An article in the Washington Times recently discussed how skeptics of global warming are 'treated like a pariah'. The article begins, 'Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack - treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.' The article cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change.
Most skeptics don't claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2004 found that, 'Changes in the solar cycle - and solar output - are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.'
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore's movie, an New Zealand professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore's movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. James Roebuck, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Sweden, said that, 'The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.'
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that's what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn't very good, but I don't think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming.
However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Franklin Kane, 'the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.' Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear 'stranded' on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore's argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, 'They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 miles)' Professor Kane, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.'
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn't exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, 'People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.'
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore's mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust.
In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Herald commenting on the report issued by the UN, Eileen Goodrich wrote, 'Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.' This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel's judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Alistair Darling, has publicly called for a 'new world order' to combat the threat of climate change. So let's have a look at this New World Order that's being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.
One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose 'a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions'. Most people will hear this and think, 'Good, polluters need to be taxed'. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you're causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK's Guardian Newspaper reported that, 'The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay 1.30 pounds sterling a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads'. That is approximately $3.00 per mile.
A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, 'a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about 1,500 pounds sterling a year for driving 19,000 miles.' That's equal to about $3,000 per year. I don't know about you, but I don't know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to 'raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years'. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive.
This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, 'Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey'. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, 'Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps', mirroring plans in the European Union.
James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.
James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.