Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Thanks for writing this. I'd like to know what the consensus is after the 'meeting' is finished. It's great to see someone finally fighting against the lies that so many are believing. I'd be interested to know just where to go to find whatever news coverage is done over this conference. I'd like to see how the media twists what is said into supposed lies, and I'd like to see the honest media, what's left of them, report the facts right in Global warming activist's faces!

Reply
Report this post

Anna Fero 08 March 2008 A look at Sowell's “Cold Water on ‘Global Warming'” Crusade The human induced damage to our atmosphere that is steadily disrupting and destroying our planet's natural cycles and climate is a universally shared responsibility and universal threat. Yet instead of uniting in its efforts to effect change and prevent the crisis our world is being driven towards, our society has shunted global warming into its divided world of politics. To “believe” in global warming is to be a liberal or a Democrat, whereas to denounce its existence is held up as a Conservative view. How the future of our planet and the lives of our children have anything to do with political and social stances is hard to understand; yet that is how the issue has come to be viewed. In an accusation that ironically describes global-warming decriers such as himself rather than the scientists who warn of it, Tomas Sowell states “the problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic.” In his article “Cold Water on ‘Global Warming'” from the conservative paper National Review Online, Tomas Sowell makes biased, unfounded and unsupported claims in his crusade against the realities of climate change. From the very beginning Sowell displays his lack of knowledge about the topic he is denouncing, opening his article with the snide but ignorant declaration that “it has almost become something of a joke when some ‘global warming' conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.” His implication that “global warming” entails warmer, balmier weather around the world shows a lack of understanding of the term itself. “Global Warming”'s temperature increase refers to an average global temperature change of only a couple degrees, with the greatest warming occurring towards the poles. The danger of this ever-increasing warming caused by the greenhouse-gasses effect is not in noticeably hot weather; it is in the implications it has for climate and weather patters as well as the world's glaciers and icecaps (Kolbert). In fact, “Global Warming” is even predicted to cause a drop in temperatures in specific locations (Kolbert; Pachauri). The crises that global warming entail include higher precipitation and flooding in highly populated areas, rising sea levels, disruption of animal life cycles, and increased drought inland –such as the Great Plains and inland Africa- that will have terrible impact on the world's main agricultural regions (Kolbert; Pachauri). It is because of the misunderstanding of the term “global warming” that the more connotative phrase “climate change” is used instead. Sowell's use of the term trivializes the dangers of global warming and attempts to make the issue seem ridiculous and unrealistic. His opening sentence has its intended effect– namely to make the issue laughable– on readers who understand the term in the way it is misrepresented by Sowell. However, by opening his article with a condescending joke that is both uninformed and misused, Sowell weakens his own authority on the topic he is trying to discredit. His stance on global warming aside, Sowell's journalism can be criticized for his use of biased, unsupported claims to “promote an agenda” instead of “to inform the public” with hard facts (Sowell). He paints an unpleasant fictitious image of climate change advocates as fear mongers, claiming, “creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming ‘crisis.'” He has an easy time debasing those concerned about the environment, yet never backs up his assertions with facts. He prompts his readers to scorn techniques such as “stampede”-inducing without ever providing them with a single example of such a stampede actually taking place. Most likely he would not be able to find such an example to validate his claim. By basing his argument on unfounded assertions and using misrepresentation to bolster his agenda, Sowell further detracts from the strength and authority of his journalism. The chief points in the rest of his argument follow in suit. His main reason for discrediting the global warming “hysteria” is that the research behind it is neither solid nor unified. Sowell declares that the un-named “They” behind the hype “mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis.” Furthermore, Sowell alleges “those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists- and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate.” It appears that Sowell himself did not bother to check the facts, or else he simply chose to ignore organizations such as the IPCC in making these statements. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, and the World Meteorological Organization, WMO (“About IPCC”). The purpose of the panel is to collect scientific evidence and reports from experts all around the world, objectively analyze them and provide “scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers” (“About IPCC”). Sowell's “They” are in fact the leading environmental and meteorological authorities from all the worlds leading nations, and their “scientists” are made up of over 2000 experts in climate-related fields. In fact the IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with Al Gore for its work, “but who bothers to check the facts these days?” (Sowell). Incredibly, Sowell dismisses the credibility of the world's leading scientific authorities yet turns to financially biased and fraudulent sources as truth bearers. In the article he promotes the “International Conference on Climate Change,” an anti-global-warming conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute whose subtitle is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” and whose theme is “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming” (qtd. in Sowell). Interestingly enough, the Heartland Institute is an agenda-driven think tank with funding from the tobacco industry (for whom the Heartland Institute has advocated against cigarette taxes and public-smoking prohibition laws in California) and the oil company ExxonMobil (“Heartland Institute”). How reliable is a “scientific” conference that claims that CO2 –such as from the burning of fossil fuels- has no effect on our atmosphere, when it is funded by major oil company dollars? Citing an agenda driven agency supported by an industry whose financial interests are at stake– wile ignoring international research from acclaimed scientific organizations– weakens and discredits Sowell's position. Featured content of the conference that Sowell cites is no more convincing in its credibility. The British television program The Great Global Warming Swindle, for instance, has been criticized for misusing and misrepresenting data. Axes of prominent graphs used in the film had been mislabeled, two of the contributors to the film protested the misuse of their filmed interviews, and major scientific organizations (including the IPCC, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, UK Natural Environment Research Council, Royal Society, and British Antarctic Survey) have objected to the film's main assertions as false (Raupach; “Swindle”, sec. 3). Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they “believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest” (qtd. in “Swindle”). While it may appear to common audiences that the documentary is “a devastating debunking of the current ‘global warming' hysteria,” it appears to be nothing more than a mixture of half-truths and half-lies twisted to support the producer's agenda (Sowell). It is not too great a step to conclude the same of the new and different “International Conference on Climate Change” (Sowell). Not surprisingly, the counter global warming theories that Sowell mentions in the article find no correlation with the research results from at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science (“Global Warming”). For instance, Sowell dismiss as false that “human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times” despite the direct correlation found between CO2 and earth surface temperature in many scientific studies. Take any such research graph an one will notice that as the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels begin to increase with the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, the temperature average begins to increase as well in correlation. Sowell, on the other hand, cites “many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun” as the non-human cause for increased global temperatures. However, studies by solar physicist such as Professor Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, as well as every other scientific organization previously mentioned, show that the history of solar activity has no correlation to steady increase of earth surface temperatures (Raupach; “Swindle”, sec. 3). Without citing any studies behind his claims, and with the huge body of research by scientific authorities standing in contradiction, Sowell's “Cold Water on ‘Global Warming'” is insubstantial and ineffective. Scoffing at climate change activists, Sowell declares “their biggest argument is that there is no argument.” With his unsupported claims, false statements, and unreliable sources Sowell in fact validates his own claim. He has no credible argument for his crusade against global warming. His own article provides an eerie example of his accusation “too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is” (Sowell). Works Cited "About IPCC." IPCC-International Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. 3 Mar 2008 <http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm>. "Global Warming." Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia. 8 Mar 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>. "Heartland Institute." SourceWatch. 2008. Media Wiki. 8 Mar 2008 <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute>. Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007. Pachauri, RK. “The IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Groups Reports: key findings.” New York. 24 September 2007 <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/pachauri-un_nyc_2007-09-07.pdf>. "PSIRA: Our Role." PIRSA. 31 Oct 2007. Primary Industries and Resources SA. 8 Mar 2008 <http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pirsa/nrm/a_guide_to_climate_change_and_adaption_in_agriculture_in_south_australia/chapter_1>. Raupach, Michael. "Why the Great Global Warming Swindle is Wrong." CSIRO 11 July 2007 08 Mar 2007 <http://www.csiro.au/news/ps398.html>. Sowell, Thomas. "Cold Water on 'Global Warming'." The Conservative Voice. 28 Feb 2008 15 Mar 2008 <http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31038.html>. "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia. 2 Mar 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle>.