Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of
rapidly propagating mankind.” 28 (Remember this when we get to the fertilizer effect section below.)
Yet McKibben and others equate the greenhouse effect, dramatic global warming, and catastrophic
global warming as it suits their political goals. By this kind of trickery, those who dispute catastrophic
global warming are accused of denying the greenhouse effect and global warming. I experienced this in
2013 when I woke up to find myself named to Rolling Stone 's Top 10 list of “Global Warming's Denier
Elite” 29 —in which they cited three articles of mine, each of which explained that CO 2 has a warming ef-
fect!
Here'swhatweknow.Thereisagreenhouseeffect.It'slogarithmic. Thetemperature hasincreasedvery
mildly and leveled off completely in recent years. The climate-prediction models are failures, especially
models based on CO 2 as the major climate driver, reflecting a failed attempt to sufficiently comprehend
and predict an enormously complex system.
But many professional organizations, scientists, and journalists have deliberately tried to manipulate us
into equating the greenhouse effect with the predictions of invalid computer models based on their demon-
strably faulty understanding of how CO 2 actually affects climate.
THE 97 PERCENT FABRICATION
Thisbringsustotheoft-citedcommentthat97percentofclimatescientistsagreethatthereisglobalwarm-
ing and that human beings are the main cause. 30
First of all, this statement itself, even if it were true, is deliberately manipulative. The reason we care
about recent global warming or climate change is not simply that human beings are allegedly the main
cause. It's the allegation that man-made warming will be extremely harmful to human life. The 97 percent
claim says nothing whatsoever about magnitude or catastrophe . If we're the main cause of the mild warm-
ing of the last century or so, that does not begin to resemble anything that would justify taking away our
machine food.
But note how when I quoted John Kerry earlier, he went from “97 percent of climate scientists have
confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible” to “they agree that,
if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will
change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 31 Even in the 97 percent studies, which we'll look
at in a moment, there is nothing resembling “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that . . . the
world as we know it will change . . . dramatically for the worse.” Kerry is pulling a bait and switch—using
alleged agreement about a noncatastrophic prediction about climate to gain false authority for his cata-
strophic prediction about climate—and the anti-fossil fuel policies he wants to pass at home and abroad.
Unfortunately, this is very common. On his Twitter account, President Obama tweeted. “Ninety-seven
percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” 32 There was no “danger-
ous” in the alleged agreement—and it wasn't “scientists,” it was “climate scientists.” This sloppy use of
“science” as an authority, practiced by politicians of all parties, guarantees that we make bad, unscientific
decisions.
On top of that, it turns out that the relatively mild “agreement” of the 97 percent is also a complete
fabrication—which almost no one knows, because we're taught to obey authorities rather than have them
advise us with clear explanations.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search