Thursday, November 12, 2009

Environmental Extremist Illinois Professor Michael Schlesinger Preaches Global Warming Catastrophism At The University Of Alaska-Fairbanks

The University of Alaska-Fairbanks reinforced its image as a hotbed of leftist extremism when it entertained a notorious environmental extremist in the scientific community on Wednesday November 11th, 2009.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports that University of Illinois Atmospheric Sciences Professor Michael Schlesinger preached global warming "catastrophism" before a packed room of about 80 people as part of UAF’s Climate Change Series, repeatedly stressing the so-called "daunting challenges" of climate change ahead. Schelsinger is billed as one of the most prominent scientists studying the subject and was a member of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change that shared a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore. Schlesinger is further described on Alaska Geographic. [Ed. Note: This shows that even before Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it had already been rendered valueless.]

Among the points he made:

-- The world needs to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases — mainly methane, carbon dioxide and ozone — by about 1 percent each year to avoid massive warming consequences by the end of the century.

-- About 85 percent of warming is being caused by humans, with the rest coming from natural causes and the sun. [Ed. Note: Gee, I was always under the impression that 100 percent of warming came from the sun.]

-- The world needs to make huge changes this century — from agriculture to basic energy needs — to avoid a global temperature rise of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit and ocean levels climbing by at least 2 feet.

Upon what does Schlesinger base his conclusions? Why, equations, of course. Schlesinger accompanied his talk with numerous equations and graphs that forecast steady increases in warming through 2100, citing the ongoing use of fossil fuels dating back to the Industrial Revolution. But equations didn't save New Orleans from getting swamped by Katrina. And equations didn't successfully forecast the 1999 tornado which roared through downtown Salt Lake City. The inconsistent performance of meteorological models doesn't promote confidence in the consistency of environmental models. Thus science is not as "inerrant" as it is presented to be.

Perhaps this is why Schlesinger then took a cheap shot at opponents of global warming dogma. Although some remain skeptical about the link between human-caused emissions and the warming trend, Schlesinger made it clear he’s tired of their arguments. He said the evidence of the greenhouse effect is clear and compared the skepticism to people insisting that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. This is a typical response by those whose arguments run dry; namely, "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're a heretic who must be burned at the stake if you disagree". This, of course, is a manifestation of Rule No. 5 of Saul Alinsky's 11 Rules for Radicals, which proclaims "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon".

In addition, in accordance with Alinsky's Rule 10 (the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative), Schlesinger fails to answer the following questions:

-- How will we pay for the remedy? Schlesinger and other global warming dogmatists want us to start throwing vast amounts of money at the "problem". Currently, our national debt is approaching $12 trillion. How much more debt is justified to solve a "problem" for which we cannot be sure of the causes.

-- How do we avoid disenfranchising the working class? Environmental remedies disproportionately victimize lower-income people economically. "Saving the whales" victimizes subsistence hunters, not Wall Street executives. Saving the spotted owls victimized lumberjacks, not environmental lobbyists. The economic burden of environmental measure falls disproportionately upon those least able to bear it - the working class.

There is also a growing body of opinion which holds that magnetic pole shifts may also be contributing to climate change. It this is the case, then the trillions we spend on reducing greenhouse gases will have absolutely no effect - we will simply be burning money.

No responsible person denies that climate change is occurring. We can see with our own eyes glaciers shrinking, increasing erosion along the Bering Sea, and increased storm severity. What's in dispute are the causes - and the need to act immediately without researching ALL the possible causes. Furthermore, the effects of climate change are not uniform; one South American glacier is actually expanding. Catastrophism was used to sucker Congress into voting for TARP, which was ultimately used to pay windfall bonuses to executives. Anyone who preaches catastrophism must be considered suspect.

No comments:

Post a Comment