Friday, December 08, 2006

Betcha the Oregonian won't report this

Philosphical question of the day: If scientists testify to a Senate Committee, and their testimony contradicts the fervently held views of our daily newspaper, did their testimony merit reporting?

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearings two days ago on Climate Change and the Media.

Here's what they heard from Dr. David Deming University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.

And this from an abstract of a paper submitted by Dr. R.M. Carter Marine Geophysical Laboratory James Cook University AUSTRALIA (PDF)

There is a strong conflict between current public alarm regarding human-caused climate change and the science justification for that alarm. The media serve to convey to the public the facts and hypotheses of climate change as provided by individual scientists, government and international research agencies and NGO lobby groups.

In general, the media have propagated an alarmist cause for climate change, and they have certainly failed to convey to the public both the degree of uncertainty that is characteristic of climate science and many essential facts that are relevant to considerations of human causation. Ways in which the public debate is directed along alarmist lines are discussed.

It is concluded that natural climate change is a hazard that - like other similar natural hazards - should be dealt with by adaptation. Attempting to mitigate human-caused climate change is an expensive exercise in futility.

Wait a minute! I thought Al Gore said that the "science is decided."

What is the chance that the Oregonian will report anything about this hearing?

Want to read a very good, comprehensive expose of the Global Warming Scam? Read this Skeptics Guide by US Senator Inhofe.


Anonymous said...

Of course such an event would never see the light of day in the Oregonian. It is quite literally against their religion. Global warming is a religious belief.

Anonymous said...

True. But you can read about The Oregonian's hypocrisy about global warming: here, at The Oregonion.

The O is one of Oregon's biggest corporate polluters when it comes to greenhouse gas and benzene emissions.

Don Smith said...

You should check out Peter Huber's Hard Green: A conservative Manifesto for saving the environment from the environmentalists. It's great. I read it and The Skeptical Environmentalist at the same time. Incredible to put them together - both available al the MultCo Library or, obviously, on Amazon.

Huber's big thing is that Green is doing things that have the least impact on the earth. What has less impact? Bio-engineered foods or organic? No brainer. Organic foods require the most resources, and GMO's that produce more food per acre and are more pest and drought resistant require less, ergo, they are Greener than organic. Shocking to think about, but even recycling is not Green in the pure sense. It takes less energy to create a can than to recycle one and re-create it.

The Left will never admit the truth about Green and the environment because the environment is a cause that can lead the earth to world goverment. Sounds kooky, right? Look at Kyoto and the tremendous pressure being put on us for not ratifying it. Eventually, that pressure could lead to a break in US-ism and then accords of all stripes will be brought forth.

It is also a great source of fame, power, and money - advocating for the environment. Crazy stuff.

Great post, Rob

MAX Redline said...

Echo: Great post. Even the U.N. now agrees that any human element to cyclical climate change is overblown. Who'd have thought?

Dare said...

The left will admit "the truth" about the environment or organics. It isn't that your arguments in science are wrong their just risky and expect markets to sort out the downsides.

The basis of their arguments is that we don't know so we should ere on the side of more government control for safety's sake. (Notice the GMO arguments are very similar to stem cells but the positions and arguments are flip-flopped. Their religion differs from ours I guess).

They trust in more government as an answer. The left has a basic belief that everything is getting worse not better and global warming, climate change, and the "franken foods" arguments play directly into their personal assumptions motivating political participation. This issue turns people out to the polls even when they don't like the candidate.

Al Gore is running for president. Last time he ran a few years prior he put out Earth in the Balance. Now he put out Inconvenient Truth. They guy is notorious for floating total whopper's and inflamatory statements that insult the inteligence of the average voter.

His "the science is in" statement that is now part of the democratic rhetoric is quickly becoming a mainstream assumption and response. The argument that theory is now fact scares me because it is a slap in the face of the scientific method I was taught. But we are now stuck with assumptions that you will never be able to rebut.

My advice. Stop fighting the global warming debate and instead start talking about CO2. The control of CO2 can be done beneficially for the US from many angles. It's good for our foreign policy as well as bolsters American GDP to pull our BTU's of energy from our own soil.

We need to fight the knee jerk socialst assumptions of the left and stop fighting their science. We can beat socialism we can't beat the cultural assumption about global warming.

Here in Oregon. The politician who denies global warming as an issue sets themselves up to be a laughing stock. We need to embrace their arguments and take them away from the left.

We know in the end Americans and Oregonians want a better standard of living not a reduced prosperity as the democrats offer.