Senate hearing and global warming

Why suppress debate on this vital subject? What does the media NOT want you to know?

Is the press coverage of global warming leading to hysteria?

Admittedly this is a Republican Senator. Admittedly he might have an axe to grind.

But let's not overlook the fact that he had no problem finding qualified scientists who disagree with the global warming theory. Emphasis added.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to examine the media’s presentation of climate science and featured scientists and media experts.

“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity,” Senator James Inhofe said.

“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied,” Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.

During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.” Senator Inhofe cited criticism from believers in manmade global warming who have slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register of doom, death [and] judgment” and compared the media’s coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.”

Science is not now and never has been a matter of consensus. Politics is a matter of consensus.

So let's have the debate.

Remember that human caused global warming is just a theory, and a radical departure from the theories that came before. It has to be proved before we can act on it. Clear cause and effect have to be shown.

Remember too that this planet of ours is more than four billion years old. That is billion with a "B." Even if we were to restrict our studies to the last ten thousand years, that is approximately .0000025% of the total age of the Earth.

To put it into perspective, if the Earth's age was a year, that ten thousand year span would be about a minute and a half. Can you tell me what the average temperature for this year is based on the reading from 9:52 to 9:56 last Monday morning?

Al Gore's time span in his film is a thousand years, one tenth of the span I am suggesting. Why do you suppose he doesn't want to talk about the previous nine thousand years?

Remember too that ANY data from before the 20th Century is suspect. Remember too that there were no accurate ways to get widespread ocean temperatures before weather satellites.

The fact is, even with everything we know now, there is NO ONE who can tell you the average global temperature at this very moment. Sky Harbor Airport can be 10 degrees different from downtown Phoenix, and that is just within a single city.

So bring on the theory. All I demand is that it be subject to scientific verification, the same as any other theory. No more declaring that the debate is over because there is a consensus and then suppressing dissent. That makes it politics, not science.

Hat tip Newsbusters.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - December 8, 2006 at 04:27 AM  Tag

 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library

Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved