Lorrie Goldstein on Global Warming/Climate Change: The Perfect Propaganda Tool for the Anti-Capitalists

Check out this brilliant piece today by one of Canada’s best columnists, Lorrie Goldstein of The Toronto Sun. Cutting right to the heart of the issue, Goldstein identifies the one thing we know for sure about the “science” of Global Warming/Climate Change: that it is a dishonestly-manipulated propaganda tool used by the anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-American left to further its political goals:

Cool the climate hysteria

‘Every generation needs a holier-than-thou, ideological mantra … to wrap themselves virtuously’

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Global warming is the gift that keeps on giving to climate hysterics.

For those already pre-disposed to being anti-western, anti-development, anti-growth, anti-capitalist and most of all, anti-U.S., it’s the perfect propaganda tool.

After all, as they screech, the survival of the Earth itself is at stake and they alone are on the side of the angels. They alone care about the legacy we will leave our grandchildren.

To this crowd, the rest of us are “climate deniers,” in a league with the devil, in the pay of Big Oil and out to destroy … uh … ourselves.

Even better for climate hysterics, they will never be called to account for their simple-minded campaign to demonize fossil fuels, which is aimed more at arbitrarily controlling human behaviour — and for so-called “green” politicians, raising taxes — than reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

That’s because everyone alive today will be dead long before we know how much of the scientific “consensus” on global warming is correct.

Over the short term — and when talking about climate change, this means considerably longer than the life span of everyone now on the planet — we know that no matter what we do, GHG emissions, which are cumulative and last for anywhere from 50 to thousands of years in the atmosphere, will continue to rise for many decades, along with global temperatures. That would be true even if we were reducing emissions now, which, for all the shouting, we aren’t.

But beyond that — and that there will be a significant impact on climate, and us — the scientific “consensus” touted by climate hysterics abruptly ends.

HUGE UNKNOWNS

There are huge unknowns, competing theories and debates within the scientific community about what will happen, where, when and how severe.

The insistence of climate hysterics (and opportunistic politicians) that the debate over anthropogenic global warming is “over” — aimed at replacing rational decision-making with “do as we say” diktats — is laughable.

If it’s “over,” why are governments still spending billions of our tax dollars researching it, dwarfing anything spent by the fossil fuel industry, which climate hysterics would have us believe is funding anyone who doesn’t bow before them? The reason for all this publicly funded research is because of all that we don’t know.

But what we do know is that what the hysterics claim, that virtually any weather phenomenon today is “proof” of man-made climate change — harsh winters, mild winters, dry spells, wet spells, more snow, less snow, heat waves, cold snaps, you name it — is nonsense.

The climate is always changing and was changing long before we arrived. Plus, weather isn’t climate, something hysterics (and pseudo-green media) mention when it suits them, ignore when it doesn’t.

Ultimately, responding to global warming is a political issue.

In that context, as retired U.S. foreign service officers Teresa Chin Jones (who holds a doctorate in chemistry) and David T. Jones, wrote perceptively in their 2007 article “The Zen of Global Warming” (available at AmericanDiplomacy.org):

“It appears that every generation needs a holier-than-thou, ideological mantra … with which to wrap themselves virtuously, while belabouring their opponents as the political equivalent of demonically possessed …

“Pick your weapon/words and come out slanging. In this regard, the Kyoto agreement and global warming have become among the most knife-edged shibboleths of the current culture wars.

“To complicate matters, global warming and its political surrogate (the Kyoto accord) appear to have become aspects of bilateral differentiation between nations — distinguishing the moral, environmentally-conscious, energy-conserving Kyoto cultists, from the right-wing, gun-toting yahoos and Kyoto-deniers epitomized by the United States.”

POPULATION IS INCREASING

They argue for a pragmatic approach — energy conservation and industrial innovation to develop alternative energy sources, based on the precautionary principle that, regardless of global warming theory, we know the Earth’s population is increasing and that non-renewable energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas) are precisely that — non-renewable.

“In short, we do not need a new ‘Crusade’,” they conclude, “but rather, a new Industrial Revolution.”

Exactly. One based on technological innovation, that climate hysterics — their Luddite heads filled with dangerous notions that humanity can be returned to a pre-industrial, pastoral state — will fight every step of the way. Ironic, isn’t it?

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Left-Wing Causes Celebre, Leftist Duplicity, Over-Environmentalism, Social Engineering Gone Wild

4 responses to “Lorrie Goldstein on Global Warming/Climate Change: The Perfect Propaganda Tool for the Anti-Capitalists

  1. K MacGregor

    “Goldstein identifies the one thing we know for sure about the “science” of Global Warming/Climate Change”

    I’m guessing this may be what you know about climate change, but it’s not what the rest of us know. Did you know that 6/10 Canadians can’t identify the cause of global warming (many identify ozone depletion, which is of course a completely different matter)? Perhaps you are one of those. Let me enlighten you.

    A carbon dioxide molecule (to use the most famous greenhouse gas example) is composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, forming a line with carbon at the centre. Light from the sun comes in a wide spectrum of wavelengths, both above and below the visible range of 400-700 nm or so. Depending on the wavelength, some of this energy is absorbed on the way down. The rest hits the earth and is re-radiated as infrared radiation. This is energy with a wavelength greater than 700 nm, approximately. Now, certain wavelengths of energy interact with certain types of matter, as you know and witness every day in your microwave. What’s special about greenhouse gases is that they have infrared-active vibrational modes. All molecules have certain ways in which they vibrate with energy input. An infrared-active vibrational mode is one which where the bonds can stretch in a way that changes the symmetry of the molecule. For carbon dioxide, that happens if one bond becomes shorter while the other becomes longer. This type of vibrational mode is triggered by infrared energy. Therefore, infrared energy causes vibration of the molecule, and, as we know, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules, so we feel that vibration as heat. Knowing this (which can be easily demonstrated with spectroscopy), it is obvious that increasing concentrations of the gases that do have infrared-active vibrational modes relative to the ones that don’t in the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature. It’s also not disputable that humans are releasing greenhouse gases, and since it’s very easy to simply measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we can easily see by how much. Therefore, it being obvious that we are causing the increase, the increase is significant, and a significant increase will have obvious significant impacts, I find it difficult to understand where the uncertainty lies with climate change. The science is very straightforward.

    Lorrie Goldstein’s assertion that environmentalists are not interested in technological solutions is also bizarre. Every Green Expo in the country features renewable energy solutions these days.

  2. What a wonderful science lesson – except for the fact that co2 levels have continued to increase but the temperature stopped rising over a decade ago. Because co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere so the dramatic results you speak of warming the earth never materialize. You also fail to mention that co2 is actually consumed and disappears from the atmosphere at a very high rate (in relation to it’s concentration). There are hundreds of other examples and causes which disprove your global warming fantasy, but people like you are a waste of time. Go drink some more kool-aid.

  3. Thomas Leidon

    Well Mr.Goldstein, Why don’t you show us your PhD in environmental science then you might gain the credibility to debunk these “scientists”.

  4. Well, Mr. Leidon – why don’t you go back to Grade 7 and understand the scientific method. Science DEPENDS on skeptics testing their hypotheses. A skeptic does not need a PhD in enviro science. If enviro scientists are so cocksure, why do they spend their time attacking their oppenents, and not addressing their points? It’s not too much to ask these scientific demagogues: prove to me the veracity of your hypotheses, or else keep your hands off public policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s