CPAC Wrapup: Global Warming Skepticism
So here is the third (of four) CPAC related posts (finally!). This one, as you can tell from the title, is about global warming. The fourth, a reflection on the current state of conservatism, should be up early next week.
Though there were only two climate change related talks at CPAC, since it is an issue I am very much concerned about, and since this is my blog, I get to write a whole big post about it.
Senator James Inhofe, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, gave an excellent talk, and handed out a rather large sheet of notes to make his PowerPoint easier to follow, so we didn’t have to scribble as fast.
Inhofe started out by talking about the media swings in climate change alarmism. They are as follows: 1895-1920s cold, 1930s-1950s hot, 1950s-70s cold, 1980s-now hot. He cited articles from The New York Times, TIME magazine and others to back this claim up.
He also went through a long list of climate change scientists who have come to doubt the dogma of global warming. The list was larger than expected, and Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball declared man-made global warming “the greatest deception in the history of science.”
Inhofe also mentioned Delaware’s own embattled state climatologist, Prof. Legates, when saying that the views of Oregon and Delaware’s state climatologists are in jeopardy because of their views. On the climate.
He also has a ton of links at his committee’s website, and has produced a 68 page “Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” available here.
Immediately following Senator Inhofe was a panel on the same topic entitled “Global Warming Debate Getting the Cold Shoulder.” It featured Chris Horner, author The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Dan Gainor, Media Research Center and was moderated by Robert Bidinotto, Atlas Society and Objectivist Center.
Horner, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, made an interesting point in global temperature readings. He said that one of the contributing factors to making the 1990s the ‘hottest decade on record’ was the closing of several Siberian weather stations after the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus these cold-climate stations ceased to report weather data and ceased to be included in the 1990s temperature records, skewing the numbers.
One thing I’d like to take this time to address is the accusation that global warming skeptics are “anti-science.” In my view, I’m more “pro-science” than the global warming advocates! What the vast majority of skeptics want is further investigation into the causes of global warming. I would like for the scientific community to debate this issue like they debate countless others.
I think “going green” is a great thing, and something we should do, humanity being the stewards of the Earth and that we should act as such. I just don’t think scare tactics are the way to go about attainting that goal.
Though there were only two climate change related talks at CPAC, since it is an issue I am very much concerned about, and since this is my blog, I get to write a whole big post about it.
Senator James Inhofe, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, gave an excellent talk, and handed out a rather large sheet of notes to make his PowerPoint easier to follow, so we didn’t have to scribble as fast.
Inhofe started out by talking about the media swings in climate change alarmism. They are as follows: 1895-1920s cold, 1930s-1950s hot, 1950s-70s cold, 1980s-now hot. He cited articles from The New York Times, TIME magazine and others to back this claim up.
He also went through a long list of climate change scientists who have come to doubt the dogma of global warming. The list was larger than expected, and Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball declared man-made global warming “the greatest deception in the history of science.”
Inhofe also mentioned Delaware’s own embattled state climatologist, Prof. Legates, when saying that the views of Oregon and Delaware’s state climatologists are in jeopardy because of their views. On the climate.
He also has a ton of links at his committee’s website, and has produced a 68 page “Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” available here.
Immediately following Senator Inhofe was a panel on the same topic entitled “Global Warming Debate Getting the Cold Shoulder.” It featured Chris Horner, author The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Dan Gainor, Media Research Center and was moderated by Robert Bidinotto, Atlas Society and Objectivist Center.
Horner, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, made an interesting point in global temperature readings. He said that one of the contributing factors to making the 1990s the ‘hottest decade on record’ was the closing of several Siberian weather stations after the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus these cold-climate stations ceased to report weather data and ceased to be included in the 1990s temperature records, skewing the numbers.
One thing I’d like to take this time to address is the accusation that global warming skeptics are “anti-science.” In my view, I’m more “pro-science” than the global warming advocates! What the vast majority of skeptics want is further investigation into the causes of global warming. I would like for the scientific community to debate this issue like they debate countless others.
I think “going green” is a great thing, and something we should do, humanity being the stewards of the Earth and that we should act as such. I just don’t think scare tactics are the way to go about attainting that goal.
Labels: Climate Change
| Permalink | 
