Even when I made my big shift to conservatism, I was still a believer in the idea of climate change, and thought the best mechanism to handle it would be the free market.
I mean, if so many scientists believed that our world was being slowly destroyed by the actions of humans, then it only followed that the market should change to compensate for that.
Of course, if I find myself believing in something so fervently, I try to find other opinions so I can see all sides of the argument.
I found myself watching a video of Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace.
Moore decided to leave when he realized the organization was no longer fighting for truth. The international directors of Greenpeace were taking action against all chemical and human interaction with nature. As the only Greenpeace director who even had a formal science background, Moore knew these actions were wrongheaded.
Patrick Moore’s story has always interested me, and it created a seed of doubt in my mind, but my mind was completely turned upside down when I listened to Alex Epstein:
Epstein's well constructed arguments, using meticulously checked data, were so refreshing.
For example, he debunks the claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe in climate change.
The "97 per cent" figure in the oft-cited Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
Meanwhile, Epstein uses data from the UN and NASA, a branch of the very same government that Obama manages:
Alex Epstein is independent, and doesn't take donations from the big energy companies.
In the video above, you can see Senator Boxer getting upset by Epstein's testimony. He is a man who is paid to think and she is a woman who is paid to appease the interests of the public so she can get back in office.
If given the choice between the two, I would choose the thinker over the appeaser any day.
PS: The Rebel has a petition to stop the Ontario Carbon Tax and I encourage all to sign it especially if you're from the province known worldwide for its debt. We need policy that's based in fact and not speculation.
Global warming is blamed on carbon dioxide. Man just doesn’t contribute enough to make any significant difference. There is also no definitive proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. In fact there is more proof that it may not, as seen by scientists charting carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise correlations or lack thereof. Certainly not enough proof to be making policy based on the supposition.
So unlike the acid rain problem, it just doesn’t look like human intervention will help or hinder climate warming to any degree. However it won’t stop social engineering politicians from ramming their agenda down our throats and trying to change how we live.
No where in the scientific method does democracy determine the validity of a hypothesis.
Sorry, Mantooth, there are no “Flat-Earthers” here on this website. Your insult is misplaced, and you are a dunce.
I would add out of fear of losing their funding.
100% of your computer is made from petroleum. (sorry, there is some lead content, and mercury)
And Patrick Moore, not qualified to speak on this issue either ?
Please post your PHd credentials, area of study and institution attended.
AS for the 97% consensus myth, that was busted back in 09 as a shoddy study – I can tell you there are at least 34K scientists who signed a petition doubting the validity of the AGW theory.
“Critical reviews note Epstein’s close association with conservative advocacy groups, funding by the Koch Brothers and Epstein’s pro-carbon opinions that run counter to the prevailing scientific conclusion that the rise of greenhouse gasses is bad rather than good for the future of the globe.”
The guy has a BA from Duke University… He’s as qualified to comment on climate science as he is to be a doctor or an accountant. Does that mean you’d also let him operate on you or do your taxes?
Your column is laughable, Corey. Maybe aspire to do something else.
And if you’re looking for that 100% figure, don’t get your hopes up. 100% of doctors don’t even agree that cigarettes cause cancer, meaning based on your twisted logic you should be out buying a carton of Marlboro Reds for your kids (though your ignorant views on climate change are probably just as damaging to them.)
Keep on basing your views on a) obsessively protecting your wealth or b) the fact that your career is/was built through the fossil fuel industry. I think you’ll all agree that you will fall into one or both of those categories (as well as the wrong side of history).
Lastly, North American conservatives are the only ones who en masse question climate change (it’s true, look it up). They also seem to be the only people dumb enough to support Donald Trump.
I tend to believe that there would be very few that would be actual believers, but would benefit either financially, politically, or influentially … or some combination thereof.
I think it probably would be similar to, are all Liberal voters lovers of Justine “Puff Puff” Trudeau, or are there a number that voted Liberal because they benefit one way or another, usually financially.
It is sad that so many scientists would sell out the free Western world for monetary, political and/or influential gain.
Not only do I not believe that 97% of scientist believe in man made climate change – I believe some that are working on it are only doing so out of fear of being labelled a denier.