Other voices on climate change

CONSENSUS THAWS ON GLOBAL WARMING
Investor’s Business Daily, 20 August 2009

What’s the climate change scare really about? Not what the alarmists want the public to think. Just ask the retiring head of Greenpeace. In an unguarded moment, he might spill the secret again.

During an Aug. 5 interview with the BBC, Gerd Leipold, outgoing executive director of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization emotionalizes issues to influence the public. At the time, he was admitting his group had made an error in its July 15 news release that claimed “we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.” “I don’t think (the Greenland ice sheet) will be melting by 2030,” he said. “That may have been a mistake.”

Or maybe it was one of those examples that Greenpeace embellished to stir fear in the public? If so, it wouldn’t be an isolated case. Others have admitted they’re willing to bend the truth in order to draw attention to the cause. Twenty years ago, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine that it’s perfectly fine “to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Al Gore noted the power of propaganda when he once told Grist, a magazine for environmentalists, that “it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

So why all the distortions about global warming? To save the planet, to save us from ourselves? No. To choke economies in developed nations, particularly the U.S. “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth,” Leipold told the BBC’s Stephen Sackur in the same interview in which he acknowledged Greenpeace’s mistake. “The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model.” This same thinking is found in the minds of so many of the global warming alarmists. They say they can make the trouble go away if they can just force the U.S. and other developed nations to cut their levels of consumption.

When all the pretense about science is stripped away, it becomes clear that the global warming scare is not about the planet, but about establishing egalitarianism across the world. It’s about making everyone more equal by slowing growth in rich nations rather than increasing growth in poor and developing countries. The mind-set can be found in campaigns such as Climate Justice, which “is not only the right tool for climate stabilization,” says Jin-woo Lee, a policy analyst for the Energy & Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition, but also “the underlying principle for global equity.”

Greenpeace’s Leipold said he believes the world is finally beginning to take global warming seriously. But that seems wildly optimistic. The movement looks to be losing momentum. Already 20,000 overnight hotel stays that had been reserved for the December United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen have been cancelled. Either a lot of people are losing interest — or they’re thinking it will just be too cold.

The original article can be found here.

As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.

Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered. … Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs!

For the rest of this article by Tulane University physicist Frank J. Tipler, click here.