Global warming: elusive, economically problematic for American taxpayers
By: Jake Brereton
Issue date: 11/17/09 Section: Opinion
It is subsequently no coincidence that after 1998 the public witnessed "global warming" re-branded "global climate change." Since data showed that the world was no longer warming, millions of people who had jumped on the global warming bandwagon, including thousands of scientists whose funding depended on their ability to continue proving that global warming existed, had to rename their apocalyptic theory or risk witnessing the world lose interest in and reject it.
While what occurred was a re-branding of the global warming theory, what failed to occur was the development of new hypotheses that global warming wasn't occurring. Instead, scientists and media alarmists chose to devise a way this cycle of cooling could be worked into their global warming theory.
Armed with inconclusive evidence, unpredictable and primitive climate models and a movie starring Al Gore, eco-groups embarked on a new crusade: to convince the world that Earth's cooling was only temporary and would eventually lead to greater warming in the future if immediate "action" was not taken. While this conclusion is humorously illogical and lacks scientific evidence, it has been accepted by many as fact thanks to irrational hysteria and media publicity.
What hangs in the balance of the "global climate change" debate are several pieces of legislation, including a significant cap-and-trade bill, that will kill jobs, cost taxpayers trillions and will do nothing to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Does a doctor give a patient an expensive, lengthy and risky surgery if it is completely unnecessary?
In 2007, Time magazine boldly declared that the debate over global warming was over. This is false, and an increasing amount of evidence continues to pile up that proves it.
In the meantime, grab your coat, because everything from NASA to The Old Farmer's Almanac is predicting a long, freezing winter.
-Brereton is a senior from Dayton, Ohio majoring in anthropology.
opinion@thedepauw.com
While what occurred was a re-branding of the global warming theory, what failed to occur was the development of new hypotheses that global warming wasn't occurring. Instead, scientists and media alarmists chose to devise a way this cycle of cooling could be worked into their global warming theory.
Armed with inconclusive evidence, unpredictable and primitive climate models and a movie starring Al Gore, eco-groups embarked on a new crusade: to convince the world that Earth's cooling was only temporary and would eventually lead to greater warming in the future if immediate "action" was not taken. While this conclusion is humorously illogical and lacks scientific evidence, it has been accepted by many as fact thanks to irrational hysteria and media publicity.
What hangs in the balance of the "global climate change" debate are several pieces of legislation, including a significant cap-and-trade bill, that will kill jobs, cost taxpayers trillions and will do nothing to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Does a doctor give a patient an expensive, lengthy and risky surgery if it is completely unnecessary?
In 2007, Time magazine boldly declared that the debate over global warming was over. This is false, and an increasing amount of evidence continues to pile up that proves it.
In the meantime, grab your coat, because everything from NASA to The Old Farmer's Almanac is predicting a long, freezing winter.
-Brereton is a senior from Dayton, Ohio majoring in anthropology.
opinion@thedepauw.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 5
Troy
posted 11/17/09 @ 9:19 AM EST
Everything makes sense here. Please check out http://www.iceagenow.com I laughed at this site at first, but take a look at some of the information there. (Continued…)
Dave
posted 11/17/09 @ 10:54 AM EST
The most interesting finding in the Pew Research Center poll (full results at http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming) is that belief in human-caused global warming among Republicans has declined from 62% to 35% since 2007. (Continued…)
jim
posted 11/17/09 @ 12:28 PM EST
a poor peace of journalism indeed. Even if you believe the right-wing rhetoric that you've posted here (which you obviously do), proper journalism requires that you at least mention both sides of the argument. (Continued…)
Lloyd Heldt
posted 11/20/09 @ 10:10 PM EST
The fact that your article on climate change appeared in The DePauw is very encouraging to this alumnus.
Thank you for your work.
Post a Comment