In Case You Missed It...Climate Change Debate Invalid When Only One Side Is Heard (John Kollias, San Antonio Express News, April 17, 2007)
April 19, 2007
San Antonio Express-News
Comment: Climate change debate invalid when only one side is heard
April 17, 2007
By John Kollias
John Kollias is a local businessman and radio talk show host.
The mainstream media have bludgeoned us continuously for years with their dire predictions of global catastrophes that are supposedly caused by mankind's "pollution" of the environment with carbon dioxide. And anyone who disagrees with this scenario is a segmented worm or the devil or worse.
As Rebeca Chapa states in her April 5 column, "if you are a naysayer of the human-activity-as-an-agent-of-climate-change theory, you may find yourself increasingly frozen out of the debate."
Really? What debate? I have yet to see the mainstream media give space to the hundreds of eminent scientists who do not believe human activity is causing "global warming." On the contrary, Chapa says in the same column, "The evidence to support climate change is irrefutable." (Notice, she does not say humans caused climate change.)
To all on the left who have "drunk the global warming Kool-Aid," let me throw a little cold water on your anti-industrial parade by reminding you of some "inconvenient truths," to borrow a phrase. If the media were not either intellectually lazy or guilty of having a political agenda about global warming, they could easily ascertain, as I did, that man-made global warming is, to quote Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
By merely reading one book on the subject, you could begin to have an informed opinion instead of regurgitating the party line of the left. That book is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Christopher C. Horner.
Here are some facts and quotations you may find interesting:
Concerning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Chapa refers to, Julian Morris of the United Kingdom-based International Policy Network notes, "The IPCC is not a scientific body: it is a consensus-oriented political body. Further, the choice of authors and reviewers as well as the final review of its reports is conducted by government officials, who may or may not be scientists. These documents (summaries) generally mischaracterize the underlying work. The summaries, though, are typically the only part a reporter or politician's speech writer ever reads."
According to Professor Dennis Bray of Geesthacht, Germany, in a recent survey of climate scientist only 9.4 percent of respondents "strongly agree" that global warming is caused by human activity and only 22.8 percent "strongly agree" that IPCC reports accurately reflect a consensus within climate science.
The vast majority of the "scientists" referred to by Al Gore & Co. as supporting his viewpoints are not qualified to do so. An analysis of Citizens for a Sound Economy research puts 90 percent of the 2,600 "scientists" alleged to be experts by the left-wing group Ozone Action into this category, and only one of these "scientists" is actually a climatologist.
As spoken by Professor Bob Caster of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory in Australia, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Greenpeace co-founder, and now skeptic of climate alarmism and green pressure groups, Patrick Moore lectured the U.K.'s Royal Society about playing a political blame game: "It appears to be the policy of the Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind or repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body."
So, please, let's start a real debate about global warming, and let the chips fall where they may. Claiming "scientific consensus" is both deceiving (because it is not true) and meaningless. After all, the "scientific consensus" used to be that the Earth was flat, that the sun traveled around the Earth and, until 30 years ago, that we were entering a new ice age.