Dangers, extent of climate change overblown

In Opinion
Courtesy of ThinkProgress
Courtesy of ThinkProgress

Our society’s obsession with mass catastrophes is nothing new. We were all there for the Y2K and mad cow disease scares. The Soviet bomb and an invasion from Mars haunted the dreams of our parents.

A new fad is now being added to the cultural tombstone: anthropogenic global warming.

From Al Gore’s fantastically horrible film, An Inconvenient Truth (which was banned in public schools by Britain’s High Court for containing nine substantial falsities), to school curricula nationwide, we have been fed this global warming dogma for years.

All the while Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology and atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was telling us this was nothing to worry about. Countless scientists throughout the country agreed with Lindzen and tried to have their voices heard.

The climate change crowd drowned out the voices of reason, often shouting monumentally stupid jargon like, “99 percent of scientists agree! The science is settled!”

Their first challenge should have been to produce a list containing 100 percent of all climate scientists who can provide evidence to support their claims.

Secondly, maybe they would like to explain how any self-respecting scientist would come to a conclusion on a theory based on democratic vote.

The very basis of the argument warning against a change in climate is that climate should never change. This is an absurdity in itself. We grew up learning about ice ages and times of a worldwide subtropical climate, and we’re supposed to freak out about a change in temperature?

Alas, even amidst the warning from top scientific skeptics and the buffoon-like blunders made by the climate change crowd, many have still not questioned the settled science of global warming.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report at the beginning of September that showed, contrary to all the howling, that the earth’s temperature is experiencing quite a chill and there hasn’t been any warming in over 15 years.

This report should not be that shocking. Much of the evidence that lends itself to global warming hysteria is often constructed using smoke and mirrors.

Think of the “hockey stick” graph. Consider Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, who was the lead author of a discredited report on climate change. As it turns out, the only way to give the theory some credit is to examine 11,000 years of climate data.

In Alex Groves’ column, “Green Piece,” he argued that climate change needs to be a larger priority in the nation’s agenda.

As a compendium of logically and scientifically wrong steps, the column spouts off some of the most egregious lies concerning climate change.

First, Groves said DDT, an often-used pesticide from decades ago, is harmful. Ever since Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which warned that DDT is dangerous and would drive away bird populations, the war against the chemical has been strong.

DDT has been banned from many parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa. The result is that without the use of this highly effective mosquito deterrent, malaria has run amuck, killing an estimated 660,000 in 2010 alone. According to the World Health Organization, most of the victims were African children.

Second, we’re told that the earth’s polar ice caps are melting and leading to floods. Cue the polar bears playing tiny violins.

As if public policy revolved around the preferences of arctic animals, I assume we’re to ignore that the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Center observed that the amount of ocean covered by ice has grown by 29 percent, or the equivalent of 533,000 square miles in less than a year.

The column gleefully states: “coal is still a dying industry.”

However, what will power the electric cars—sun, wind, vegetable oil?

Electricity isn’t powered by running hamsters anymore.

Except for a small amount of people living in coastal California, New York and Florida (which have invested in nuclear power), electricity comes from burning coal.

Does someone have to tell more than 220,000 Americans employed by the coal industry that their jobs are now unneeded because of the adverse effects carbon dioxide is not having on climate change?

The fear of global warming is putting an unnecessary worry on the minds of Americans despite the scientific evidence proving otherwise.

You may also read!

Cal State Fullerton Men’s Basketball optimistic entering Big West Conference play

Following a 99-56 blowout win over Bethesda, Cal State Fullerton men’s basketball enters conference play looking primed for success.

Read More...

New dean of library appointed

Cal State Fullerton has appointed Clement Guthro to fill the new position of dean of the library for the

Read More...

Concert Review: “Deck The Hall”

The annual ‘Deck the Hall’ event at Cal State Fullerton was the true definition of holiday spirit. As seats

Read More...
  • Juno1721

    The author is clearly wrong, for example: “Cue the polar bears playing tiny violins.” Why would such a large creature play a ‘tiny’ violin?

  • Juno1721

    “A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!”

    “So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you’ll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptoms as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.”

    Your article is impressively ignorant – I’ll bet your a conservative?

  • Michael Sparks

    This is an excellent fact based article, unlike most the hip published by the global warming crowd! Thanks for the effort………….Michael 162

  • James Geary

    This opinion piece is just that, opinion, as usual in denialist news posts no evidence is given or, if it is, its cherry-picked, manipulated data. No one ever said the climate isn’t supposed to change, of course it does, as the writer stated, we’ve all heard of the ice ages and warm periods but it is the timescale that modern climate change is proceeding at that’s different. Natural variability takes centuries or even millennia to do what we’ve done in decades. The graph is this article clearly shows a general downward trend in temperature since the start of the last millennium that ended around the time of the industrial revolution. Coincidence? No, and nor are the risks of climate change overblown.

  • DrRaeMD

    Yet another error-filled report from an ignorant opinionator. Britain did not ban Gore’s movie. In 2007, they ordered that if the film was to be shown, that it be shown with study notes to offset some of the political parts of what is otherwise “based substantially on scientific research” (Justice Burton).
    Further, who really cares what Lindzen has to say. He trained (PhD) in applied mathematics, and is a Professor of Meteorology (ie weather forecasting, not climatology). He has declared Exxon to be a prinicipled Oil company… yes Exxon, of Exxon-Valdez, whose spill has yet to be properly cleaned. He’s paid (through Heartland, Cato, GWPF, and others) by the Oil industry. He used to (and still did as recently as 2001) argue against the general physician advice that cigarettes are ad for you.
    Asking for 100% of climatologists to agree? Howzabout the American / British / Australian / Canadian Metorological Societies, the Royal Societies of the UK / Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the National Science Acadamies of virtually every country that has one? The list goes on, but I assume I’ve made my point.
    Hundreds of scientists volunteered their time to pore over thousands of scientific articles over thousands of hours to come up with the most comprehensive scientific analysis the world has ever known about climatology… and Kieth Fierro thinks he knows better? Srsly?

  • Matthew E. Kirby

    Tell me what you think in 50 years. There, too, was a time when the Earth was considered flat…when disease was considered the work of the devil…etc…with time, all the crazy goes away and science prevails. It always has, and it always will.

  • Katherine Glover

    This opinion piece reads like a nonsensical collection of denialist talking points, badly seamed together with some evocative language. Citing “recovery” of Artic ice cover is one such common talking point, which slyly leaves out the fact that the year before (2012) was one of staggeringly high melting and ice sheet collapse. Of course anything compared against that will look like “recovery.”

    As someone who studies past climate change myself, I have to call out the paragraph citing Shaun Marcott. Those three sentences have absolutely no connection to each other. First, the “hockey stick” graph is not credited to Marcott — it’s existed long before his 2013 study, and displays between 450,000 – 800,000 years of data. Marcott’s study is one on the Holocene (last ~10,000 years). He may have been lead author on that study, but it also includes other climate scientists whose work is extremely well-respected in the research community. Fierro drops the comment “it turns out the only way to give the theory some credit is to examine 11,000 years of data,” as though this is a waste of time, bad science, or …? Not sure what he’s getting at here. This is, essentially, what paleoclimatologists do. It may be obscure work to some, but quite valuable for understanding how Earth’s atmosphere operates and responds to change.

  • Matthew E. Kirby

    I am going to use this essay in the critical thinking course I teach to: 1) highlight very poor critical thinking skills, and 2) highlight very poor writing skills. You’ve provided a masterpiece for failure. Thanks!

Mobile Sliding Menu