v'ܩ Can We At Least Debate Now, Al?
Home > General Politics > Can We At Least Debate Now, Al?

Can We At Least Debate Now, Al?

February 16th, 2010

This is a guest post from Paul at The Loud Talker. If you are interested in guest posting at Geek Politics, check out the guidelines here.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. The CRU is one of the primary sources of ammunition for global-warming alarmists. Jones also maintains the time series of the “instrumental temperature record.” This document heavily influenced the authors of the “2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers.” This assessment concluded the following:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise

Why is this important? This report is supposed to show scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. It is also the foundation on which the Copenhagen Treaty is built upon. The Copenhagen Treaty endorses the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and in no uncertain terms, blames industrialized nations for causing global warming. I’ve read the draft document and draft amendments and it is truly a political document that blames developed nations for causing global warming. Furthermore, it seeks to punish these nations financially and to redistribute wealth to developing nations. We are talking trillions of dollars.

Does this affect America? Of course it does. Cap and Trade, carbon credits, and other legislation is the direct result of the past decade or so of man-made global warming hysteria led by the likes of Al Gore and Phil Jones. Gore stands to become a carbon billionaire due to his ownership of and association with various carbon offset/trading companies. Other companies like GE stand to make billions or trillions of dollars thanks to the mandated sale of climate-friendly products such as re-engineered light bulbs. Global Warming fears are the basis of a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Here are some quotes from the leaders of the AGW movement:

* “We will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” Al Gore
* “Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Barack Obama
* “We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.” Al Gore
* “We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.” John McCain

As you can see, world leaders have been buying what Phil Jones is selling. Al Gore will tell you that the science is proven, the debate is over. He will not hear that there are plenty of scientists that disagree with him. But things seem to be changing. In a recent BBC interview Jones — one of the leading voices in the man-made global warming movement — happened to admit a few things. Jones said:

* there has been no statistically significant warming in recent years
* he acknowledged the likelihood of warmer periods in the past (such as the Medieval Warm Period)
* he admitted to manipulating key data to support global warming hysteria.

In other words, he has admitted that everything that the press and governments all over the world have bought hook, line and sinker, is a lie. The world has been warmer before. There has been no warming in recent years. And data was manipulated. Yet for some reason my friends that believe man is causing temperatures to rise cannot accept the possibility that they are on the wrong side of the argument. Scientists have shown that human impact on greenhouse gases is statistically insignificant. I’ve argued for years that the bright yellow thing in the sky has more to do with temperature fluctuations than anything humans could do. But they refuse to listen to opinions other than their own. “What do you mean dude? Are you against conservation?” “What’s the worst that could happen? We will get a better planet out of all of these recommendations, right?”


Pursuit of global warming legislation will add an unbearable load an already massively stressed American financial condition. The taxes and penalties imposed on companies under a cap and trade scheme will cause greater unemployment and price increases. Al Gore and his ilk need to sit back and shut the hell up for a while. President Obama needs to open up his ears and listen to the idea that man-made global warming is NOT a foregone proven scientific fact. He said in his first State of the Union speech “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Overwhelming? I’d like to see the data on that. He continued: “But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future.”

I think most Americans can agree that energy efficiency, conservation, recycling and the like are good things to do. I also think that most Americans can agree that committing trillions of dollars to an unproven concept is a bad thing. Liberals cannot separate the two, conservatives can. We CAN be environmentally conscious AND fiscally responsible. It’s not an all or nothing situation.

Paul is Station Manager of RadioForConservatives.com, the largest web site dedicated solely to conservative podcasters. He also hosts a weekly show called “The Loud Talker.” His personal blog on conservative politics can be found at www.theloudtalker.com, and you can follow him on Twitter www.twitter.com/RFCloudtalker.

Author: Derek Clark Categories: General Politics Tags:
  1. TJ
    February 16th, 2010 at 08:24 | #1

    I’ll start with a link to my new favorite article on climate change skeptics vs. deniers:

    I suspect that climate change has been blown out of proportion. However, most of the conservatives voicing opinions on the issue are idiots, even me. The crux of the issue for me, and you might not understand this if you’ve never been in the research world of academia, is that if there were something really jarring, something that showed climate change was B.S. some young hot shot would’ve been all over it by now. Climate science has been one of the most vibrant fields of science in recent years and nothing puts a father in a young academics cap quite like blowing away all the theories of the day, he’d be included as one of the great scientists. the fact that this hasn’t happened doesn’t mean that climate change is legit… it just makes it more likely in my eyes.

    However, I’m glad this article isn’t trying to ump on the, “Oh this is obviously fake because of X, Y, and Z” (Where one of these letters mentions the lack of warming since, I think, 1995). But rather, this article calls for debate and research. That’s a good policy.

    However, I’m not convinced that climate change legislation will bury businesses the way so many people do. In fact, I’d expect the exact opposite. Entrepreneurs, small business owners, and Americans in general do their best when they are up against the wall. It could be that this legislation would act as a catalyst for innovation and new ideas. Businesses will come out with more clever, more energy efficient, more energy independent solutions than they ever have before because of the pressure.

    I’m not saying it’s a good idea… I’m just not convinced it’s a bad idea - even if we can’t prove climate change.

  2. February 16th, 2010 at 10:04 | #2

    Actually history shows pretty much exactly the opposite. The companies will be forced to spend lots of money and take shortcuts to hit the near term goal when resources spent long term could do a much better job of solving the problem. You’ve read Freakonomics, he talks about how over regulation at places like OSHA and the EPA have made things worse and not better while wasting tons of money. What in your experience leads you to believe this will be different. Real ingenuity has come out of need, not mandate.

  3. TJ
    February 16th, 2010 at 11:37 | #3

    You said it, out of need and these businesses will *need* new solutions in order to not go under.

  4. February 16th, 2010 at 12:58 | #4

    But they don’t need to fix it. only get under the mandate level. therein lies the problem. they have to spend lots of money to get to that level, and the money can’t be spent on a real solution.