Blaine for County Executive

BY COLUMNISTS

| Patrick W. Allen | Steven R. Berryman | Chris Cavey | Joe Charlebois | Guest Columnist | Harry M. Covert | Norman M. Covert | Patricia A. Kelly | Farrell Keough | Jill King | Earl 'Rocky' Mackintosh | Tom McLaughlin | Roy Meachum | Zachary Peters | Cindy A. Rose | Derek Shackelford | John W. Ashbury | Richard B. Weldon Jr. | Blaine R. Young |

DOCUMENTS


 Re-Elect David Brinkley for Senate


February 9, 2007

The New Inquisition

Edward Lulie III

The February 2007 issue of Scientific American contains a stunning article: "Methane, Plants and Climate Change." It reveals the recent discovery that plants produce massive amounts of methane.

The authors try to deny their global warming heresy with this statement. "The surprising recent finding that living plants produce methane does not throw doubt on the cause of global warming. Human activities - not plants - are the source of the surge in this and other greenhouse gases." In fact it does indeed throw doubt, a lot of it, on the studies used to make the claim that humanity is the culprit.

Mankind does produce greenhouse gases; but now we discover that a huge proportion of one significant greenhouse gas, methane (which is much worse than carbon dioxide), is actually produced by plants. In fact large amounts are being produced by tropical rainforests. So, if this factor was misunderstood before, just how much faith can anyone now have in the rest of the scientific studies that "prove" that global warming is mankind's fault?

If you read their article it becomes apparent that the authors are trying desperately to frame the news so as to avoid committing political heresy themselves. Bottom line is still the revelation that plants play a much bigger role in producing greenhouse gases than was previously thought.

Tropical rainforests as a cause of global warming?

Heresy!

How could this be true?

Critics of global warming theory and several new books cite variations in the output of solar radiation as the major cause of climate variations. Global warming alarmists continue to act as if solar output is a constant when it is not. That solar cycles should be considered seems obvious.

The sun's effects upon weather and climate change should have been established first before we could accurately investigate the cause and effects of climate change or cite mankind as a "likely" primary cause.

So why wasn't it? Because we already had the answer, that humanity was at fault. Why bother worrying about the methodology or accuracy of the scientific theories used to reach a conclusion that we already knew?

Will the global warming alarmists ever admit that they might be wrong? That their evidence is based on seriously flawed data? Could any of the studies that they rely on be accurate when they were all made before we knew that plants actually were a major source of methane?

Might the media actually challenge the conventional wisdom and raise the question: "What if the theory of global warming is wrong?"

Will some in the media read this new data and change the story?

Could the left discover the errors of their "science" and recant?

Ha! Not likely.

Can you imagine Al Gore (Nobel Prize candidate?) sagely nodding and agreeing. "Well, shucks, we were just wrong. Whoever would have thought that planting more trees might make things worse? Now where did I put my ax?"

Never happens.

Look at the Weather Channel's global warming guru Heidi Cullen, who proposed that any meteorologist questioning mankind's responsibility for global warming should lose their professional accreditation.

I guess that's more tolerant than actually burning them at the stake.

No need for a spirited public debate over the issue.

No need to tolerate opposing points of view.

Ms. Cullen's solution in dealing with skeptics is to (in effect) just get rid of them.

This is the global warming alarmists' inquisition to root out heresy and unbelievers. Ms. Cullen, Mr. Gore and company don't bother to answer critics' arguments but instead attack anyone who dares to disagree with them. No need to engage in a public debate that you might lose.

Look at any online global warming blogs for more examples (including Scientific American's); or do a Google search for the term "global warming deniers," currently in vogue as a term used to denounce anyone not onboard the global warming express.

Why not just call them heretics and be honest about it?

But surely, we can rely on unbiased journalists to report facts instead of mere opinion. Right!

Don't hold your breath.

Expect instead that the media will continue to line up with Mr. Gore and Ms. Cullen to attack global warming heretics with all the anger and passion of rabid zealots.

After all, who needs scientific proof when we have Al Gore to lead us with his very own inspired knowledge of the truth?

A Nobel Prize to Al Gore for his work on global warming?

Didn't he already get one for inventing the Internet?

{Check out this article by a scientist/skeptic on the topic for yourself;

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm. Or this one. http://global-warming.accuweather.com/}



MacRo Report Blog
The Morning News Express with Bob Miller
The Covert Letter

Advertisers here do not necessarily agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by the individual columnist appearing on The Tentacle.


Each Article contained on this website is COPYRIGHTED by The Octopussm LLC. All rights reserved. No Part of this website and/or its contents may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems, without the expressed written permission of The Tentaclesm, and the individual authors. Pages may be printed for personal use, but may not be reproduced in any publication - electronic or printed - without the express written permission of The Tentaclesm; and the individual authors.

Site Developed & Hosted by The JaBITCo Group, Inc. For questions on site navigation or links please contact Webmaster.

The JaBITCo Group, Inc. is not responsible for any written articles or letters on this site.