The debate over the different aspects of global warming rages on as we welcome another day on the pre-apocalyptic Disneyland called Planet Earth. Over the last two decades, the world has been assaulted by storms causing death and devastation on an unprecedented scale. As the Philippines shake in the aftermath of a devastating typhoon, a hotly debated topic has crept back into the spotlight. The topic at hand is global warming, one of the central issues in the present struggle for global control.
Why is there so much disagreement in a time where knowledge is so abundant? It’s the 21st century, and access to information is at an all-time high. No longer does one have to go and kiss the slippered toe of some library guarding religious, and by default, academic authority to find documented data. These days one can simply use the power of technology to find information previously totally unattainable to the average man. That doesn’t necessarily mean that people have become wiser. It seems that man is still just as vulnerable to suggestions, propaganda, and misdirection as he always was.
At present there is not much of a debate anymore, at least in public, about the validity of the theory itself. This is not to suggest that the theory is to be construed as rock solid, or in any way to validate the claim of scientific “consensus” often parroted by proponents of the theory. It may be that there is not much of a public debate, because the “public” stages of debate are managed in such a way as to discourage one.
Such an intimation might meet with charges of wild conspiratorial conjecture, or salty speculation. However every once in a while when there does seem to open up an honest moment of public discussion, the science seems to support the idea that the theory is quite exaggerated by proponents. In addition, the “man-as-the-cause” portion of the debate seems to be virtually unproveable, and that portion of debate either ends in a stalemate or with the global warming proponent ridiculing and slandering the skeptic.
A recent example of how the debate generally runs was displayed on Piers Morgan’s CNN based show this Monday. Morgan had on Mark Hertsgaard, a successful author and journalist who has covered the area of global warming quite extensively, along with Roy Spencer, a former NASA climate studies senior scientist. The two seemed all good and well, until Spencer remarked, “The earth is a little warmer right now. We’re not exactly sure whether it’s 100 percent due to mankind or 50 percent due to mankind, 50 percent due to nature and by chance.”
From there the “debate” disintegrated into a reality-tv style rant by Hertsgaard, who was interrupted by passive rebuttals and objections by Spencer. Hertsgaard interestingly enough retreated during the “debate” to the position of scientific consensus on the man-made cause of the claimed global warming, skillfully linking both of those to the tragedy that occurred in the Philippines.
In the end, Hertsgaard decided to lecture Morgan about it being “journalistically irresponsible” to have a scientist who did not prescribe to the “man-caused global warming mantra” on the show for a discussion, and the wonderful segment the closed. This is indicative of the measure of progress, or lack thereof, that seems to be made in public discussion regarding global warming.
If the opinion of a top national scientist clearly shows that there is no scientific consensus regarding global warming, why again are there inconceivable amounts of money being spent, at taxpayer’s expense, to figure out how exactly to reduce that same taxpayer’s carbon footprint? Why are there tons of taxpayer dollars going to fund scientists who support the theory in the face of the clear lack of consensus? Why are the carbon taxes being collected prior to establishing a rock solid consensus on whether the human element is actually causal in this process?
Why, why, why? The questions could go on. It would seem that there is more at stake than just some philanthropic, bleeding-heart, sweet science-sponsored, heart-felt movement to preserve human life. Could it be some kind of draconian, Orwellian, internationalist, corporatist, black-hat, cloak and dagger movement to control human life?
As is characteristics of debates on the topics, the discussion which Morgan attempted to arbitrate quickly deteriorated into an unintelligible squabble, which ended with Morgan receiving a lecture on “journalistic responsibility.” It seemed to be suggested strongly that it is “journalistically irresponsible” to have a true dissenting view brought to a discussion on global warming. Staunch global warming proponents viewing the segment might have balked “you call this news?” To which others could quip concerning the “scientific” theory of global warming, “you call that science?” In the end, it’s not about “news” or “science.” When it comes to global warming, it’s an all out struggle for power, money, and control!
By Daniel Worku