Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
After the tragic events in Maryland on Wednesday of this week, where a man took three hostages and tried to make The Discovery Channel a vehicle for publishing his manifesto, there have been accusations and counter accusations in the global warming world about taking advantage of this to advance political goals.
In particular, Joe Romm of Climate Progress harshly criticized Anthony Watts for the title of his blog post alerting readers to the situation. Personally, I think Anthony’s choice was mistaken, but not malicious–I’ve made worse editorial decisions myself.
And this may be one of them. The deluge of catastrophic predictions regarding global warming and its consequences have reached almost everyone on the planet, and perhaps unintentionally have replaced Cold War bomb scares as the primary source of doomsaying.
The messages are well-thought out and prepared by professional communicators, with disturbing and graphic images of a post-apocalyptic scenario lifted from Mad Max, and with about as much connection to reality.
In March of this year, a couple in Argentina shot their two children before committing suicide over fears of global warming. On Wednesday, in Maryland, James Lee apparently committed ‘suicide by cop’ after taking three hostages in an attempt to force the Discovery Channel to alter its programming to suit his fears over the environment.
At what point will we call to account those who have preached ‘the end of the earth as we know it’ to countless people? How many people will be driven to desperation by those who distort the science?
The IPCC’s AR4, published in 2007, painted a future with global warming as a serious, multinational problem that we should face together. You may agree or disagree with their findings–I agree with most of it, not all.
But nowhere does the work of thousands of scientists in peer-reviewed literature say that we are doomed, that civilization is at risk, that there is no future for us.
That falls to several groups of committed lobbyists, scientists, environmentalists and politicians who began saying the IPCC report was too conservative almost the day it was published. The evidence they bring forward for that claim is nowhere near as robust as the science referenced by the IPCC.
They are scaring people to death. How many more lives will be blighted or destroyed before they understand that their propaganda has real world effects?
It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Mr. Lee–he took hostages, threatened to detonate an explosive device, and pretty much guaranteed his fate. And his worries weren’t confined to global warming. He was equally concerned with overpopulation, another scare story put out by some of the same people pumping hysteria over global warming.
At any rate, what these people are doing is despicable, if not murderous.
Sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet. Or 10. Or five. There is not going to be a climatic tipping point that pushes our planet into a spiral of ever-increasing temperatures. Global warming is not going to cause the extinction of half the species on this planet, or even 1%.
And it is long past time that respected members of the scientific community publicly acknowledge those facts and helped bring this debate back within the realm of reality.
My father met Jim Jones briefly before he moved to Guyana with his flock, and described him as intelligent and persuasive, able to talk reasonably about a multitude of subjects. We don’t need more smooth talkers preaching the language of despair. We can now see the results. In their zeal to communicate their fears of the effects of global warming that go far beyond the predictions of mainstream science, those who Anthony called ‘warmistas’ in his blog title and who I call alarmists and sometimes hysterics have created a library of disturbing words and images that can influence the vulnerable.
Are these people responsible for the tragedies in Argentina and Maryland? No. But did they act responsibly, caveating their predictions as personal fears instead of the verdict of science. No. They were trying to scare you. They succeeded too well.
It’s time to stop the hysteria.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 220-701 online training program is the best way to prepare for 640-863 exam. Get we offer best quality 646-364 dumps to help you maximize success chances.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Have you ever read “Candide”? Pangloss was, of course, a fool. This is not the best of all possible worlds, and there are serious problems that we face. And if we do nothing, the problems will get worse. Climate change is an emerging problem that could end up being bad, very bad, or catastrophic. We don’t know which; we should really stop wildly turning the dials that control the Earth’s climate because we really don’t want to find out which. The agreement about this is almost universal but the action being taken is still minimal. People who care want to confront this problem.
A sad fact is that a very small number of human beings are fundamentally unhinged. Without recognition of their problems and treatment, they may be doomed. Sometimes, even more sadly, their condition cannot be treated, and they injure or kill themselves or others as a result.
I can see no possible logic in trying to blame the first group of people for the actions of the second. You can make an unbalanced person fall over in all sorts of ways. Silencing certain well-placed concerns is not going to prevent tragedies like those you’ve highlighted.
Apart from these general thoughts, I also object to your paragraph of bland assertions without any supporting evidence. You can say things in as definite a tone as you like but it doesn’t make them true:
“Sea levels are not going to rise by 20 feet. Or 10. Or five”
They have in the past.
“There is not going to be a climatic tipping point (that pushes our planet into a spiral of ever-increasing temperatures)”
The geological temperature record shows that Earth’s climate is exquisitely sensitive. There certainly are tipping points – ice ages bear witness to that. I bracketed the part of your sentence that is a straw man.
“Global warming is not going to cause the extinction of half the species on this planet, or even 1%.”
It has in the past.
Geologists say that if it has happened, then it can happen. We humans are not immune from the laws of nature that govern our climate. We can vary the inputs but we have no say over the outcomes, no matter how certain you may be that CO2 can’t cause us any problems.
Bill Tuttle:
Boot! ☺
To stop the hysteria….think a couple of those xxx massages a la Gore would make it.
Geologists say that if it has happened, then it can happen.
Geologists also tell us that the earth was once an ice ball. I guess that can happen as well, so we better start heating her up before we all freeze to death.
RW says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm
You can make an unbalanced person fall over in all sorts of ways.
Your non-annotated rambling diatribes are pushing me ever closer to a tipping point.
RW says:
“Climate change is an emerging problem that could end up being bad, very bad, or catastrophic.”
So we have only 3 possible choices: 1) bad 2) very bad, or 3) catastrophic! *snort!*
When one’s mind is made up and closed tight, it only allows for outcomes supported by cognitive dissonance. Fortunately for the biosphere, the most likely outcome — a slightly warmer, more productive and pleasant environment — is simply not possible in the minds of CAGW fanatics. The only outcome must be calamity.
It’s a hard slog trying to reason with emotion.
Smokey says:
September 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm
So we have only 3 possible choices: 1) bad 2) very bad, or 3) catastrophic! *snort!*
It makes things simpler. In feedback forms for any presentation I do, I give three choices: “Was the presentation: 1/superb 2/fantastic or 3/amazing?”
I do get very good results with that system.
Smokey
Somebody had to keep the SDS in line until you got back!
RW says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Have you ever read “Candide”? Pangloss was, of course, a fool. This is not the best of all possible worlds, and there are serious problems that we face.
————————
There is no way of knowing if this is “not the best of all POSSIBLE worlds”.
Perhaps, once the GCM’s have finished their present frantic business they can be employed to devise Utopia.
In the meantime, mortals will address themselves to problems of more manageable dimensions and resist the urge to believe that they have successfully reverse-engineered the universe and are ready to re-design it.
Though, on second thoughts, what would the best possible climate be? I know that’s not the whole world, but it is a sizeable chunk of all the fluid parts and their interactions with the solid bits.
Bill Tuttle,
And you have my sincere thanks for that!
James Delingpole
Great blog article in the Telegraph! It should be a headline post here – you sum up the irresponsibility of the extraordinary extremism that has taken root in the media and education establishment.
Jason says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:01 am
Actually, the topic of population control has largely escaped the spotlight.
That’s because, let’s face it, eating people is a tough sell these days. Unless we find a way of dealing with the unprecedented rise in global swarming, though, history will just repeat itself.
You might be interested in President Obama’s “National Security Strategy of 2010” available at the White House website. It says:
“Climate Change: The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. The United States will therefore confront climate change based upon clear guidance from the science, and in cooperation with all nations—for there is no effective solution to climate change that does not depend upon all nations taking responsibility for their own actions and for the planet we will leave behind.”
There’s much more. Climate change has become a major item in the National Security Strategy. After all, the president warned the cadets at West Point that they would be fighting climate change as the new enemy.
And “The Story of Stuff” is despicable. Having kids study about the environment is way more fun than regular math and science. They can find pictures of cute polar bears and penguins on the internet. (If you remember, Greenpeace really got started with the harp seal pups). Kids who believe they are saving the animals will write papers more willingly and make life easier for teachers. No matter if it gives them nightmares and turns some of them into anarchists.