Climate Change
Man-made climate change due to the "pollutant" carbon dioxide (CO2) will destroy civilization! We must take drastic measures to save the planet now! This has been the multi-decade international campaign of some scientists, Hollywood types, leftist politicians and the media, popularized by the 2006 documentary film with Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth". The upcoming 5th Assessment report [AR5] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is being trumpeted as further proof (they are now 95% sure of man-made global warming). The Gray Area actually believes that humans are doing harm to the environment, but the facts don't support that climate change is affected by humans. This is not just from the 2009 "climategate" scandal, but a growing number of scientists also agree. This will come as heresy to the leftists who have built their belief systems or careers on this campaign, but it is nonetheless true - facts don't support the claim. The Global Warming Primer, Second Edition, by the NCPA provides counterpoints to the film's message. "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today." The Earth has had cyclical weather patterns since its creation. Ice sheets covered and retreated around the globe four times. We are currently in the 5th warming cycle over the last 400,000 years, and it is the least severe, according to "The Big Picture" at There is scientific data ad-nausea-um on the subject of climate change at that site. So why the high volume messaging that man-made climate change exists - follow the money and the political advantage that comes from it. Government funding for academic research, growth of government bureaucracies, excuse for raising taxes, tax payer funded subsidies and a big lure for charitable donations. So, as you read the left and right positions on climate change below, remember, the truth is "petroleum saved the whales", "coal saved the forests" and "wealthier is healthier".

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

by John Horman,
from Scientific American,

Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems.

I have thus found solace in two new essays that offer upbeat takes on our environmental future. Both reflect the outlook of ecomodernism, a movement I have written about ... One essay, published in the ecomodernist Breakthrough Journal, is by mega-pundit Steven Pinker.

His Breakthrough essay, Enlightenment Environmentalism, is adapted from his new bestseller Enlightenment Now. The book, which been praised and attacked, argues that we’ve achieved lots of progress, material and moral, and we should achieve lots more as long as we don’t succumb to fatalism.

In his Breakthrough essay, Pinker spells out a key assumption of ecomodernism. Industrialization “has been good for humanity. It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts.” Pinker contrasts the can-do ecomodernist spirit with “the lugubrious conventional wisdom offered by the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages.” We can solve problems related to climate change, Pinker argues, “if we sustain the benevolent forces of modernity that have allowed us to solve problems so far, including societal prosperity, wisely regulated markets, international governance, and investments in science and technology.” The bulk of Pinker’s essay consists of documentation of how we've handled environmental threats. We have reduced our rate of population growth; made agriculture, transportation and other key industries more energy-efficient; and increased the acreage of marine and terrestrial preserves. Here is a typical passage: “Since 1970, when the Environmental Protection Agency was established, the United States has slashed its emissions of five air pollutants by almost two-thirds. Over the same period, the population grew by more than 40 percent, and those people drove twice as many miles and became two and a half times richer. Energy use has leveled off, and even carbon dioxide emissions have turned a corner. These diverging curves refute both the left-wing claim that only de-growth can curb pollution and the right-wing claim that environmental protection must sabotage economic growth and standard of living.”

More From Scientific American:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )