What Ever Happened to Global Warming?

I'm not sure if it's because we were so focused on a presidential campaign--but don't they usually talk about these things quite a bit during campaigns? Or maybe it was because the world economy went south, and the propagandizers that be realized they couldn't add greater economic catastrophe on top of economic cataclysm? I guess if we really are killing the earth that it's going to have to get in line behind all of our other problems. At any rate, not as many people are talking about global warming anymore.

Maybe they're not talking about it because

My greatest fear amid all of the propaganda about global warming is that government will be given the responsibility to fix the problem, because government has been part of this problem all along.

2008 was the coolest of the last ten years on record, and that the trend is downward. This year's cooling is primarily because of a La Nina effect. But if the globe were warming, why is the trend going down? It seems like natural variations, such as La Nina, have a much greater effect on global climate than many of those--whose livelihoods depend on us believing their propaganda--want us to believe.

"The debate is over." "The science is in." These two statements are so easily dripped from the tongue. But the debate is far from over. Fortunately, during a year of La Nina, the debate itself has cooled off as well. The NASA scientists in the following video story make two important points: (1) that they do not believe that man is the primary cause of global warming, and (2) that many of the so-called scientists who signed on to the study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were actually nothing more than environmental activists with few science credentials. And thus a controversy, padded with propaganda, is really not a "concensus".

So, global warming is slowing? Not to worry:
In March, a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.
Glenn Beck replies:
I'm trying to get my arms around this "Natural variation would mask the warming thing." Let me see, because I'm an alcoholic, I speak bullcrap fluently. Let me see if I can translate that from bullcrap to English. They're saying that cooling will mask the warming. Cooling will mask the warming. See if I have this right. I mean, I'm not a scientist, but I'm a thinker, and help me out. Stu, if cooling is masking warming, then wouldn't it just be cooling?
Are there problems in how we carry out our stewardship over the earth? Absolutely. We need to reduce pollution. We need to stop making third world countries the dumping ground for Western decadence. We need to stop clear cutting forests. We need to make sure that our development isn't at the expense of the next generation. But, regardless of all of this, far too many people give the earth much less credit than it deserves when it comes to its resiliency.

Government has been part of the problem when it comes to destruction of the environment. The greatest environmental degradation occurred in former Communist countries. My greatest fear amid all of the (currently thankfully less) propaganda about global warming is that government will be given the responsibility to fix the problem.

Maybe we should just let this failing economy drag along for a little longer? Or at least I sure hope we have another La Nina next year. Because it sure has been nice not to have so many people lately whining that the global warming science is in and that the debate is settled.


  1. Government is the only problem when it comes to destruction of the environment. To be precise, the government run by monopolies. "The greatest environmental degradation occurred in former Communist countries"? You are missing that even though communism has gone for good, the environmental degradation is still going on in the world. In Brasilia, for example, a football field of rain forest is cut every hour. And this is only one of the many devastations of the environment caused by capitalist greed and overconsumption.

    Don't worry the monopolies will take care of the problem, but with your money.

    Maybe we should just stop this failing economy?

    I guess it is your belief that global warming is a hoax. Are you a scientist? It is comfortable to sit on a safe BYU salary+benefits, and to enjoy safe talks while watching the world through one's computer screen. And viewing the environmental devastations in the world as an entertaining movie.

  2. I thought I was clear to state that the environmental degradation has not stopped. But it is still true that Communist government had the least respect for the environment.

    No, I'm not a scientist. Are you? What I try to do, however, is form my opinions based on scientific input, rather than propaganda from people masquerading as scientists due to the lucrativeness of it. How about you?

  3. I have heard plenty about climate change in recent days. In fact, I spent last Thursday at a climate change conference hosted by the Glen Canyon Institute here in SLC.

    I'll bottom-line it for you. The scientists were too conservative in their estimates. Climate change is here already, and the latest research tells us the worst-case scenarios from the models are now the most likely.

    IMHO environmental groups are guilty of trying to use climate change to scare us into doing a lot of things we ought to do anyway-- reduce pollution, conserve energy and natural resources, save our forests.

    Well, now it looks like we'll already reach the point of runaway climate change before any new policies can have an effect.

    Forget causes. All we can do is figure out the effects of climate change and try to figure out what to do about them.

  4. Frank,
    You are not saying that environmental devastations were the main focus of the communist ideology, are you? Otherwise it sounds like a capitalist propaganda.

    You must be naive to believe that science can be totally trusted to provide objective data and conclusions. Science in capitalist countries is funded by the same monopolies who control the government and poison the environment for their own immediate profits.

    I am not a scientist myself. I am also trying to figure out on my own. And since I do not trust the science very much, I am inclined to listen to and consider any other source.

    Actually, one needs to be blind to fail to see what is going on around. Should the immediate effects of the devastation knot at your door for you to see what was going on? I am afraid it will be too late by then. The Inuit people of the North are hopelessly and without success trying for decades to invite the attention of our stupid and greedy civilization on those problems. I guess you have not ever heard of any word from them.

  5. If you're interested, here's a column from Gwynne Dyer printed in the Salt Lake Tribune less than a week ago.

    IMHO he's more of an authority on climate change than, say, Glenn Beck.

  6. Anon,

    No. What I am saying is that Communists didn't care what happened to the environment as they achieved their other goals. That would make them similar to some capitalists of today.


    I'm not sure Gwynne Dyer is as much of an authority as the NASA scientists on the video linked to in my article.

  7. Who to believe? An independent journalist who interviews many scientists or a couple of Bush administration climate-change deniers?

    Frank, it's irrelevant to argue about the causes of climate change. It's happening now, more rapidly than originally predicted. Researchers and policymakers need to focus on how to cope with the effects before it's too late.

  8. Frank,
    You are paranoid around communism. I know that you are saying that Communists didn't care what happened to the (actually, their) environment as they achieved their other goals. Communism has long passed together with the effects of their unwise policies. Why are you playing your old communist card all the time? What are you trying to achieve? OK, we got your point. Communists were irresponsible. But they were poisoning their own environment. Whereas, your favorite monopolists ARE poisoning not only theirs but also other nations' environments and habitats.

    It is good you admit that communist devastations "would make them similar to some capitalists of today." Although, not some but all. Do you really think that any capitalist is any concerned about the environment he is poisoning? Capitalism means capital driven economy. So in capitalism the only goal is the money. capitalism in general is based on the love of money, which, as you were taught is the root of all evil.

    And again, communism is in the past, whereas capitalism is in the present and unfortunately in the future. So, you better forget about communism and focus on capitalism with its devastating effects globally.

  9. First of all, can someone please find a way to slip Anonymous some valium?

    Nice post Frank! I'm with you that we need to start being far more responsible with our environment.

    I think the aims of the whole global warming movement may have been noble and worthy, but unfortunately I think they tried to use fear and deceit to achieve those ends, rather than focusing on education and further research.

  10. Urban Koda
    Be careful not to cut it from your ration, though. It looks you are pretty comfortable in your tranquilized condition.

  11. Good post Frank, I am with you. I found an interesting read along these lines if you haven't read it, by the late Michael Crichton, http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

  12. Please! If you are going to claim that you make your decisions based on science, then please refer only to peer reviewed journals. Not to Glenn Beck, not a "video" you found on the internet. I'm afraid it isn't over Frank, but we'll see.

  13. If anyone hasn't yet had a chance to read the Michael Crichton speech Chad referenced above, I would highly recommend it. It may sound a little hokey at first - Aliens causing Global Warming, but his explanation for making that statment is has a solid base - and doesn't require a belief in aliens either!

    I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear a few years ago, and it really put the Global Warming Crisis into perspective for me, not that he imposes his opinion on the reader, but more that he gets you thinking about all aspects of it.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog