(This letter was published in the Chapel Hill News, 2 December 2007.)
Congratulations are due Nobel Prize Winner, Al Gore. By raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change, he favors a good enough future for our children. At least to me, the “powers that be” are in denial of reality and unwilling to openly and honorably express their understanding of Al Gore’s concerns with regard to the ominous human predicament that is looming before the human community. That many too many politicians and economic powerbrokers adamantly support the soon to become unsustainable global enterprise of endless big-business expansion, does not favor our children’s well-being or safety, I believe. These leaders appear to have pledged their primary allegiance and reverent devotion to the short-term ‘successes’ of unbridled economic globalization, regardless of the long-term potential for catastrophe that such a recklessly unrestrained and unrealistic pursuit portends. For leaders to conspicuously ignore the carefully and skillfully obtained scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, in particular, is incomprehensible.
Plainly, what is necessary now is clarity of vision, intellectual honesty and courage as well as a willingness among leaders to begin “centering” their attention on the distinct probability of threat(s) to humanity that is posed by the gigantic scale and patently unsustainable growth rate of the over consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human population worldwide in our time.
—
Steven Earl Salmony
Chapel Hill
5 Comments
I keep hearing the buzz words ‘consensus among scientists’, ‘good global warming science’ along with demonizing those who disagree with you as ‘denialist’s and naysayers’. Well, I’m not a denialist or a naysayer, but I am a ‘trust, but verify’ type. Don’t ask me to buy into your cause without sound science, which you do NOT have. You have developed a dogma which you are willing to believe in no matter what the facts are. Sort of like some fundamentalist religous types.
You also refer to Al Gore as a worthy recipient of the nobel for raising awareness to your cause. Does it not matter that Al used alarmism, misinformation, and half truths? You wouldn’t stand for that from the opposition. The free ride you give Gore speaks of a willingness on your part to move your cause forward no matter what the facts.
Also, I would like to see your response to the letter that 100 PROMINENT INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS sent to the UN TODAY. Some of them are current and former members of the IPCC. They wrote: “The IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”
If you are really interested in the truth, you will give this some play time.
Richard
What about this:
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against ‘Futile’ Climate Control Efforts
December 13, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 1:05 PM ET
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against ‘Futile’ Climate Control Efforts
“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN’s so-called “solutions.”
“Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems,” the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the “Father of Meteorology”; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the “1000 Most Cited Scientists”; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.
“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming,” the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how “consensus” has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called “Consensus” On Global Warming - LINK ]
The scientists’ letter continued: “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”
“The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,” the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be “an illusion.” LINK ]
# # #
Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada’s National Post on December 13, 2007:
It seems to me that readers would benefit from additional information about Marc Morano, the source of the lengthy comment above:
Where are they now?
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1511244
Attack Orchestrated
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/attack_orchestrated.php
The Mighty Wurlitzer…..
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/01/mighty-wurlitzer.html
There’s more, of course, readily available with a few clicks of searching and surfing.
Let’s be rational here, please! If we really want to take a serious step towards “sowing the seeds of a future society” we should not be thinking about Danny Bloom’s polar cities, and we should not be contemplating a future “much reduced human population [that] will be concentrated in areas which are still capable of producing food,” — to quote Ken Whitehead here. We should not let go of possible solutions to the crisis we are finding ourselves in, as part of a species which is about to overwhelm and overgrow the very planet and its many and diverse natural habitats. We should try to make people and governments understand that the global growth culture, with its industrial face, coal-fired heart and petrol-fuelled soul, is the exact mishap which is leading humanity, as a whole, down this road of ecological destruction, and that we might as well be better off by cutting the lifeline of this on-going madness off, simply by putting a stop to shopping. That would be the perfect first move. And yes: it will have its effect of the national and corporate economy. And yes: it will have its effect on the work market. Oh, and yes: it will make the rich and the powerful start to do and say crazy things. To some of us, it will actually be quite funny.
If we want to sow a seed of a future society, we should not be thinking about human colonisation of the solar system, but we should urge humanity on towards a more sustainable lifestyle. I do not expect any of the present times’ politicians and beaurocrats and economists and lawyers to do it for us. We must — just like Steven Earl Salmony and Krishnaraj Rao has said, over and over and over again — start campaigning for the obvious solution towards taming the growth machine. It is all about cutting down on consumption. After that it will be all about rainforest conservation, protection of the fish resources. It will also be about a slow, steady and certain move away from the fossil-fuelled nightmare of our times, and towards solar powered, wind powered, wave powered and possibly nuclear powered future. A FUTURE that should be marked by friendship and peace, and not by the current hate and bloody warfare. An age of mutual understanding is what I have always been dreaming of (silly, little me), and I know much better than that. And I’m telling you all: that’s unfortunate.
Sorry. I fortgot. This post was first published at John Feeney’s studious blog GROWTH IS MADNESS. I am referring to an article by Ken Whitehouse; one that has stirred a rather tempered discussion over at GIM. In the above comment, I forgot about the link to that post.
Here it is: http://growthmadness.org/2008/01/17/sowing-the-seeds-of-a-future-society/
Post a Comment