get whipped in debate by opponents who are just now getting warmed up (not intended here as a pun).

Item: In April 2006, Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote in The Wall Street Journal about shocking corruption among some in the scientific community, hell bent on silencing science-based challenges to the government-grant-rich orthodoxy of global warming.

Item: At the end of his brilliant novel State of Fear, the scientifically trained (and, sadly, recently deceased) Michael Crichton presented 1) an Author’s Message thoughtfully addressing how “astonishingly little” we know “about every aspect of the environment ...” and 2) an Appendix discussing “Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous.” In the latter, Crichton reminded readers of the overwhelming scientific and political consensus that surrounded the “science” of eugenics a century ago. Those, like me, in need of a refresher can read it here. Crichton said,

 “... [eugenics’] history is so dreadful—and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing—that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.”

Item: Political scientist and author Bjørn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, lines up with those who believe human activity contributes to global warming but exposes Gore as an alarmist selling snake oil. Here is Lomborg in an article published recently in The Vancouver Sun:

“The fear of Armageddon stifles sensible dialogue. Those who dare question the alarmist rhetoric are labeled ‘climate change deniers.’ This is typically used as a catch-all for anybody who doesn't accept the standard interpretation that mankind is to blame for global warming and that we should cut CO₂ emissions dramatically.

“Proponents of such drastic cuts seldom mention their cost. Read Al Gore's entire book and watch his whole movie: You won't find a single mention of the cost of seriously addressing global warming.

“The best estimate is that the Kyoto Protocol will stop about 4,000 heat-caused deaths in developing nations by the middle of this century. This will come at the humongous cost of $180 billion a year. Without the Kyoto Protocol, there would be many, many fewer cold-related deaths.”

Item: Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth got him nominated for the Nobel and won him an Oscar from the Motion Picture Academy for “Best Documentary.” Some documentary. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has published an analysis titled “35 Inconvenient Truths, The Errors in Al Gore’s Movie.” In there, we find that Gore exaggerated by up to 10,000 percent potential sea level changes; lied that global warming is melting the snow on Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro; lied that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina; lied about polar bears drowning while seeking ice melted away by global warming; and so on.

Pure, unalloyed deceit.

Stewart Dimmock, the parent of two school-aged children, sued education authorities in England, alleging they illegally distributed Gore’s “documentary” to classrooms throughout the country. Noting the film’s serious errors presented to him, Judge Michael Burton ordered that a revised “Guidance Note” accompany the film, presumably in the hope that teachers would correct for their students the gross misimpressions it creates. Burton said, “... as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore ... do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”

Exaggeration in support of a political thesis is, by definition, propaganda. So much for the myth that An Inconvenient Truth is documentary. Gore is simply a better-groomed Michael Moore.

What does all this have to do with security?

Diversion. Remember Gore’s December 10 speech insisting on a U.N. treaty and quarterly meetings among the heads of state of every major country until it is brought into effect? Most reading articles at this site are riveted on today’s challenges, like Islamofascism and nukes coming into the hands of megalomaniacal dictators. Gore’s alarmist coterie of scientists haven’t even validated the models on which their predictions are based, let alone demonstrated that the remedial actions they propose are likely to succeed, economically practical, and best among alternatives – or any of the three.

Leaders of the world’s major countries need to keep their focus (and our resources) on the right urgent problems.

International rivalries. Just who is going to command, say, China and India to curtail use of CO₂-producing fuels during this period of their rapid economic growth and prosperity? Are other countries supposed to stand down to compensate for their emissions? It is evident after ten years that most signatories to Gore’s beloved Kyoto Protocol aren’t meeting their own agreed CO₂ emission targets. What kind of real international trouble would follow Gore’s new directive at a time of quite fierce international competition for energy resources?

Prosperity. The suffering that accompanies poverty is among the drivers of insecurity around the world. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, has written eloquently that “ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.”

Al Gore, zealous environmentalist and master propagandist, is a threat to world peace.