|
|
What else can you call the
authors of an article in an early January edition of the journal
Nature, other than liars? Their assertion of mass extinctions of
species by 2050, resulting from global warming, is pure fiction,
but it was trumpeted in a January 7 press release from
Conservation International as the “most comprehensive analysis
to date.” And it received worldwide news coverage.
As this is being written, the temperature outside my window is
about ten degrees above zero and mid-to-late January is setting
records for frigid arctic air flowing from the North. One would
think that the press might pause a moment to contemplate the
weather outside, actual weather records, and the claims that
global warming is just around the corner. It bothers me that the
press, after decades of this kind of Green blather, is so
irresponsible about such stories. Unfailingly they leap upon the
wild claim and rarely, if ever, seek credible scientists to
refute it. If they do find someone to quote, it is always buried
deep in the story.
The other thing that really bothers me is that it was just one
more Big Green Lie from so-called scientists in the never-ending
effort to frighten the public into believing that (1) the global
warming theory has any basis in fact and (2) that every human
activity on Earth must be made subservient to avoid it.
Conservation International (CI) began by claiming “Climate
change could drive more than a quarter of land animals and
plants into extinction, according to a major new study published
in tomorrow’s edition of the journal Nature.”
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at
the Cato Institute, writing in the January 15 issue of the
Washington Times, issued a timely warming that “The
politicization of scientific papers on global warming and the
tendency of science journals to rush to judgment have to end.”
Notice, too, that the Greens have dropped “global warming” in
favor of the term “climate change.” This might be because their
effort to get the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol on Climate
Control ratified has proved a massive failure. Its so-called
science has been refuted. (Even the Russians refused to ratify
it once they realized it would destroy their nascent capitalist
economy. This is a treaty that exempted Red China and India from
even having to participate!) It was the same so-called science
journal, Nature, which in 1996 published a paper supporting the
global warming theory just one day before the UN conference that
gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol.
CI informs us that it “applies innovations in science,
economics, policy and community participation to protect the
Earth’s richest regions of plant and animal diversity in the
hotspots, major tropical wilderness areas and key marine
ecosystems. With headquarters in Washington,DC, CI works in
almost 40 countries on four continents.” Apparently,
“innovations” include publishing bogus scientific studies.
As the Competitive Enterprise Institute was quick to point out,
the latest study, co-authored by 19 “researchers”, was based on
“computer modeling” for its predictions. Global warming is, of
course, also based on computer modeling. There isn’t a computer
large enough or even a system of linked computers that can
reliably predict the weather much beyond three to five days. In
February 2003, the worst blizzard in seven years shut down a
broad swath of the eastern United States. The National Weather
Service, which has some of the most sophisticated computers ever
made, was very, very surprised by the severity of the blizzard.
The weather is the very definition of chaos. No computer model
can possibly take in the constant changes that occur everywhere
on the globe. At best, they do a credible job of spotting
conditions about forty-eight to seventy-two hours ahead of
events.
Computer “models” can produce just about any result they are
intended to achieve. Statistics can lie and liars can use
statistics.
Writing for Tech Central Station in early January, Iain Murray
neatly dispatched the conclusion of the study. “There are
several reasons this claim should be laughed out of court of
public opinion. First, the research doesn’t say what the
researchers themselves claim. They have extrapolated to all
species a model that looked at only 1,103 species in certain
areas (243 of those species were South American poroteaceae, a
family of evergreen shrubs and trees). For one thing, we don’t
know how many species there are---estimates vary from 2 million
to 80 million---and have only documented 1.6 million. However,
assuming the 14 million figure widely used in the press reports
is anywhere near accurate, the same size is a mere 0.008 percent
of the total species population of the plant…”
So, based on 0.008 percent of ALL species on Earth, CI and this
group of loathsome little researchers felt free to predict the
extinction of more than a million species. They ignored the fact
that an increase in the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would
have a most salutary effect of enhancing the growth of all
manner of vegetation worldwide. Those creatures that dine on
that vegetation would no doubt benefit and reproduce in greater
numbers. In short, the study was bunkum!
Murray concludes his analysis of this latest study by noting “In
a world that has seen a grand total of just over 1,000
documented extinctions since 1600, these wild predictions should
be ignored as alarmist hyperbole.” He’s being polite.
It is alarmist and it is hyperbole, but it also represents
virtually every so-called scientific study that has been put
forth by the Greens on the topic of global warming. Oh, excuse
me, “climate change.” Never mind that the climate changes all
the time and always will, it is hardly a reason to return to the
golden age of horse-drawn buggies, outhouses, and the use of
oxen in agriculture.
We are rapidly reaching the point of critical mass where all
such Green claims should lead to the implosion of this evil
social and economic philosophy and quasi-religion that worships
the Earth and would gladly see the entire human race go extinct
to “save” it from us.
No, millions of species will not go extinct by 2050, but one can
fervently pray that the environmental movement will.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly commentary, “Warning Signs”, posted
on www.anxietycenter.com <http://www.anxietycenter.com/> , the
Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
© Alan Caruba 2004
|
