Global Warming Discussion With My Daughter

A couple of months ago, my daughter made it clear that she believed that there is a global warming crisis and that scientists agree that, not only is the planet in peril of impending doom from this peril, but that it is entirely man made. She claimed that there are no scientists who disagree with the theory.

I realized that she gets virtually all of her news from mainstream media or cable news outlets (other than Fox News, of course), so she would never have heard that there may be members of the scientific community who disagree with the “consensus” claimed by former Vice President Al Gore and his United Nations confederates.

Former Vice President Gore has said repeatedly that there is a “consensus” in favor of his alarmist views on global warming and that the debate is over. The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say–over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people, including my daughter.

She would not have heard of the Second International Conference on Climate Change held this past March in New York which was attended by more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change form Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden and the United States.

She would not have heard of Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, who has a different opinion than that of Al Gore, nor would she have heard of his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 who have Ph.D. degrees in the relevant sciences who, by signing, reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”

Of course she has heard of Al Gore’s movie, An Incovenient Truth. But she’s probably never heard of Lord Christopher Monckton who has produced his own slide show documentary on the other side. It’s called “Apocalypse? No!”

And she no doubt will have missed the possibly inconvenient truth has recently been presented to the international community by Russia’s Pravda: “The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science.” She wouldn’t know that the same story states that the man-made global warming theory “is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change.”

I feel there is plenty of room for open discussion. I am confident that the debate is over for Al Gore because he refuses to even be in the same room with someone who is a skeptic of his theories. I don’t know whether my daughter has been swayed by any of the facts that I mention, but I can hope.

As George Will wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Global Warming Discussion With My Daughter

  1. You’ve aroused my curiosity here. Would you care to tell me exactly what we have to lose if we invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources?

    Even if Al Gore turns out to be wrong, doesn’t it make sense to quit sending so many of our dollars to the mid-east regimes who support terrorists (all the Petro-Regimes)? If that doesn’t work for you, how about cleaning up the air to reduce asthma rates?

    Or how about the idea that with more people demanding to have our gas-guzzling lifestyle (China, India, Russia and more), sooner or later we’ll be facing shortages which will drive prices through the roof?

    I would love to have an open discussion about where your beliefs lead you. Are you suggesting that we should all be driving Hummers? I mean it’s fine to say that scientists disagree about Climate Change. So then what?

    I read your “About Me” page and I had one other question for you: what basis do you use for choosing Iran for your hypothetical invasion? I would think that Saudi Arabia might be a more logical target since most of the 9/11 terrorists originated from S.A. It’s also the country that is pouring the most funding into the radical madrasas preaching and encouraging terrorism. That just brings us back to the fact that it’s our oil dollars that support the terrorists. So what’s wrong with having us finding ways to use less oil?

    Or is this about choosing sides: Al Gore vs Fox News?

    • It is my firm belief that we have everything to gain by investing in new energy sources. I am in favor of continued research for solar and wind power. I urge further research into capturing energy from tides and geothermal sources. It is unfortunate, however, that none of these things can bring a substantial amount of power on line for ten years or longer. The technology is simply not ready for us to convert to any or all of those sources for all of our energy needs.
      For that reason and with the added benefit of ending the need for our dependence on Saudi Arabia, I support drilling here and now for oil and natural gas. I believe we should consider production of synthetic fuels for the airlines and providing tax incentives to convert the trucking industry from diesel to natural gas. I support expanding the use of clean coal burning facilities to produce electricity. I support building nuclear power plants. The technology is here now for all of these things and will cover us until alternative energy sources come on line. After those sources come available, our ability to produce carbon fuel sources will provide a back-up for our country as well as become available for sale elsewhere.
      Putting our nation on a course of all of the above will drive prices down and create real long-term jobs. I believe this should be our “moon shot” program. It is a matter of national security and economic well being to be energy independent. We should not, however, choose energy sources or methods that don’t make sense (for example making ethanol from corn).
      As for my profile indicating that I would have invaded Iran over Iraq, well first you have to remember what was going on at the time…before it was clear that Iraq was the target. The press was in a tizzy trying to figure where the “war on terror” would lead us following the fall of the Taliban (did you notice, we still have not “won” that war?). There were stories of all of the possible targets for U.S. invasion ranging from Somalia, to North Korea, to Iraq and including Iran. Of all of those potential targets, I would have picked Iran because my background in military intelligence allowed me to be aware of how involved the Iranian government was in supporting terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and let’s not forget their support for the IRA. We weren’t talking about just providing training (which they were) or intelligence (which they were) or providing safe-haven to terrorists (which they were). We were talking about entire ships filled with weapons being delivered! Some were purchased from North Korea by Iran and some were purchased elsewhere. If you needed to pick a country to fight in a “war on terror” I believed Iran should be the one (Iraq’s support of terrorism was small in comparison), though I would have preferred to avoid additional combat in any of those countries.

  2. Hey! Thanks for the reasoned response to my comment. Wish we could manage a whole lot more rational or civil discussion in this country.

    I’m so glad that you agree we need to move in the direction of cleaner energy sources and become far less dependent on oil. We seem to differ only in a matter of degree. I’ve seen studies that I find valid, that tell us that conservation alone could bring in as much, or more, as drilling in ANWAR. From my perspective, it seems more rational to reduce our dependence on oil as much as we possibly can. I totally believe that if this country were to get behind renewables and alternatives like we did for the Man-to-the-Moon project, we wouldn’t be worrying about the technology not being there. Our biggest problem seems to be the political will to do so. Or the lobby money being poured into Congress in order to keep the oil and coal subsidies going.

    I read an article just today that reminded me I hadn’t responded to your comment. It’s late, so I’ll be lazy and just post the link. Hope that’s OK with you, but it (the article) sure makes a lot of sense to me.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16friedman.html?th&emc=th

  3. I am very happy I found your website on bebo. Thanks for the sensible critique. Me and my wife were just preparing to do some research about this. I am happy to see such reliable info being shared freely out there.
    Regards,
    Agilard from Baton Rouge city

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s